262 réponses à ce sujet

[kotli]

Snort any art has changes made to it, books? see Sherlock Holmes, Painting and Sculptures well lets see number of changes are huge and include some of the most famous, TV ^ examples above and Movies (Directors Cuts/Extended editions anyone?) and video games well there's a few including Fallout 3. Also there's so called recons where past lore etc are changed that seems to be rampant everywhere.

[admcmei]

Comics are another medium who do it all the time, whole giant years-long storylines were scraped off in a few issues because of fan outrage (see the second clone saga on the Spider-Man books).
Oh no, wait, I guess comics are not hip and artsy enough to make a good argument to snobby people, forgive me.

[Il Divo]

admcmei wrote...

Comics are another medium who do it all the time, whole giant years-long storylines were scraped off in a few issues because of fan outrage (see the second clone saga on the Spider-Man books).
Oh no, wait, I guess comics are not hip and artsy enough to make a good argument to snobby people, forgive me.

Killing off Jason Todd comes to mind. It was left up to a fan poll.

[Darkrider296]

There's nothing wrong with giving fans an optional difference. Video games are different media. DLC allows for things to be modified. If some fans really wanna stick to the original endings fine its all optional but don't force you opinions on those who may like a slightly changed ending.

[JadedLibertine]

I first read the title of this as "Thom Yorke weighs in on Mass Effect 3..."

[leeboi2]

Well you lot paint bioware in a bad light, so they're going for that point...And then quite a lot of people who frequent these forums (You know, you people who claim to be the biggest fans) are the biggest bunch of tw@s I've ever had the pleasure of sort of meeting. So they're going for that point too.

[Mylia Stenetch]

Valdrane78 wrote...

aLucidMind wrote...

Yeah, only a "mature fan" would accept the ending for what it is and not care that it makes absolutely no sense and negated everything they did completely on top of refusing any sense of real accomplishment in completing the trilogy. Idiots.

I'm a "mature" fan, I didn't fully accept the ending, but I am also not demanding that they completely change it to satisfy me.  That is what the writer of the article was saying about immature fans.  If you had read the entire article you would have seen that.

I am also like Val, I am a "mature gamer" and do not fully accept the ending, but no gun-ho demanding a new one. Also I got the same opinion out of the article as he did. They are pointing at the bad stigma of gamers, and how it is being fueled by this "movement".

People I have talked to outside of the gaming community and ones within who do not play ME series, are blow away by some of the acusations and anger that has been shot off. The New Yorker also has been noted for being extremly pretentious, how could you be shocked when you read this article?

[MrLee95]

 I'm just going to quote one of the comments on this thread, because they hit the nail on the head.

"This is a rather insulting article. "Too often, mainstream game developers bow to the whims of their least sophisticated (though most dedicated) customers, the “core gamers” who demand bigger guns, bouncier boobs, and more facile storylines." Are you kidding me? I can't believe someone at the New Yorker, someone who I figured would have more tact and class than the average person, buys into the Fox News and mid-to-late 80's stereotypes of the "video game nerd". The best part about that quote, of course, is that you ruined your own article with that last line there. The ending of Mass Effect 3 was, by definition, facile, which is what the true fans of the series are so angry about. We didn't want the ending to be facile (which means Appearing neat and comprehensive by ignoring the complexities of an issue; superficial, in case you didn't know); We needed the ending to pay attention to every one of our choices throughout the entire series. To do ANYTHING less would be to underwrite the very reason the series is so popular to begin with: It takes all of our choices and makes them matter. We got to choose who would live, and who would die. We played peace maker with dozens of people, and whole civilizations. We attempted to defeat the undefeatable, and in the end we were given a Deus Ex Machine style ending. Hardly fitting for any series in this day and age, but definitely not fitting for the Mass Effect series. But you don't know about that, do you? Nor do you care. You wanted to rile up the little dweeby video gamers, since all they care about are the bigger boobies. I wonder why I've never been interested in reading The New Yorker. Maybe it's because you're all too stuck in the past. It's time to move over, and/or retire, Taylor. Better writers are graduating every day."

Modifié par MrLee95, 27 mars 2012 - 05:52 .

[xsdob]

Okay, to everyone saying that books are changed all the time, when in the last 50 years has this happened.

The answer is hard to be found because 60 years ago, someone argued that the supreme court could not tell people to censor their works or ban them from being distributed. This lead to books being seen as art, and thus being a protected form of art as well, something that couldn't be ordered to change by an authority other than the author.

Since than, all forms of media have been made into art, because they are, they are not traditional static art, but they are art. We can rally to make them change the ending, and we can try to convince them to, but don't think that forcing them to do so is okay, because you can't force someone to change soemthing if they really don't want to, they have to o it willingly themselves.

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

Seems like some people still doesn't understand the difference between a role playing game and a book or a film...

[admcmei]

xsdob wrote...

Okay, to everyone saying that books are changed all the time, when in the last 50 years has this happened.

The answer is hard to be found because 60 years ago, someone argued that the supreme court could not tell people to censor their works or ban them from being distributed. This lead to books being seen as art, and thus being a protected form of art as well, something that couldn't be ordered to change by an authority other than the author.

Since than, all forms of media have been made into art, because they are, they are not traditional static art, but they are art. We can rally to make them change the ending, and we can try to convince them to, but don't think that forcing them to do so is okay, because you can't force someone to change soemthing if they really don't want to, they have to o it willingly themselves.

The point here is that we're all convinced this ending was the result of rush and poorly thought-out, not some great artistic vision. We KNOW BW's writers can do better. We're not (well, most of us, crazies are found in every group with more than two people in 'em) trying to tell them exactly what ending they should have put in (though some options like arguing with the kid ARE kind of no-brainers), we just want them to do what we know they're capable of: a dencently written ending. I honestly will be satisfied if they explain this one better (but REALLY well and well integrated in-game or in cutscenes, text boxes or Codex would be insulting) this time around, I'm afraid it's too late to take out the stain anyway, but I hope that the gaming industry take a collective lesson for the future that for big, solid, usually well-written franchises with such a passionate fanbase rushed and poorly thought-out work won't cut it, we demand you give it your best even if it means we have to wait a couple more years.

[BiancoAngelo7]

kalle90 wrote...

Atleast it's getting attention, though I wonder why every damn magazine and site wants to do their own story about this. Most of them don't even know what a video game is.

Seriously, the New Yorker is stil catching up on the fact that motion controls exist in games today. Yet every once in a while they come out with a story that tries to paint them in this light of all knowing of the gaming industry.

[die-yng]

xsdob wrote...

Okay, to everyone saying that books are changed all the time, when in the last 50 years has this happened.

The answer is hard to be found because 60 years ago, someone argued that the supreme court could not tell people to censor their works or ban them from being distributed. This lead to books being seen as art, and thus being a protected form of art as well, something that couldn't be ordered to change by an authority other than the author.

Since than, all forms of media have been made into art, because they are, they are not traditional static art, but they are art. We can rally to make them change the ending, and we can try to convince them to, but don't think that forcing them to do so is okay, because you can't force someone to change soemthing if they really don't want to, they have to o it willingly themselves.

And yet, ending to books are still changed regularly, by the publisher or the editor.
And yet, paintings, tvi shows, movies, all are being changed after they are suppossedly finished, even video games have already gotten new endings.

How do you explain that?

You can't defend a failed product by declaring it art. There is a a difference between artistic integrity and just stubbornly refusing to aknowledge you didn't do a good job.
There are stories that don't work, that are flawed, same as game mechanics or graphics can be flawed.
It is okay to fix one thing, but not the other? How come?

Bioware makes games to sell them. Is there art involved in their creation? Sure, of course, but in the end they are still products to be sold.
EA and Bioware exist because we support them with our money for their games, without gamers buying them there'd be no more BW.
That's why they usually try to produce stuff that we like, anything else would be foolish.

All art that is created to sell at a mass level will bow to what the reader, viewer, gamer want; to think otherwise is very naive.

In fact the whole stance is naive, what do you think, how many corners were cut, because EA demanded it from BW?
EA does only care to sell as much units as soon as possible, and they can influence BW all they want.
We just want a better product, we want a change that will only fix the ending to what was promised and advertised by BW earlier.
EA's influence is okay, because they finance BW? But who finances EA, if not the gamers?

I'm all for artistic integrity, where it applies, but to apply it here is wrong.