262 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirigon]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

And my point is that it's not that it's required to fail, but that it's required to be ALLOWED to fail. Art can be succesful as all get-out, but success is not what makes it art. 

Actually, no. Art never "fails". It may not become popular, but the defining characteristics of art is that AMONG THOSE WHO KNOW IT, AND CARE FOR IT it is mostly received positive. (Look at music for example - some obscure Progressive Psychedelic Techno band may have only 500 fans, but these LOVE it with all their heart.)

Mass Effect 3 is the opposite - it is mass media, as proven by almost 1 million sold copies at the first day alone - but almost 90% dislike it, as shown by several polls on this forum.

[Arkitekt]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

No, my point has been that assuming something can only be called "art" if it's succesful is a fallacy, that art is whatever you make of it. Failure, success, complete, incomplete... it's ALL art. 

There's bad art and there's good art.

It's sort of subjective, of course, but not entirely. It *is* possible to make an inter-subjective assessment on its qualities and its failures. This simple truth is empirically accessible when we confront the likes of, say, Kubrick vs Ed Wood.

Now the real question is if whether we want a certain piece of art to become *good* or remain *bad*.

That's all there is to it. You might scream "integrity!!!" all you want, but in the end, it either remains a poor piece of art or it becomes a good piece of art. Integrity *is indeed* a criteria that evaluates if a piece of art is good or not, but that's a different problem.

You see, the integrity that is shouted by all these articles is not the integrity of the piece of art itself. This "integrity" is about the process of making art, which is "shattered" by having all this mob demanding a change in the work. If this "integrity" was about the work itself, it would become insanely obvious that the work as is is already shattered in its integrity for reasons already outlined by many many people.

[Faust1979]

I can't blame the New Yorker for telling the truth

[mikelope]

Il Divo wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

mikelope wrote...

kbct wrote...

The New Yorker: The ending sucks, but that's art.

Pretty much. It's saying art is allowed to fail. 

Of COURSE art is allowed to fail. Some of the greatest artists in history failed for YEARS.

That's what makes it art.

Art certainly is allowed to fail. But there isn't necessarily a rule which says that art can't give it a second try. A final draft, if you will.

But the article is not contradicting that. It just says it is viewed with disdain. I think the main thrust of the article is once the artist has presented the artwork, it should stand up for itself (and because video games do not the medium will not get the same respect as books or movies). There is a big difference between critiquing and asking the artist to change it because you don't like it. While the ending was awful, why not accept it as flawed success, or a glorious failure? That's how I see it anyway.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Tirigon wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

And my point is that it's not that it's required to fail, but that it's required to be ALLOWED to fail. Art can be succesful as all get-out, but success is not what makes it art. 

Actually, no. Art never "fails". It may not become popular, but the defining characteristics of art is that AMONG THOSE WHO KNOW IT, AND CARE FOR IT it is mostly received positive. (Look at music for example - some obscure Progressive Psychedelic Techno band may have only 500 fans, but these LOVE it with all their heart.)

Mass Effect 3 is the opposite - it is mass media, as proven by almost 1 million sold copies at the first day alone - but almost 90% dislike it, as shown by several polls on this forum.

If I draw a scribble on a napkin, that nobody else ever sees and I toss in the trash right away... is it a failure? Is it succesful? Is it art? 

Just because something is "mass media" doesn't mean it isn't art as well. That's the argument that BioWare is making, and THAT is what we're all talking about now. BioWare took the argument of "this ending sucks" and turned it into "what is art".

[Joy Divison]

Arkitekt wrote...

Be aware though that this whole "art" defense is shenanigannian bollocks, and I know the frak I am talking about, since I made my share of philosophical studies and treatises on this very subject in my course.

The amount of conceit in this post is astounding.  Definitely more indicative of the "zealous" fan behavior the article discusses than the "sophisticated"...

[Arkitekt]

mikelope wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

mikelope wrote...

kbct wrote...

The New Yorker: The ending sucks, but that's art.

Pretty much. It's saying art is allowed to fail. 

Of COURSE art is allowed to fail. Some of the greatest artists in history failed for YEARS.

That's what makes it art.

Art certainly is allowed to fail. But there isn't necessarily a rule which says that art can't give it a second try. A final draft, if you will.

But the article is not contradicting that. It just says it is viewed with disdain. I think the main thrust of the article is once the artist has presented the artwork, it should stand up for itself (and because video games do not the medium will not get the same respect as books or movies). There is a big difference between critiquing and asking the artist to change it because you don't like it. While the ending was awful, why not accept it as flawed success, or a glorious failure? That's how I see it anyway.

Because it is possible to change it?

Look, I sort of understand where you come from, but pay attention. Your attitude is a romantic one, and not universal. I say romantic because it pressuposes that once a work is finished, it must "Stand on Its Own" and take it to the bitter end, perhaps saluting the far horizon as it sinks down filled with bullets of hatred. This is a romantic view point, nothing more. If however you see this whole phenomenon as one giant Epic that was trashed in its final minutes, and that there's still the chance to correct the huge mistake as spotted by the community at large, then this "romanticized" view becomes silly and annoying.

Art is not immutable. Art is not something that comes from above the clouds with its godly incense.

Art is work. Art is mutable. Art is culture. And it is changed everyday.

[Father_Jerusalem]

mikelope wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

mikelope wrote...

kbct wrote...

The New Yorker: The ending sucks, but that's art.

Pretty much. It's saying art is allowed to fail. 

Of COURSE art is allowed to fail. Some of the greatest artists in history failed for YEARS.

That's what makes it art.

Art certainly is allowed to fail. But there isn't necessarily a rule which says that art can't give it a second try. A final draft, if you will.

But the article is not contradicting that. It just says it is viewed with disdain. I think the main thrust of the article is once the artist has presented the artwork, it should stand up for itself (and because video games do not the medium will not get the same respect as books or movies). There is a big difference between critiquing and asking the artist to change it because you don't like it. While the ending was awful, why not accept it as flawed success, or a glorious failure? That's how I see it anyway.

I like how you see it. 

That's why I was against BioWare chaniging (note: Changing. not adding. adding I'm okay with) the ending to ME3. Let it stand on it's own, as their vision of what they want. We don't have to like it, but it's their vision. 

[Father_Jerusalem]

Arkitekt wrote...

mikelope wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

mikelope wrote...

kbct wrote...

The New Yorker: The ending sucks, but that's art.

Pretty much. It's saying art is allowed to fail. 

Of COURSE art is allowed to fail. Some of the greatest artists in history failed for YEARS.

That's what makes it art.

Art certainly is allowed to fail. But there isn't necessarily a rule which says that art can't give it a second try. A final draft, if you will.

But the article is not contradicting that. It just says it is viewed with disdain. I think the main thrust of the article is once the artist has presented the artwork, it should stand up for itself (and because video games do not the medium will not get the same respect as books or movies). There is a big difference between critiquing and asking the artist to change it because you don't like it. While the ending was awful, why not accept it as flawed success, or a glorious failure? That's how I see it anyway.

Because it is possible to change it?

Look, I sort of understand where you come from, but pay attention. Your attitude is a romantic one, and not universal. I say romantic because it pressuposes that once a work is finished, it must "Stand on Its Own" and take it to the bitter end, perhaps saluting the far horizon as it sinks down filled with bullets of hatred. This is a romantic view point, nothing more. If however you see this whole phenomenon as one giant Epic that was trashed in its final minutes, and that there's still the chance to correct the huge mistake as spotted by the community at large, then this "romanticized" view becomes silly and annoying.

Art is not immutable. Art is not something that comes from above the clouds with its godly incense.

Art is work. Art is mutable. Art is culture. And it is changed everyday.

Ahh, but why should they be required to change it?

[Tirigon]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

If I draw a scribble on a napkin, that nobody else ever sees and I toss in the trash right away... is it a failure? Is it succesful? Is it art?

That depends. I have seen scribbles that put *some* famous "artist" to shame.....

But it certainly is no failure. it would be a failure if you made 10000 copies of it and had them shipped in various shops only for the shop owner to throw them in the trash.

Just because something is "mass media" doesn't mean it isn't art as well. That's the argument that BioWare is making, and THAT is what we're all talking about now. BioWare took the argument of "this ending sucks" and turned it into "what is art".

Mass Media can be art, sure, but that is only because even mass media can occasionally be good.

For example, I would consider Matrix (the first, not that crappy Revolutions) art.... but it is an incredibly successful movie.
I would consider Tolkien's books art. LotR is one of the most successful books in the history of mankind.
I would consider Alice in Wonderland Art. That thing is legendary, I doubt there is even one person in the First World who has never heard of it (some only as little children, but even so...)

Don't you see a pattern here?

[Arkitekt]

Joy Divison wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Be aware though that this whole "art" defense is shenanigannian bollocks, and I know the frak I am talking about, since I made my share of philosophical studies and treatises on this very subject in my course.

The amount of conceit in this post is astounding.  Definitely more indicative of the "zealous" fan behavior the article discusses than the "sophisticated"...

The article does not fail in its "opinion", it fails on the facts that it establishes its "opinion". Opinions cannot be wrong, so to speak, so I don't really care if you think of my thoughts as "conceited" or any other gibberish. What irked me more was to see they were wrong factually on two accounts, and then I am ideologically opposed to it in one.

The facts that were wrong was that 1) they said BioWare was going to "change" the endings. No they never said anything like this at all, so that's bad reporting right there and 2) they said that the fans' reasons for unliking the endings were poor, and they are factually not. The ideological difference pertains to what "Art" means and what that definition entails for the "changeness" of games or not.

OTOH, in your post I can only see insults.

[Il Divo]

mikelope wrote...

But the article is not contradicting that. It just says it is viewed with disdain. I think the main thrust of the article is once the artist has presented the artwork, it should stand up for itself (and because video games do not the medium will not get the same respect as books or movies).

There is a big difference between critiquing and asking the artist to change it because you don't like it. While the ending was awful, why not accept it as flawed success, or a glorious failure? That's how I see it anyway.

Well, to turn the question around,  should we accept it? I can accept a glorious failure, but only if I'm not required to pay $200 to fully experience it. As soon as I'm required to spend my own resources, it's no longer just a question of the author's right to express himself. I'm not saying Bioware can't keep the ending. But as Mass Effect 3 is a product, the goal is also to satisfy consumers. Artistic integrity only takes us so far.

The article is essentially telling us to respect the author's right to ruin their own works, akin to someone scribbling over the Mona Lisa. I'll concede that it's the writer intellectual property and he can do what he pleases, you'll never see me dispute that. But that doesn't mean I'll support him in that endeavor. Bioware doesn't have to listen to the requests for a new ending, but at the least they are now aware that there is a demand for such a product.

Modifié par Il Divo, 26 mars 2012 - 09:56 .

[Icinix]

They made Mass Effect 3 as art.

It was presented to the world, and it failed.

Were it an art exhibition, it could slink quietly into the night with a stiff lip and try again later.

..but its presented to create sales for itself and future art from the company.

As such, its a consumer product first and foremost. If the art fails, the company can fail. This is why games as art is something different to art as art. Art doesn't need to fix their mistakes. Games do.

This line of art is not malleable needs to go away, because it doesn't apply here. It would mean that every buggy mess of a game ever released would be as it is for all eternity. It would mean balancing issues in MP games would never be fixed. It would mean severe crashed and memory leaks in the programmers art would remain there for all time...and you can't pick and choose what pieces of the game you want to call art, it has to be all or none. If the game is art and unchangeable, then the WHOLE game is art and unchangeable.


..but as we've seen. Games NEED to change to survive. Companies need to CHANGE their games to survive.


Game first. Art second.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Tirigon wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

If I draw a scribble on a napkin, that nobody else ever sees and I toss in the trash right away... is it a failure? Is it succesful? Is it art?

That depends. I have seen scribbles that put *some* famous "artist" to shame.....

But it certainly is no failure. it would be a failure if you made 10000 copies of it and had them shipped in various shops only for the shop owner to throw them in the trash.

Just because something is "mass media" doesn't mean it isn't art as well. That's the argument that BioWare is making, and THAT is what we're all talking about now. BioWare took the argument of "this ending sucks" and turned it into "what is art".

Mass Media can be art, sure, but that is only because even mass media can occasionally be good.

For example, I would consider Matrix (the first, not that crappy Revolutions) art.... but it is an incredibly successful movie.
I would consider Tolkien's books art. LotR is one of the most successful books in the history of mankind.
I would consider Alice in Wonderland Art. That thing is legendary, I doubt there is even one person in the First World who has never heard of it (some only as little children, but even so...)

Don't you see a pattern here?

But why is my scribbled on napkin a failure if people throw it in the trash? Just because they didn't like it? Why is their opinion more valid that mine, especially as I'm the artist?

Tolkein's books are a pain to try and get into when you read them. They're a pain. The imagery is gorgeous, but his penchant for describing everything down to the most minute detail and using 20 words when 1 or 2 would do is painful, and this is coming from someone who ADORES reading. 

And there is also art that just isn't commercially succesful... it doesn't make it NOT art. Take a look at any of Terrence Malick's movies. None of them have been commercially succesful, but they're among the most beautiful pieces of art to ever grace the big screen. 

[Arkitekt]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Ahh, but why should they be required to change it?

That's also pretty subjective. What happens when something you really invested your time into and really like, suddenly behaves so poorly and out of character? Won't you demand it correct its behavior? That it correct its mistake?

This is basic sociology here. We all do this everyday. It's always up for the person to either "cave" in to the demands or not, and I don't think for a moment anyone here does not respect this right. HOWEVER, if they don't "cave in" to the demands, people will know what to count on from now on, and that's the biggest threat any consumer here can make, which is, when you think about it, a pretty thin threat.

It is what it is. If BioWare cares about their fans and their relationship to their consumers, they will throw us a bone. If they don't, they won't, and their brand will take its proportional hit.

[Arkitekt]

The "artistic integrity" of the game is itself flawed, and that's why fans were enraged: the final minutes of the game shatter the whole trilogy integrity, so it's quite rich to hear that BW cannot change its ending due to "artistic integrity" when it's that exact problem they are asked to correct in it!

[Father_Jerusalem]

Arkitekt wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Ahh, but why should they be required to change it?

That's also pretty subjective. What happens when something you really invested your time into and really like, suddenly behaves so poorly and out of character? Won't you demand it correct its behavior? That it correct its mistake?

This is basic sociology here. We all do this everyday. It's always up for the person to either "cave" in to the demands or not, and I don't think for a moment anyone here does not respect this right. HOWEVER, if they don't "cave in" to the demands, people will know what to count on from now on, and that's the biggest threat any consumer here can make, which is, when you think about it, a pretty thin threat.

It is what it is. If BioWare cares about their fans and their relationship to their consumers, they will throw us a bone. If they don't, they won't, and their brand will take its proportional hit.

Going off of Tirigon's example above, the first Matrix movie was phenomenal. I was invested in it, I must have watched it on video 10-20 time, a friend and I tried coming up with our own RPG based off of the world of the Matrix... when they released the second Matrix movie, it was a giant turd. 

I didn't demand change, I didn't demand my money back. I simply accepted that it was crap, and decided to not bother with any more Matrix movies. To this day, I've only seen bits and pieces of the third when it aired on cable tv. I have no interest in watching it.

Being disappointed in BioWare and not wanting to buy any of their games or buy into their "artistic vision" anymore is perfectly valid, and not something I, for one, would try and talk someone out of. You got hurt, not wanting to keep going back is PERFECTLY valid.

It's when you demand that someone compromise what they want in order to give you what you want that I take an issue with it. 

[mikelope]

Arkitekt wrote...

Because it is possible to change it?

Look, I sort of understand where you come from, but pay attention. Your attitude is a romantic one, and not universal. I say romantic because it pressuposes that once a work is finished, it must "Stand on Its Own" and take it to the bitter end, perhaps saluting the far horizon as it sinks down filled with bullets of hatred. This is a romantic view point, nothing more. If however you see this whole phenomenon as one giant Epic that was trashed in its final minutes, and that there's still the chance to correct the huge mistake as spotted by the community at large, then this "romanticized" view becomes silly and annoying.

Art is not immutable. Art is not something that comes from above the clouds with its godly incense.

Art is work. Art is mutable. Art is culture. And it is changed everyday.

I'm not saying it can't be changed, but can't you see how problematic your stance is. Pressuring an artist to change their own work is different from saying it sucks then the artist agreeing with you. I mentioned this on another thread before, Picasso's demoiselles d'avignon was hated, Stravinsky was booed many times, Ulysses was deemed pornographic. They stuck to their guns. Then there's the recent n-word controversy  in Huckleberry Finn.

I don't think art 'comes from above the cloud with its godly incense.' But if I believe in my art, no matter how c**ptastic it is, I will stick with it. If you think that's just me being romantic, then so be it.

[BeefoTheBold]

Stopped reading after this:

"performed the artistic equivalent of falling to one knee and kissing the
Godfather’s ring: he announced that the studio would cave to the
demands of its “core fans” and revise Mass Effect 3’s ending. It’s a
staggering victory for the series’s most zealous enthusiasts—and that,
unfortunately, is the problem. As long as gaming’s “core fans” hold such
sway over major game studios, art will never have a chance."

In NO WAY do what Dr. Ray's letter say do this and even if they did do so in the future, in NO WAY is a bad thing for core fans to have this much sway over major game studios.

[jds1bio]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Ahh, but why should they be required to change it?

That's also pretty subjective. What happens when something you really invested your time into and really like, suddenly behaves so poorly and out of character? Won't you demand it correct its behavior? That it correct its mistake?

This is basic sociology here. We all do this everyday. It's always up for the person to either "cave" in to the demands or not, and I don't think for a moment anyone here does not respect this right. HOWEVER, if they don't "cave in" to the demands, people will know what to count on from now on, and that's the biggest threat any consumer here can make, which is, when you think about it, a pretty thin threat.

It is what it is. If BioWare cares about their fans and their relationship to their consumers, they will throw us a bone. If they don't, they won't, and their brand will take its proportional hit.

Going off of Tirigon's example above, the first Matrix movie was phenomenal. I was invested in it, I must have watched it on video 10-20 time, a friend and I tried coming up with our own RPG based off of the world of the Matrix... when they released the second Matrix movie, it was a giant turd. 

I didn't demand change, I didn't demand my money back. I simply accepted that it was crap, and decided to not bother with any more Matrix movies. To this day, I've only seen bits and pieces of the third when it aired on cable tv. I have no interest in watching it.

Being disappointed in BioWare and not wanting to buy any of their games or buy into their "artistic vision" anymore is perfectly valid, and not something I, for one, would try and talk someone out of. You got hurt, not wanting to keep going back is PERFECTLY valid.

It's when you demand that someone compromise what they want in order to give you what you want that I take an issue with it. 

Unless BioWare agonized over the ending, put enough of one out for release, and decided to wrap things up after release.  Then that would mean that BioWare's artistic vision is in-progress and not sealed inside what is currently released as ME3, something that they themselves might view as a temporary compromise until their work is truly finished. 

[Phategod1]

jds1bio wrote...

Phategod1 wrote...

Hypothetically speaking lets just say Bioware agrees to change the ending, and lets just say its

A.free and

B. the ending you always wanted.

Now lets just say hypothetically It actually ruins all future story based games in the future all the bioshocks, and Assassins creeds all ruined. Will it have been worth it?

I think the point is that there's nothing to lose here.  The first BioShock already ruined itself because of its silly final plot twist boss battle, and Assassin's creed has already overstayed its welcome a bit.  Both series already offer story DLC for additional pricing, so having a bit of BioWare DLC be free won't have a negative impact.

BioWare/EA has already made a lot of money with ME3 and just wants to be able to sell more DLC down the road for this game.  If they give a little bit now, they will contine to get even more later.

Your poor taste in games is making you miss the point, So take out the two games I mentionedn and replace them with what ever story driven game you prefer. 

[BeefoTheBold]

Okay, fine. Read a little more.

"While Mass Effect 3’s ending has plenty of shortcomings, to change it after the fact is merely to allow a poisonous strain of thought to run rampant. 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."

This is a load of total bull. I don't have a big enough shovel, but here goes.

This person has zero understanding of the game industry. This is the EXACT OPPOSITE REASON why core gaming fans of Bioware are angry. They're angry BECAUSE Bioware is dumbing down their games in favor of bigger explosions, facile storylines and larger, more bouncy boobs. (Okay, so maybe we're not all upset about that last one.)

People are outraged at the Bioware ending SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE it's a dumb one that lacks any form of logic or sense. The retake movement is AGAINST the very things that this clueless writer says we're for.

Which, in summary, is why you shouldn't get gaming news from the New Yorker.

[Father_Jerusalem]

jds1bio wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Ahh, but why should they be required to change it?

That's also pretty subjective. What happens when something you really invested your time into and really like, suddenly behaves so poorly and out of character? Won't you demand it correct its behavior? That it correct its mistake?

This is basic sociology here. We all do this everyday. It's always up for the person to either "cave" in to the demands or not, and I don't think for a moment anyone here does not respect this right. HOWEVER, if they don't "cave in" to the demands, people will know what to count on from now on, and that's the biggest threat any consumer here can make, which is, when you think about it, a pretty thin threat.

It is what it is. If BioWare cares about their fans and their relationship to their consumers, they will throw us a bone. If they don't, they won't, and their brand will take its proportional hit.

Going off of Tirigon's example above, the first Matrix movie was phenomenal. I was invested in it, I must have watched it on video 10-20 time, a friend and I tried coming up with our own RPG based off of the world of the Matrix... when they released the second Matrix movie, it was a giant turd. 

I didn't demand change, I didn't demand my money back. I simply accepted that it was crap, and decided to not bother with any more Matrix movies. To this day, I've only seen bits and pieces of the third when it aired on cable tv. I have no interest in watching it.

Being disappointed in BioWare and not wanting to buy any of their games or buy into their "artistic vision" anymore is perfectly valid, and not something I, for one, would try and talk someone out of. You got hurt, not wanting to keep going back is PERFECTLY valid.

It's when you demand that someone compromise what they want in order to give you what you want that I take an issue with it. 

Unless BioWare agonized over the ending, put enough of one out for release, and decided to wrap things up after release.  Then that would mean that BioWare's artistic vision is in-progress and not sealed inside what is currently released as ME3, something that they themselves might view as a temporary compromise until their work is truly finished. 

And it might well be that that was the case. We'll never know. 

All I know is that BioWare put out a statement defending their vision, and people are still yelling at BioWare because they haven't apologized for that vision.

[Tirigon]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

But why is my scribbled on napkin a failure if people throw it in the trash? Just because they didn't like it? Why is their opinion more valid that mine, especially as I'm the artist?

Majority opinion.

Tolkein's books are a pain to try and get into when you read them. They're a pain. The imagery is gorgeous, but his penchant for describing everything down to the most minute detail and using 20 words when 1 or 2 would do is painful, and this is coming from someone who ADORES reading.

Some say so. It is true, actually (even though for me that was a good rather than bad thing). Nevertheless they are loved both by critics and, according to the sales, the broader masses. Which is my point exactly - if art deserves success, it will get it. IN SPITE of its flaws.

And there is also art that just isn't commercially succesful... it doesn't make it NOT art. Take a look at any of Terrence Malick's movies. None of them have been commercially succesful, but they're among the most beautiful pieces of art to ever grace the big screen.

Commercially successful and successful are not the same.
Again, I will bring the music analogy (it's the same with novels and movies but I know more about music^^): One of my favorite bands is ASP. They are by no means successful on a grand scale - making a limited edition of only 7000 copies woldwide would have gotten the label bankrupt had it not sold most copies, and 300 or so fans at a concert is relatively much. However, AMONG THEIR SUBCULTURE, they are considered one of the best and most famous bands.
In comparison, look at Justin Bieber. His sales are in the millions, but relative to the number of people who know him he is much less successful - he actually has become the avatar of crappy pop for the masses in the internet.

I dont know Terrence Malick but I would assume that, at least if you are right in your judgement, his work is loved among those who actually know it.

[Tazzmission]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Okay, fine. Read a little more.

"While Mass Effect 3’s ending has plenty of shortcomings, to change it after the fact is merely to allow a poisonous strain of thought to run rampant. 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."

This is a load of total bull. I don't have a big enough shovel, but here goes.

This person has zero understanding of the game industry. This is the EXACT OPPOSITE REASON why core gaming fans of Bioware are angry. They're angry BECAUSE Bioware is dumbing down their games in favor of bigger explosions, facile storylines and larger, more bouncy boobs. (Okay, so maybe we're not all upset about that last one.)

People are outraged at the Bioware ending SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE it's a dumb one that lacks any form of logic or sense. The retake movement is AGAINST the very things that this clueless writer says we're for.

Which, in summary, is why you shouldn't get gaming news from the New Yorker.

thats funny because you dont know how the gaming buisness works either

dont be walking around saying people dont know squat when you in fact no nothing either