262 réponses à ce sujet

[Daniel_N7]

Fortunately The New Yorker has intelligent readers. I recommend that you all read the comments, as they bring light to the issues the author of the article failed to understand.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Tirigon wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Hey, I agree with you. Twilight is atrocious and, to me, offensive. But why is my opinion, or your opinion, more valid than the opinions of anyone who likes it? Why should OUR opinions be forced on a Twilight fan?

They shouldnt. I dont even have a real problem with it - I have the books myself because I wanted to know what all the fuzz was about, and I just found them rather bland and that's it.
If someone likes them, more power to them.

I just want to make clear that it is NOT a majority opinion because I have a different art definition than you. I define it, as I said before, by its popularity amongst those who know it.

And yeah, that's 1%, it still doesn't mean you have to sell even that much to be succesful. To me, just making art makes it art. You don't have to sell it, you don't have to do anything with it, just the fact that it exists makes it art, and that's what I'm trying to say.

I just think that this is a cheap, and ultimately pointless, definition. If everything someone created is Art by its mere existence, then it becomes an empty word with no meaning.
By your definition, the cake I had for breakfast is art. The milk I drank is art. Hell even the products of me digesting it would be art (wait - some people actually believe that: http://en.wikipedia....i/Artist's_shit).

For you, I ask you not to troll but because I honestly do not understand it, what would NOT be art?

Art requires a medium - illustration, painting, literature, music, things like that. Just making a bowl of ceral isn't an art, but cake decorating? Especially some of those competition shows on the Food Network? I'd consider that art. 

And that's the question: are video games a proper medium? Is a video game art? 

[Tirigon]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

And that's the question: are video games a proper medium? Is a video game art?

Yea I would quite say so. Although, in ME3's case not by my definition, and bad art by yours

[dmonorato]

It's funny none of these people spewing the " Artistic Integrity" crap did not even consider games art, that is until the controversy over the ME3 endings started. I have always thought "some" video games as art, mainly RPG type games....The thing that the Artistic Integrity people seem to forget, with out player input in constructing the story, its an incomplete work. Especially in games where your choices effect the story ie. the Mass Effect series.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Tirigon wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

And that's the question: are video games a proper medium? Is a video game art?

Yea I would quite say so. Although, in ME3's case not by my definition, and bad art by yours

I actually think it's good art, especially everything BUT the ending, but I liked the ending fine. 

I think the Mass Effect series as a whole is right at the pinnacle of video game art, I like every game even though I can admit that there are flaws in each.

[Joy Divison]

Arkitekt wrote...

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.

You see only insults because you are not reading what I wrote.

I made no reference to the validity of the article, yet you proceeded to tell me why it was factually wrong.

If you cannot see the conceit in your statement "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," then you are only substantiating the validity of my post.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 26 mars 2012 - 10:49 .

[Il Divo]

People, people, let's not forget Heavy Rain. If video games are an art form, surely that is our pinnacle.

[Mercedonius]

Am I missing something? Why do all the news articles say Bioware caved to their fans and is changing the ending?

The only thing I have found is where they say they will 'clarify' them.

These factual inaccuracies just goes to show how warped journalism has gotten.

[BeefoTheBold]

Tazzmission wrote...

jds1bio wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...


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

Keep it civil please.

im being civil im just saying the guy has no right to say otherwise when he himself isnt involved in such a buisness

alot of people have that attitude lately and frankly im sick of it

even the same people who say omg im so mad im going to boycott all dlc when in fact they wont

they sit on there computer talk alot of hot garbage demonizing ea and bioware and yet they still post on a ea bioware forum

ive tried to stay silent but when i see bs im going to call them out on it

Move over folks! The Internet police is here to set the world straight.

[Daniel_N7]

For those who care I'll post something I wrote a couple of years ago for my gaming blog.

Video Games as an Art Form (excerpt)

(…) Games, unlike cinema, are open experiences, allowing the player to become both a participant and a director of the overall experience through variable degrees of interactivity and freedom. Still, every choice a player makes within the boundaries of a video game is determined by the vision and parameters defined by its creators. Interactivity is an integral part of the structure of a video game, just as much as its conceptual design, its music, its storyline.

Perhaps the problem with this debate begins with the notion of “something” as an art form. For example: cinema (or painting, or sculpture) is an art form. Of course we know what this means in a normative sense. But the fact remains that these are abstract concepts, since we all comprehend that only a fraction of the films produced in the world are worthy to be defined as objects of art. In that regard, we should consider that what these are (movies, paintings, etc) are vehicles for human expression that carry the potential to transcend their medium and become very powerful transforming experiences.
Michelangelo’s frescoes on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel are not art because they are paintings on the ceiling of a church but because they transcend into the world of ideas, they express the frailties of human nature and our relation with the divine. La Gioconda isn’t art because it’s a painting but because it reveals the complexities of human expression and female beauty. We hardly know how to explain it but we recognize it, because once we see it we will never forget it. True art transforms who we are, our personal references, the foundations upon which we build the future of our experience as human beings. And in becoming these experiences, they become art.

Can video games be art, then? Again, we need to take a closer look at what we define as video games. Tetris is a game. Heavy Rain is a game. But are they even the same thing? The diversity of what falls under the category of gaming comprises a much wider assortment of creations than that which we would define as films. Tarkovski’s Stalker and Rambo 3 are both films, constructions built on image and sound, structure and sequence. And yet, concerning their nature as aesthetic objects or their potential value as art, we can hardly consider them products of the same discipline.

Interactive entertainment has witnessed an outstanding evolution in recent years regarding internal complexity, narrative quality and artistic design. And although we may recognize the fact that the Godfather of video games has not yet been made - a construction so perfect that would present itself as a moving experience capable of transcending into an object of art – it’s easy to identify many glimpses of what this incredible new medium is capable of.

The geek in me could bring forth many examples. I’ll state just one. Somewhere in Assassin’s Creed 2 you are transported to the streets of late 1400’s Venice during the carnival, as the night sets in, and you are free to wander through performing artists, vendors, people walking and talking. And there you are, not even rushing for the next “mission”, just strolling the narrow alleyways, appreciating the sights and sounds of it all, surrounded by outstanding architecture, wondering about that time in history and how it might have been something similar to this, realizing, if just for a moment, that a video game can truly transcend into a fabulous experience. (…)

[Father_Jerusalem]

Il Divo wrote...

People, people, let's not forget Heavy Rain. If video games are an art form, surely that is our pinnacle.

I, unfortunately, don't have a PS3 so I've never been able to experience that game, though I've heard nothing but good things about it.

[Arkitekt]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

It's not ridiculous. You're not paying for the development of this game. You are not an equal partner. BioWare developed this game with the expectation of selling copies of it to recoup their investment and make money. You are a consumer, you buy the copy and are unhappy with it. That does not give you the right to demand BioWare change their views to suit yours. 

If BioWare CHOOSES to listen to fan feedback and criticism, that's great. But that's their CHOICE. They are, in no way, required to.

So what the hell are you banging about? Managed to miss my words where I exactly framed the issue like that? That I respect their freedom no matter what? Please elaborate where in the hell I said otherwise. Because frankly, you are now going all raging against strawmans.

And I know the argument. "If they don't listen to us, we'll stop buying their products." And, again, that's a perfectly valid choice for you to make. But that still doesn't mean they're REQUIRED to listen to you. BioWare can listen and evaluate the anger at their product and see how many people are returning the game and know, approximately, how many people will, in fact, stop buying their products and if they choose to do something about that... that's entirely up to them.

Again.... I fail to see how this comment really addresses anything I said except to confirm it. Are you really into angrily agreeing with your "adversaries"?

You are a consumer, you have the right to buy a product, to dislike a product, to criticize a product, to return a product (assuming you bought it from a place that accepts returns), to slag that product online, to get into fights with people who did like that product... you don't have the right to DEMAND that a company change the way they make that product to suit your vision.

I see however that you completely ignored my argument about DLCs and their commitment for adding content for ME3 for a whole one more year, in which they have deemed consumer feedback as very important. You'd *guess* that if said feedback * almost unanimously* told you that you would better correct the endings of your game, that that feedback would be considered rather important, no?

[Il Divo]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

People, people, let's not forget Heavy Rain. If video games are an art form, surely that is our pinnacle.

I, unfortunately, don't have a PS3 so I've never been able to experience that game, though I've heard nothing but good things about it.

I was in a similar situation. Played it in one sitting off of my buddy's PS3. It was pretty heart-wrenching by the end of it.  

[Starchs]

"What he failed to realize is that these fans were gamers" <--- That line sum it all up.

[Arkitekt]

Joy Divison wrote...

You see only insults because you are not reading what I wrote.

You called me conceited. Now you say that I am "not reading". Will there be any ending to your insults?

I made no reference to the validity of the article, yet you proceeded to tell me why it was factually wrong.

I was actually throwing a bone at you and pretending that all you did wasn't just a snarky insult.

If you cannot see the conceit in your statement "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," then you are only substantiating the validity of my post.

Translation: "If you cannot see the truth in my insult then you are an ****". Way to go, and congratulations for reaching my ignore button so soon.

Modifié par Arkitekt, 26 mars 2012 - 11:08 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

Arkitekt wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

It's not ridiculous. You're not paying for the development of this game. You are not an equal partner. BioWare developed this game with the expectation of selling copies of it to recoup their investment and make money. You are a consumer, you buy the copy and are unhappy with it. That does not give you the right to demand BioWare change their views to suit yours. 

If BioWare CHOOSES to listen to fan feedback and criticism, that's great. But that's their CHOICE. They are, in no way, required to.

So what the hell are you banging about? Managed to miss my words where I exactly framed the issue like that? That I respect their freedom no matter what? Please elaborate where in the hell I said otherwise. Because frankly, you are now going all raging against strawmans.

And I know the argument. "If they don't listen to us, we'll stop buying their products." And, again, that's a perfectly valid choice for you to make. But that still doesn't mean they're REQUIRED to listen to you. BioWare can listen and evaluate the anger at their product and see how many people are returning the game and know, approximately, how many people will, in fact, stop buying their products and if they choose to do something about that... that's entirely up to them.

Again.... I fail to see how this comment really addresses anything I said except to confirm it. Are you really into angrily agreeing with your "adversaries"?

You are a consumer, you have the right to buy a product, to dislike a product, to criticize a product, to return a product (assuming you bought it from a place that accepts returns), to slag that product online, to get into fights with people who did like that product... you don't have the right to DEMAND that a company change the way they make that product to suit your vision.

I see however that you completely ignored my argument about DLCs and their commitment for adding content for ME3 for a whole one more year, in which they have deemed consumer feedback as very important. You'd *guess* that if said feedback * almost unanimously* told you that you would better correct the endings of your game, that that feedback would be considered rather important, no?

Yes, and I'm all for giving feedback. But this all started because of a DEMAND that they change their endings, not as a request for new DLC that they could take feedback on. It was "We don't agree with your vision. You must change it to meet ours." 

Did you, personally, frame the argument that "We DEMAND new endings!" I don't know. I don't remember everyone I've ever delt with on this board and what they say about everything. If you weren't one of the ones demanding new endings, then I apologize for putting words in your mouth. But Just look at any #Retaker and the banner in their signature.

"Demand new endings for ME3!" 

That's not respecting BioWare's freedoms, that's trying to impose their will into the creative process.

[Arkitekt]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Yes, and I'm all for giving feedback. But this all started because of a DEMAND that they change their endings, not as a request for new DLC that they could take feedback on. It was "We don't agree with your vision. You must change it to meet ours."

All in the context of a game that everyone knows (hell, Day one DLC? "New downloadable content!" message?).

People clearly preferred the changed ending to any other DLC.

Did you, personally, frame the argument that "We DEMAND new endings!" I don't know. I don't remember everyone I've ever delt with on this board and what they say about everything. If you weren't one of the ones demanding new endings, then I apologize for putting words in your mouth. But Just look at any #Retaker and the banner in their signature.

"Demand new endings for ME3!" 

That's not respecting BioWare's freedoms, that's trying to impose their will into the creative process.

So it's all about degrees of semantics then? And these are the intolerant ones? The whole "ReTake" movement is somewhat tongue-in-cheek (specially its name and its slogans), as continuosly demonstrated by its charity brilliant move and its cupcake+cake move. 

[Tirigon]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Yes, and I'm all for giving feedback. But this all started because of a DEMAND that they change their endings, not as a request for new DLC that they could take feedback on. It was "We don't agree with your vision. You must change it to meet ours." 

Did you, personally, frame the argument that "We DEMAND new endings!" I don't know. I don't remember everyone I've ever delt with on this board and what they say about everything. If you weren't one of the ones demanding new endings, then I apologize for putting words in your mouth. But Just look at any #Retaker and the banner in their signature.

"Demand new endings for ME3!" 

That's not respecting BioWare's freedoms, that's trying to impose their will into the creative process.

You have a point, but you also need to see where they come from: There would be no DEMANDING if BioWare hadnt advertised the game as having many different ends which reflect your decisions.
And that, no matter what you think of the writing, or the direction they chose with the Catalyst, was simply NOT THE CASE.

You cant blame gamers for their entitlement: They only feel entitled to new endings because BioWare promised something they didnt deliver.

[Morroian]

AlanC9 wrote...

Toyou4you wrote...

Ummmm... this is offensive to Bioware and fans. Sooo this is what racism feels like

Not all fans. I wholly agree with the piece.

Me too pretty much, the fault is on both sides. What I don't like is the tone and the wording of the article.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Arkitekt wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Yes, and I'm all for giving feedback. But this all started because of a DEMAND that they change their endings, not as a request for new DLC that they could take feedback on. It was "We don't agree with your vision. You must change it to meet ours."

All in the context of a game that everyone knows (hell, Day one DLC? "New downloadable content!" message?).

People clearly preferred the changed ending to any other DLC.

Did you, personally, frame the argument that "We DEMAND new endings!" I don't know. I don't remember everyone I've ever delt with on this board and what they say about everything. If you weren't one of the ones demanding new endings, then I apologize for putting words in your mouth. But Just look at any #Retaker and the banner in their signature.

"Demand new endings for ME3!" 

That's not respecting BioWare's freedoms, that's trying to impose their will into the creative process.

So it's all about degrees of semantics then? And these are the intolerant ones? The whole "ReTake" movement is somewhat tongue-in-cheek (specially its name and its slogans), as continuosly demonstrated by its charity brilliant move and its cupcake+cake move. 

"Demand" and "Request" aren't semantics, they're two completely different attitudes. One implies unreasonability, one implies a willingness to work together. If someone comes up to me and "demands" something, my first response is always to say "Hell no." just because it's an attitude of "I'm entitled to..." or "You have to do this because I said so".

Was the charity a brilliant move? I don't know. I get a tingle of distaste any time someone attaches charity drives to a movement - even for causes I support, I get squeamish, and with how the donation drive ended... I don't know. I'm glad kids got helped, I truly am, and the people that donated - for whatever reason they donated - should be praised for what they did, just as those that are demanding refunds are, deservedly, being buried for their actions. The cupcake move... it's a publicity stunt, sure, but it's a good one. Hell, it made me want a cupcake earlier.

I'm not accusing everyone in the ReTake movement of being stupid or intolerant, though you need to concede that there are some among the group that are - just as there are some in the pro-ending movement that are. I'm simply saying that they don't have the right to try and force a change simply because they didn't like the way a video game ended. 

[Father_Jerusalem]

Tirigon wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Yes, and I'm all for giving feedback. But this all started because of a DEMAND that they change their endings, not as a request for new DLC that they could take feedback on. It was "We don't agree with your vision. You must change it to meet ours." 

Did you, personally, frame the argument that "We DEMAND new endings!" I don't know. I don't remember everyone I've ever delt with on this board and what they say about everything. If you weren't one of the ones demanding new endings, then I apologize for putting words in your mouth. But Just look at any #Retaker and the banner in their signature.

"Demand new endings for ME3!" 

That's not respecting BioWare's freedoms, that's trying to impose their will into the creative process.

You have a point, but you also need to see where they come from: There would be no DEMANDING if BioWare hadnt advertised the game as having many different ends which reflect your decisions.
And that, no matter what you think of the writing, or the direction they chose with the Catalyst, was simply NOT THE CASE.

You cant blame gamers for their entitlement: They only feel entitled to new endings because BioWare promised something they didnt deliver.

I do see where they're coming from, I do. I wish everyone could have gotten the ending they wanted, and been happy. It's the attitude that drives me off, not the cause. Even though I disagree with them on the endings, I'd be a lot more inclined to agree with, and even help, the position if it came across as more reasonable than demanding. 

If BioWare came out tomorrow and announce "We're adding a bajillion new endings to the game", I'd be ecstatic - as long as those endings don't come at the expense of what they've already created in the game. 

[ShadowyMOON]

Well it sure is positive to see how many have already went to pages of bickering amongst themselves.

As for the article itself, wow. Nice to get my daily dose of preachy, holier than thou, opinion equals fact and no actual fact checking done sensationalism, now with extra sophistication!

On the bright side the comments were nice to read, good to see the readers of the New Yorker don't let such poorly done "writing" fly. Wonder what does that remind me of in relation to Mass Effect?

Modifié par ShadowyMOON, 26 mars 2012 - 11:22 .

[Valdrane78]

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.

[AlanC9]

Il Divo wrote...

People, people, let's not forget Heavy Rain. If video games are an art form, surely that is our pinnacle.

Our pinnacle? I don't have a PS3. 

[Mercedonius]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Yes, and I'm all for giving feedback. But this all started because of a DEMAND that they change their endings, not as a request for new DLC that they could take feedback on. It was "We don't agree with your vision. You must change it to meet ours."

All in the context of a game that everyone knows (hell, Day one DLC? "New downloadable content!" message?).

People clearly preferred the changed ending to any other DLC.

Did you, personally, frame the argument that "We DEMAND new endings!" I don't know. I don't remember everyone I've ever delt with on this board and what they say about everything. If you weren't one of the ones demanding new endings, then I apologize for putting words in your mouth. But Just look at any #Retaker and the banner in their signature.

"Demand new endings for ME3!" 

That's not respecting BioWare's freedoms, that's trying to impose their will into the creative process.

So it's all about degrees of semantics then? And these are the intolerant ones? The whole "ReTake" movement is somewhat tongue-in-cheek (specially its name and its slogans), as continuosly demonstrated by its charity brilliant move and its cupcake+cake move. 

"Demand" and "Request" aren't semantics, they're two completely different attitudes. One implies unreasonability, one implies a willingness to work together. If someone comes up to me and "demands" something, my first response is always to say "Hell no." just because it's an attitude of "I'm entitled to..." or "You have to do this because I said so".

Was the charity a brilliant move? I don't know. I get a tingle of distaste any time someone attaches charity drives to a movement - even for causes I support, I get squeamish, and with how the donation drive ended... I don't know. I'm glad kids got helped, I truly am, and the people that donated - for whatever reason they donated - should be praised for what they did, just as those that are demanding refunds are, deservedly, being buried for their actions. The cupcake move... it's a publicity stunt, sure, but it's a good one. Hell, it made me want a cupcake earlier.

I'm not accusing everyone in the ReTake movement of being stupid or intolerant, though you need to concede that there are some among the group that are - just as there are some in the pro-ending movement that are. I'm simply saying that they don't have the right to try and force a change simply because they didn't like the way a video game ended. 

It is well within their rights to 'demand' a new ending to the game, it is also within the rights of bioware to ban them from the forums for being rude or extremist. 

It falls within the rights of free speech for people to demand something, demand means to ask authoritatively not force someone into a particular task. 

The fans cannot 'force' the developers to do anything. At this point the use of the word demand is just semantics and is the nature of the internet to be hyperbolic.

If it was illegal to demand something of someone you have no authority over or just being extremely rude in general then fox news,msnbc, and the republican primary  would be shut down by now. 

It's just the internet, no one is holding a gun to each other's heads trying to force anybody to do anything. I suggest not t get too butthurt over the word demand, wasted energy imo.