1158 réponses à ce sujet

[panzerwzh]

https://mobile.twitt...236516261670914

BOOM!

[Disciple888]

Gigamantis wrote...

xMellowhype wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Alent wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...
If you'd been paying attention at all you would know this isn't about integrating criticism into future art, it's about completely abandoning your vision because you're bullied out of it.  RPG players can't handle sad endings.  RPG players don't like open-ended themes.  Great notes for future development, but that doesn't mean you get to tear down and recreate a painting that's already finished.  

If Mass Effect was a movie and ended the way it did and the test audience had the same reaction as a majority of the fans did would they have changed the ending or stuck with their "vision" even if that meant it would tank in theaters?  I can tell you what most movie producers do: they would rewrite the ending.

Awesome.  Now I know the retakers how no idea how movies work. 

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Ad_hominem 

How many of those now? 237502380 just by you? Can you just leave the forums already and go back to the sociopathic and well deserved bullfied life you live?

WOW TWO PEOPLE CAN INSULT WHAT A CRAZY IDEA.

ZOMG u called me a sociopath?  I'd better cry and link wikipedia!

Come on kids, you're tougher than this.  If I'm getting to you this badly it's no wonder the ending to ME3 broke you.  It was some emotional stuff. 

watch out guise we got a badass over here

[Myrmedus]

Gigamantis wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

Then you're definitely not an artist and have absolutely no idea what creating art is about.

Anyone
who has actually worked their ass off producing and improving their art
would know that an integral part of it is having to chop and change it.
Any artist who sits there and says "My art is simply too good for you
philistines" is a crap artist trying to hide their ineptitude behind
superiority because they never would've developed as an artist in the
first place. Noone gets popped out of their mother's womb able to
produce masterpieces. It is a long, drawn out process of improving,
critiquing, being criticized, making amendments, improving, critiquing
etc.

There's a reason they say to be a good artist you need to
have thick skin: this is why. And noone, no matter how good, is above
the criticism that comes with the production of art - noone on this
planet can ever say "I don't have more to learn" or "I can't improve my
work."

Artists make retroactive changes to works all the time,
and they incorporate any criticism they've taken into future works as
well, it's what is required to improve and be as good as you can be in
art. Why? Because art is not produced in a vacuum. If alot of people
think what you produced is crap, in the art world, it is crap.

If you'd been paying attention at all you would know this isn't about integrating criticism into future art, it's about completely abandoning your vision because you're bullied out of it.  RPG players can't handle sad endings.  RPG players don't like open-ended themes.  Great notes for future development, but that doesn't mean you get to tear down and recreate a painting that's already finished.  

Clearly you didn't read my post - let me point it out to you again:

Artists make retroactive changes to works all the time, and they incorporate any criticism they've taken into future works as well, it's what is required to improve and be as good as you can be in art.

Artists make retroactive changes to works all the time, and they incorporate any criticism they've taken into future works as well

Artists make retroactive changes to works all the time

retroactive changes

And apparently I'm the one not paying attention

Modifié par Myrmedus, 03 avril 2012 - 07:09 .

[Captain Arty]

Gigamantis wrote...

Also, the precedent it sets is for boring formulaic games that try not to upset anyone.  That's fine in the short term but gets boring really fast.  Any company that wants to have any kind of future needs to let the creative people be creative.  That means that while they can acknowledge their uncreative fans they still need to let the actual creative people work uninhibited.

We don't want a formulaic ending or a predictable one. I think you are confusing this bad nonsensical ending for a creative one.

A dark ending, or a confusing one, or an open-ended one does not make it creative, artistic, or good. A good, creative ending is original while satisfying the plot and theme of the story. It can be happy, or sad, or in the case of Mass Effect, it could have been both.

Star Wars had a good ending, but so did Saving Private Ryan. Memento's ending was unexpected and original. The ending to Inception was left intentionally ambiguous. All of these made sense. There were no real logical failures and they all fit the theme of the story they told.

Modifié par Captain Arty, 03 avril 2012 - 07:10 .

[Mizar_Panzar]

Look, I'm really sick and tired of these petty arguments and word gaming. Let's stop arguing just for a few days and see what the hell is BW gonna do in three days' time.

All these pointless bickering is starting to making me believe the Catalyst is actually correct, how can we claim to be able to work with something fundamentally different like the synthetics where we can barely tolerate on another over something as trivial as a video game?

Me iz seriously disappoint.

[Gigamantis]

Myrmedus wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

Then you're definitely not an artist and have absolutely no idea what creating art is about.

Anyone
who has actually worked their ass off producing and improving their art
would know that an integral part of it is having to chop and change it.
Any artist who sits there and says "My art is simply too good for you
philistines" is a crap artist trying to hide their ineptitude behind
superiority because they never would've developed as an artist in the
first place. Noone gets popped out of their mother's womb able to
produce masterpieces. It is a long, drawn out process of improving,
critiquing, being criticized, making amendments, improving, critiquing
etc.

There's a reason they say to be a good artist you need to
have thick skin: this is why. And noone, no matter how good, is above
the criticism that comes with the production of art - noone on this
planet can ever say "I don't have more to learn" or "I can't improve my
work."

Artists make retroactive changes to works all the time,
and they incorporate any criticism they've taken into future works as
well, it's what is required to improve and be as good as you can be in
art. Why? Because art is not produced in a vacuum. If alot of people
think what you produced is crap, in the art world, it is crap.

If you'd been paying attention at all you would know this isn't about integrating criticism into future art, it's about completely abandoning your vision because you're bullied out of it.  RPG players can't handle sad endings.  RPG players don't like open-ended themes.  Great notes for future development, but that doesn't mean you get to tear down and recreate a painting that's already finished.  

Clearly you didn't read my post - let me point it out to you again:

Artists make retroactive changes to works all the time,
and they incorporate any criticism they've taken into future works as
well, it's what is required to improve and be as good as you can be in
art.

Artists make retroactive changes to works all the time,

and they incorporate any criticism they've taken into future works as

well

Artists make retroactive changes to works all the time

retroactive changes

And apparently I'm the one not paying attention

They make retroactive changes when they want to, not when they honestly don't want to but are forced. 

A lot of artists do sell out as well, though, because they're not confident enough in their ideas and talent to stand by them.  Those artists always end up being crap. 

[Myrmedus]

Not just that but there's not really even a debate here: the game was meant to have multiple endings and the advantage of multiple endings is precisely that you can spread a wide net that makes a great deal of people happy - it also gives you license to experiment with one of the endings too.

[GrIzZlY_]

panzerwzh wrote...

https://mobile.twitt...236516261670914

BOOM!

ah thank you very much

[ahandsomeshark]

Here's an idea, either take this as what it says and log off and start trading in your bioware stuff, or wait for them to deal the final blow at pax and then log off and start trading in your bioware stuff.

I was this close to getting KOTOR off stream bioware. YOU WERE THIS CLOSE TO GETTING MY 9.99 THIS HURTS YOU.

[Captain Arty]

Gigamantis wrote...
A lot of artists do sell out as well, though, because they're not confident enough in their ideas and talent to stand by them.  Those artists always end up being crap. 

That's not always true either. Sometimes feedback from editors and focus groups drastically improves endings even when the artist doesn't want to change their work.

This is whole reason for having editors.

[Captain Arty]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

Here's an idea, either take this as what it says and log off and start trading in your bioware stuff, or wait for them to deal the final blow at pax and then log off and start trading in your bioware stuff.

I was this close to getting KOTOR off stream bioware. YOU WERE THIS CLOSE TO GETTING MY 9.99 THIS HURTS YOU.

Glass half empty. I like it.

[1490]

Gonna make this statement again in brief, because this thread keeps popping up. This so-called "EA announcement" is:

-3rd hand information
-probably out of context
-no visible proof of this publication to read and make your own interpetation
-several publications have already published headlines stating "Bioware agrees to change ending," when all they did was agree to "clarify" the ending. Publications get it wrong sometimes or twist words.

Seriously, this shouldn't be a controversy at all without any official statement or even a copy of the publication in question.

[OriginalTibs]

Mikeuicus wrote...

Also, I doubt someone who works at an EA Latin America Branch knows what the America/Canada based Bioware are up to. Anything he might have heard is, at worst, out of date or secondhand.

Recommend we resist representing the intelligence or quality of Latin America and latin Americans as somehow lesser, more ignorant, or in anyway diminished compared to the U.S..

That sort of ethnocentrism tends to backfire on us quite regularly. So let's decide to be as smart as we wish we were, k?

[Carlthestrange]

Ah yes, newspapers being a reliable source for unbiased, truthful news.

We have dismissed that claim.

[Kitedtk]

Everyone... give Bioware the chance to fix this... wait until they make an actual global official press release... until then, let us keep discussing and being polite and making the points we feel need to be made regarding what we want from Bioware and the company...

[bigtymers1211]

Seriously guys...NOTHING is OFFICAL until PAX EAST...Unless this EA LA guy is DIRECTLY involved with ME3/work DIRECTLY for the EA division that invovles in ME3, all he said was simply OLD company line/his interpertation of the company line. This is like if my Friend who work at EA HQ in Berlingame (he works as a Comp Engineer/programmer), WHO HAS NOTHING to do with ME3, suddenly told me there's no new DLC for ME3. Even I will be slightly skeptical about it until actual evidence (internal memo, offical announcement, etc.)

Main thing is, this EA LA guy has NOTHING to do with ME3, and the only source of concete info we can use as varifible source is from Bioware proper (and NO, Twitter DO NOT count, saying twitter is a reliable source is like saying Kim Kardiashian's body parts are "Natural" and not artifical). Just wait until Pax East and we will see what happen.

[Gigamantis]

Captain Arty wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Also, the precedent it sets is for boring formulaic games that try not to upset anyone.  That's fine in the short term but gets boring really fast.  Any company that wants to have any kind of future needs to let the creative people be creative.  That means that while they can acknowledge their uncreative fans they still need to let the actual creative people work uninhibited.

We don't want a formulaic ending or a predictable one. I think you are confusing this bad nonsensical ending for a creative one.

A dark ending, or a confusing one, or an open-ended one does not make it creative, artistic, or good. A good, creative ending is original while satisfying the plot and theme of the story. It can be happy, or sad, or in the case of Mass Effect, it could have been both.

Star Wars had a good ending, but so did Saving Private Ryan. Memento's ending was unexpected and original. The ending to Inception was left intentionally ambiguous. All of these made sense. There were no real logical failures and they all fit the theme of the story they told.

An ending being dark, confusing or open-ended doesn't make it bad either.  I feel like I understand what the developers were going for.  They wanted you to feel alone, lost and helpless in what was a bleak and depressing end to the world.  They presented that beautifully.  It was a good ending. 

I guess they learned that RPG gamers are probably a little young to appreciate or deal with experiencing a bleak and hopeless, open-ended conclusion.  I guess it's a lesson learned, but I don't want them deconstructing this masterpiece over it.  They can make their next game for people who can't handle heavy handed themes and open-ended structure I guess.  I'll probably skip that one, though.  

[Vaktathi]

Gigamantis wrote...

They make retroactive changes when they want to, not when they honestly don't want to but are forced. 

A lot of artists do sell out as well, though, because they're not confident enough in their ideas and talent to stand by them.  Those artists always end up being crap. 

Or because they realize their current material is either crap itself or it's not what people want to care about.

Sticking to your guns doesn't always lead to great things. As often as not, if note moreso, it leads to being forgotten and left to rot.


I can be the greatest artist in the world. If I don't paint what people want to look at, I'm not eating and my abilities and works aren't getting noticed. If I paint something that honks people off, and not in the "deep artistic way" or "socially meaningful" way, but a "that's annoying/why do I care?" way, that's not good art.


There's not a whole lot original about this ending we got stuck with, or particularly variable. It's a re-cut of a 12 year old games ending, except when DeusEx did it, each color choice actually ended significantly differently.


Huge numbers of people don't have an issue with a dark/grim/etc ending. I expected Shepard to die. What I didn't expect was a hamfisted, poorly done remake of a game I played when Clinton was still in office that felt thrown together 12 minutes before the disks got pressed and shipped with some stupid starchild that fit the game about as well as forcing on Warhammer 40,000 Orks would have using very bad circular logic to justify an enemy previously described as "unfathomable".

Modifié par Vaktathi, 03 avril 2012 - 07:18 .

[Dagger]

Coversations after the PAX east should be rather intresting.  Can't wait.

[Kitedtk]

Giga... this is like the fifth time i'm asking you to stop belittling people... if we want variety and for our choices to actually matter it doesn't mean we can't deal with bleak endings or hopeless ones... it just means we want variety and for our choices to matter... Open ended does not mean good...

also the main beef i have with the ending is how it breaks the flow... until this entire moment we've had the choices, we've had influence, we've had pacing and by god we've had pressure... but at the end... we aren't fighting for a victory... we're given three options by some apparently near omnipotent entity... this isn't interesting or satisfying in any way... we have no means of expressing what we've accomplished... the entities motivation are meaningless especially the synthetic killing organics junk... ((see quarian/geth peace and EDI/Joker relationship))
that's what the real issue with the ending is... it completely breaks the rest of the game... in so many ways...

[Gigamantis]

Captain Arty wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...
A lot of artists do sell out as well, though, because they're not confident enough in their ideas and talent to stand by them.  Those artists always end up being crap. 

That's not always true either. Sometimes feedback from editors and focus groups drastically improves endings even when the artist doesn't want to change their work.

This is whole reason for having editors.

The goal of focus groups is to water down the creative process for the masses.  It's a big part of the reason I've seen the same exact comedy movie over 1000 times only with different names.  It promotes homogeniety and I understand why it's necessary but I don't really like it. 

[Myrmedus]

Gigamantis wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

Then you're definitely not an artist and have absolutely no idea what creating art is about.

Anyone
who has actually worked their ass off producing and improving their art
would know that an integral part of it is having to chop and change it.
Any artist who sits there and says "My art is simply too good for you
philistines" is a crap artist trying to hide their ineptitude behind
superiority because they never would've developed as an artist in the
first place. Noone gets popped out of their mother's womb able to
produce masterpieces. It is a long, drawn out process of improving,
critiquing, being criticized, making amendments, improving, critiquing
etc.

There's a reason they say to be a good artist you need to
have thick skin: this is why. And noone, no matter how good, is above
the criticism that comes with the production of art - noone on this
planet can ever say "I don't have more to learn" or "I can't improve my
work."

Artists make retroactive changes to works all the time,
and they incorporate any criticism they've taken into future works as
well, it's what is required to improve and be as good as you can be in
art. Why? Because art is not produced in a vacuum. If alot of people
think what you produced is crap, in the art world, it is crap.

If you'd been paying attention at all you would know this isn't about integrating criticism into future art, it's about completely abandoning your vision because you're bullied out of it.  RPG players can't handle sad endings.  RPG players don't like open-ended themes.  Great notes for future development, but that doesn't mean you get to tear down and recreate a painting that's already finished.  

Clearly you didn't read my post - let me point it out to you again:

Artists make retroactive changes to works all the time,
and they incorporate any criticism they've taken into future works as
well, it's what is required to improve and be as good as you can be in
art.

Artists make retroactive changes to works all the time,

and they incorporate any criticism they've taken into future works as

well

Artists make retroactive changes to works all the time

retroactive changes

And apparently I'm the one not paying attention

They make retroactive changes when they want to, not when they honestly don't want to but are forced. 

A lot of artists do sell out as well, though, because they're not confident enough in their ideas and talent to stand by them.  Those artists always end up being crap. 

The only reason BW don't -want- to is because of money, let's be honest. There is a point where hard-headed obstinance should take a backseat to doing the logical, right thing. A point where you have to let your defenses down and just put your hands up and say "Ok, maybe we ****ed up, we'll look into it." Honestly, as an artist, if you receive this much of a backlash something will tick in the back of your mind about the work you produced - if a person is as stubborn and apparently unyielding as BW about their "artistic integrity" in the face of such criticism it's just defensive behaviour and not indicative of real confidence.

That isn't to say they'll automatically think "Oh my God, it really was terrible!" - but part of being a good artist is to take a look at what you've done again if it receives such wide-spread criticism. The reason why is because your entire viewpoint changes when you are working on something for a long period of time. If you are actually an artist then maybe you know what I'm talking about, and if you're not then it's hard to describe: there's a reason painters (for example) take "breaks" during the production of an image - extended periods of time away from their painting before coming back to it. It's because when you're actively working on a piece of art, be it visual or literary (or both in the case of a video-game), you start to become obsessed with the micro-level which automatically desensitizes you to the macro-level. It's not conscious, you don't even realise it while working, and you can develop some techniques to help with it to a degree through experience but it's never something you can truly stop. A saying that describes this is: "Not able to see the wood for the trees."

Why is this relevant? Because viewers are always able to see the macro-level immediately, which means alot of the time they'll see something you missed. I think BW was guilty of this - getting sucked into the micro-level - in the production of the ending. And I also think they had time restraints so weren't able to take a "break" away from their work so they could come back and look at it on a macro-level. How this fits into the story is things about the ending that cause problems with the story of the series as a whole (macro) whereas they may have worked - in their eyes - on a micro-level (the Catalyst conversion itself or the awesome scene rushing to the Conduit etc.)

Because of that I honestly believe you should - as an artist - take such level and ferocity of criticism seriously, especially from fans. Fans, by definition, will not be doing this in spite or because they're trolls or hate the company: it will be genuine. And if there are this many individuals genuinely at odds with what you've produced then it's quite possible there is something amiss.

Just one note: I sincerely hope your second sentence is not a follow on from your first: ie. insinuating that artists that change their works, even if they want to, all sell out - not saying it is but I'm not sure if you meant that or not. If you did then apparently Leonardo Da Vinci was a crap artist. If you didn't mean that then fair enough.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 03 avril 2012 - 07:24 .

[ratzerman]

Awww yeah, I can't wait for my explanation DLC!

Page after page of text epilogues written by an intern, explaining how Joker and Liara eventually got over their differences, fell in love, and made the jungle their home.

Do you think they'll hire a third tier artist from Dark Horse to draw an emaciated Garrus, crazy from starvation, eating his own foot?

This is gonna be so epic. Thanks for listening to your fans, Bioware!

[clarkusdarkus]

here comes the pain....... bottom line is, we'll smell what there cooking at PAX, fool me once with DA2, shame on you...fool me twice with ME3 then holla holla playah, shame on me..... but in all seriousness, PAX will be interesting so we'll see there plans.

[Gigamantis]

Giga... this is like the fifth time i'm asking you to stop belittling people... if we want variety and for our choices to actually matter it doesn't mean we can't deal with bleak endings or hopeless ones... it just means we want variety and for our choices to matter... Open ended does not mean good...

I'm not insulting anyone so quit rambling about that.

Open ended can definitely mean good as well, but some people obviously don't like that kind of story telling. It doesn't mean it's not possible to have good open-ended elements in a story. The ME3 ending was a good one and I've explained why many times on these forums.