138 réponses à ce sujet

[abaris]

macrocarl wrote...

Even if you don't believe in IT, can we at least agree to wait until we see the final clips  that BW's adding? It's like everyone on BSN got automatically super mad.

I don't buy indoc. Well, I might buy it as something that stopped halfway before being finished because the big bad bean counter threatened to lock up the money machine.

And that's but one of the reasons why I don't buy art.

Art in itself can be anything and everything as Andy Warhol has demonstrated. It may even have it's place in videogaming. But it sure is an unfortunate accident if some team member of a million dollar production goes postal with his vision, and takes the easy way out of an acclaimed series. If there ever was a vision and not a serious case of having to make too many ends meet in too little time.

Oh well, and I'm ready to wait. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Tirigon]

Dead Parrot wrote...

macrocarl wrote...

@ Dead Parrot: Come on. That's silly (still) Funny, but totally inaccurate.

How is it inaccurate?

It is not.

[Habs25]

So funny, when censors or people complain that a game is too explicit in some way, you come up to defend it as art, but when you want something changed, you conveniently forget that it is art, and not even your creation.

[Ailith Tycane]

Just because something is "art" doesn't mean it is suddenly immune to criticism or any sort of objective reasoning.

Making art isn't magical, it's not something that only savants do, it's a long process, full of reiteration, hard work and practice, like pretty much any other medium, or career.

[abaris]

Habs25 wrote...

So funny, when censors or people complain that a game is too explicit in some way, you come up to defend it as art, but when you want something changed, you conveniently forget that it is art, and not even your creation.

I can't remember anyone playing the art card when it comes to explicity. Not that ME3 was explicit in any way, but seriously.

Maybe the companies are doing it out of the same reasons why they do it now - out of self defense.

[Artemis_Entrari]

The Razman wrote...

"Artistic integrity" means that you don't create your works for other people. You can sell them, sure ... but for anything to have artistic integrity, it has to come from you and your exploration of ideas and stories, and not from your desire to please a majority or sell more of the product or anything. Example: Britney Spears has no artistic integrity because her music exists merely to please the mainstream, while Johnny Cash has artistic integrity because he created music because that's what he loved doing.

If Bioware changed their ending, they'd be compromising their artistic integrity by virtue of altering the nature of their story to fit what the mainstream want, rather than letting it stand as the story they wanted to tell and letting it be judged upon that standard. I don't support the destruction of artistic integrity for any reason.

Re: the bolded.

And that's exactly what they did.  They can't claim artistic integrity now when they changed their vision based on trying to appease the CoD crowd.  They didn't change the focus from ME1's more stat-based combat to ME3's full on shooter combat because it was their "vision" from the start.  They did it to cater to the shooter crowd they hoped to entice (there was a quote about that very thing).

See, that's the problem with this artistic integrity defense.  It seems to only apply to the ending of the game where people defend it saying "they shouldn't cater to fans", yet pretty much all the changes that have gone on in their games (including DA2) was to cater to fans.  MP?  Shooter game?  Those weren't part of their vision when they began ME1.  Those came later when they realized that to get more sales, they had to cater to the shooter/MP crowd.

If BioWare truly wanted to hide behind artistic integrity, then they would have never added MP and they would have stuck with their ME1 combat system, rather than give in to market demand for shooters and MP function.  They lost all right to hide behind artistic integrity when they made changes in order to appease a certain kind of gamer (ie. the CoD crowd).

[Sherbet Lemon]

 I'm not fond of the term, "artistic integrity" because when wielded against someone, it is difficult to argue with.  The truth of the artist is certainly theirs to offer, but if it is placed under any form of criticism, it becomes a shield with which to batter someone.  You can't argue with someone's truth; you can't disagree with them.  There is a truth in personal art that should NEVER be taken away.

I prefer the term "artistic vision" because that you can CRITIQUE.  You can talk about what made the vision effective or ineffective, why one thing works or why another did not.

Video games are entertainment and they are also meant for mass consumption.  That doesn't mean that they are also not art, but they differ from a painting where someone is invited to share the personal vision of an artist, or a novel where the very notion of sending out the body of literature provokes the sense that the work in a sense no longer belongs to them.  Using the term "artistic integrity" irresponsibily and with out context devalues the art, the meaning, and the vision.  It's the vision that people are unhappy with.  This distinction is important.  The fact that a game is meant for mass entertainment (commercial art) complicates things a bit.

Modifié par Village Idiot, 05 avril 2012 - 08:30 .

[Hjernespreng]

Uzzy wrote...

To be fair, Bioware have always stuck up for the artistic integrity of their work. I recall the whole fan reaction to the novel, Mass Effect: Deception, and how despite the numerous flaws and overwhelming negative response to the book, Bioware stuck to their guns and defended the artistic integrity of the work. William C. Dietz is an artist, don't you know.

To be fair though, that's a novel. Changing that is a lot harder then changing a video game. Can't just send out DLC and patches for a novel!

Simple: You re-release the novel.
The novels are considered canon, yet the novel OVERWHELMINGLY flies in the face of established lore and facts.
So the novel flied in the face of any concept of "artistic integrity". So what the heck are you even talking about?

[Ianamus]

It's the stupidest "excuse" I've ever heard for their rubbish ending and I sorely wish IGN had never conjured up the word, thus allowing Bioware to latch onto it as their excuse. 

I've said it before and I'll say it a thousand times if I have to:

Bioware have no right to claim any form of "Artistic integrity" after shoehorning Diana Allers into the game!

Modifié par EJ107, 05 avril 2012 - 08:16 .

[Zujiro]

macrocarl wrote...

KayB1991 wrote...

macrocarl wrote...


...What were you expecting?

well more or less something along the lines of the top picture



as you can see, the top picture depcits differing end points based on choices you can make from the previous games, which would lead to differing outcomes. The bottom is an indication of what really occurs, where despite all of the choices you make they are thrown out of the window in favor of palette swap explosions. I was expecting and hoping for the first one only to get stuck with the second 

Nice charts. But even if you think that all the choices didn't matter a bit in the end, there's 16 variations. And even if you say 'Well those 16 aren't varied enough' (which is legit) you still can't ignore there are 3.

ALL three are instigated by the Catalyst - a bad plot device and a bad idea in general. ALL three involve the relays being destroyed. ALL thrre other than perfect end sacrifice Shepard. This is not variety. This is the same crap sprinkled with different flavours of shavings. If you look behind the pathetically thin crust - you begin to see the crap underneath with is same for all endings.

[macrocarl]

@ Zujiro: Well, OK. While I do see your point, maybe once the clarification comes out there will be more variation. I mean, DAO had a couple endings proper you could do and then it was a slide show. I think BW is pretty much done with the slide show but what if after the 3 choices thing you got to see more cinematics that call back and jive with choices you've made? I'd be happy. I mean Tuchunka or whatever and the stuff revolving around that was some tight stuff. There's no reason the free DLC coming out this summer will be that bad, yeah?

Edit: Finally home and drinking wine. Sorry for the crappy word smithing.

Modifié par macrocarl, 06 avril 2012 - 12:40 .

[kingtigernz]

It's complete BS,you lose all "artist integrity"when you contradict the lore and narrative cohesion in my opinion.

[DBZMagus]

Videogames are not art. They are mass produced commercial products. They are games, not works of art.

Fans complained about the Mako, so Bioware removed it. We also hated planet scanning so they changed it. We complained about the lack of weapon mods in 2, so they brought it back in 3 with major improvements. IGN is a major reviewer so they hired a member of their staff to voice a character even though she's not a professional voice actress, thus ensuring a great review (9.5 - "Amazing!").

They've been making changes every step of the way to appease the fans and/or make more money. Therefore by their own standards, even if you do consider videogames to be art, they have no artistic integrity.

[Suikoden]

DBZMagus wrote...

Videogames are not art. They are mass produced commercial products. They are games, not works of art.

Fans complained about the Mako, so Bioware removed it. We also hated planet scanning so they changed it. We complained about the lack of weapon mods in 2, so they brought it back in 3 with major improvements. IGN is a major reviewer so they hired a member of their staff to voice a character even though she's not a professional voice actress, thus ensuring a great review (9.5 - "Amazing!").

They've been making changes every step of the way to appease the fans and/or make more money. Therefore by their own standards, even if you do consider videogames to be art, they have no artistic integrity.

None of these changes were made to a game after it was released - they were made to sequals in the series.  I'm not sure how you can't see them as works of art.  If Bioware invited you into their studios so you could see all of the concept and design art, storyboarding, etc - I doubt you'd say that what they're doing isn't art.  People just see the final outcome without looking at all of it's consisting parts.  They play it for 20 hours, decide they don't like the last 5 minutes, and then demean the entire experience.  "Artistic Integrity" is just another term people don't fully understand, and it's therefore easy to twist the meaning of it to suit one's entitled and selfish projections onto the product as a whole.

And IGN isn't the only review to give it a 9.5 - the game is getting universal acclaim.

[DBZMagus]

beutelmarkus wrote...

And IGN isn't the only review to give it a 9.5 - the game is getting universal acclaim.

Umm...no? Do you know what the word universal even means? Look it up. This game only gets acclaim by the major review sites that are paid by EA in the form of ad revenue. They have a clear conflict of interest and their reviews are not to be taken seriously. Feedback from actual customers and non-biased reviewers like Forbs has been far more harsh.

Not going to bother debating the art thing with you. I don't really care what you believe, so I'll agree to disagree.

[aberdash]

Of course bioware is going to hang on to "artistic integrity". It's the last bit of integrity they have left.

[Grey34]

using the "artistic integrity" etc nonsense is a blocking or shield move when your back is against the wall. it implies to me that they themselves are struggling to defend the ending if they can't at all.

[The Razman]

Artemis_Entrari wrote...

The Razman wrote...

"Artistic integrity" means that you don't create your works for other people. You can sell them, sure ... but for anything to have artistic integrity, it has to come from you and your exploration of ideas and stories, and not from your desire to please a majority or sell more of the product or anything. Example: Britney Spears has no artistic integrity because her music exists merely to please the mainstream, while Johnny Cash has artistic integrity because he created music because that's what he loved doing.

If Bioware changed their ending, they'd be compromising their artistic integrity by virtue of altering the nature of their story to fit what the mainstream want, rather than letting it stand as the story they wanted to tell and letting it be judged upon that standard. I don't support the destruction of artistic integrity for any reason.

Re: the bolded.

And that's exactly what they did.  They can't claim artistic integrity now when they changed their vision based on trying to appease the CoD crowd.  They didn't change the focus from ME1's more stat-based combat to ME3's full on shooter combat because it was their "vision" from the start.  They did it to cater to the shooter crowd they hoped to entice (there was a quote about that very thing).

See, that's the problem with this artistic integrity defense.  It seems to only apply to the ending of the game where people defend it saying "they shouldn't cater to fans", yet pretty much all the changes that have gone on in their games (including DA2) was to cater to fans.  MP?  Shooter game?  Those weren't part of their vision when they began ME1.  Those came later when they realized that to get more sales, they had to cater to the shooter/MP crowd.

If BioWare truly wanted to hide behind artistic integrity, then they would have never added MP and they would have stuck with their ME1 combat system, rather than give in to market demand for shooters and MP function.  They lost all right to hide behind artistic integrity when they made changes in order to appease a certain kind of gamer (ie. the CoD crowd).

Because games aren't art. Stories are art. Whenever you talk about artistic things in games, its only ever referring to the narratological aspects of them. The "game" part of games? That doesn't apply to any discussion on artistic integrity.

[Blacklash93]

As others have said, I find it funny how they are claiming artistic integrity when their entire process of game design involves fan feedback and fanservice.

[Zalbik]

Most art is crap to begin with.

[TRUTHMACHINE]

Benny8484 wrote...

They are using it as a scapegoat.  What they are really saying is "Theres no revenue generated from additional content & we would have to re-hire voice actors etc"

exactly my thoughts.

[USS Cushing]

The Razman wrote...

"Artistic integrity" means that you don't create your works for other people. You can sell them, sure ... but for anything to have artistic integrity, it has to come from you and your exploration of ideas and stories, and not from your desire to please a majority or sell more of the product or anything. Example: Britney Spears has no artistic integrity because her music exists merely to please the mainstream, while Johnny Cash has artistic integrity because he created music because that's what he loved doing.

If Bioware changed their ending, they'd be compromising their artistic integrity by virtue of altering the nature of their story to fit what the mainstream want, rather than letting it stand as the story they wanted to tell and letting it be judged upon that standard. I don't support the destruction of artistic integrity for any reason.

So did Sir Arthur Conan Doyle have no "artistic integrity" because he relented to the masses and brought back Sherlock Holmes after killing him off or Bethesda because they altered the ending to Fallout 3?  Sure Bioware can claim "Artistic integrity" and give a few more minutes of closing movies and give disgruntled fans some "closure" as bioware fervently hopes this soon to be released DLC will do to the Shepard part of Mass Effect but  "artistic integrity" is a two edged sword because if the public doesn't buy the product then Johnny Cash will be just another singer with a day job.

[JBONE27]

USS Cushing wrote...

The Razman wrote...

"Artistic integrity" means that you don't create your works for other people. You can sell them, sure ... but for anything to have artistic integrity, it has to come from you and your exploration of ideas and stories, and not from your desire to please a majority or sell more of the product or anything. Example: Britney Spears has no artistic integrity because her music exists merely to please the mainstream, while Johnny Cash has artistic integrity because he created music because that's what he loved doing.

If Bioware changed their ending, they'd be compromising their artistic integrity by virtue of altering the nature of their story to fit what the mainstream want, rather than letting it stand as the story they wanted to tell and letting it be judged upon that standard. I don't support the destruction of artistic integrity for any reason.

So did Sir Arthur Conan Doyle have no "artistic integrity" because he relented to the masses and brought back Sherlock Holmes after killing him off or Bethesda because they altered the ending to Fallout 3?  Sure Bioware can claim "Artistic integrity" and give a few more minutes of closing movies and give disgruntled fans some "closure" as bioware fervently hopes this soon to be released DLC will do to the Shepard part of Mass Effect but  "artistic integrity" is a two edged sword because if the public doesn't buy the product then Johnny Cash will be just another singer with a day job.

I have a few more.  Shakespeare for changing The Merchant of Vennice to something other than a bunch of Jewish jokes, Dickens for changing a wholly depressing ending to Great Expectations to one that was slightly more hopeful.  Kevin Smith for editing out the part of Clerks where Dante gets shot.  The creators of Where's Papa for not having George Segal's character have sex with his mother.  Celo Green for making a radio friendly verson of **** you.

Modifié par JBONE27, 06 avril 2012 - 02:00 .

[slimgrin]

If it's art, anything goes and you can't very well criticize it. Thought they would have come up with a more creative excuse myself.

Modifié par slimgrin, 06 avril 2012 - 02:05 .

[Mx_CN3]

What gets me is that, from what I've read/understand, BioWare already changed the endings once after the leak, due to bad reactions. How can they claim artistic integrity if that integrity was already compromised?