138 réponses à ce sujet

[Amioran]

Grammarye wrote...
Allow me to give you an example from the real business world. A little 3D CAD application that sells in the millions of dollars range called Revit released with a user interface overhaul a couple of years back. Fully two thirds of the userbase hated this overhaul. Support was drowning in complaints. They demanded change, in some cases change back to the way it was. Autodesk (the producer of Revit) listened, and made quite a number of changes. Was that userbase acting entitled? Was Autodesk giving in? Or was that simply a business listening to its customers and acting to preserve its sales?

I understand this perfectly but it's missing the point. I already explained that's obvious that many times some concessions must be made but another complete thing is pretending them.

The reality is that they did it because they listened to consumers and they wanted to do it, but they could have done the exact contrary and nobody could have said nothing at all about it and if they did then in this case it would have been "entitlement". Probably (and it is not said, many companies don't listen and yet they sell well no matter what) there would have been consequences from not listening but this doesn't change the matter at all.

The fact that a business company can decide to change things to please the fans to make it so that their product sells well it's all in their end, it is their decision anyway, a decision you have no word in. The entitlement resides on believing that in reality you have it just because you are a purchaser. That's not so.

Grammarye wrote...
It is that point you are missing. It's not about rights. It's not about entitlement. You are using those labels as a bludgeon to silence people, or suggest that they should be silent. Expressing an opinion and asking for change does not equate to a right, nor is it entitlement.

Asking for change or stating an opinion is not the same as pretending a change and pretending your opinion to be the only one. In this resides the entitlement, in the change of adjective and the way the "opinion" is formulated.

If people here would have just said "we think the end sucks" they had all the right to do so and if Bioware then, listening to them would have changed it, all good and fine. Another complete different thing is saying "the end sucks so Bioware MUST change it because we bought your product and we deserve it" and expecting Bioware to do it at all costs or they are a bad company. Tell me if this is not entitlement what it is.

Modifié par Amioran, 07 avril 2012 - 10:11 .

[Dave of Canada]

How does one's purpose for the product evaluate into lessening of one's standard of "art"?  Films like Titanic aren't any "less" art than Eraserhead, despite the largely different success of both.

The playwright may write a masterpiece trying to make it big, the filmmaker might create art while being funded by producers who want such a product. The product's goal is not what should classify "art", it should be the goal of the creators, who might be influenced by outside forces (which judging by ME3's endings, did not occur as any outside force would want more to milk ME, not less).

Many old things considered "art" nowadays were created by some people trying to get into a noble or some circle's favor, does that mean the significance behind the art is lost?

The consumer's rights does not entitle one to demand the creator abandon all concepts which they wished to explore in their product, one does not gain permission to demand that Limbo changes it's goals simply because it didn't please the consumer's ultimate goals.

Demanding exploration of the ending, more closure? See, that's fine. You're not asking the creator of the product to abandon their ideas, the reasons why they created the ending, they're perfectly capable of expanding upon everything, just like how many products considered art usually create some post-release epilogue film / novel which ties-in with the product.

However, fan entitlement when they demand that the creator abandons their dignity and throws themselves into the fire to satisfy them? That's too far, consumer rights does not entitle the right to demand the creator / artist change their product's intended goal to satisfy them.

Those clamoring for insanely happy endings and wanting a happily-ever after romance seek self satisfaction at the expense of the artist and their work, they hold themselves in a position as equals or superior to the creator. This is why "gamer entitlement" exist. "Artistic Integrity" is simply the artist defending themselves and their work.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 07 avril 2012 - 10:15 .

[HopHazzard]

Did they take some of our feedback into account? Yes. But they ignored a lot of it too. Co-authors get overruled sometimes. It happens.

It does but it's still in the ethical right to want changes to the story.

And again, no one has said you don't have the right to want bioware to change the story. They're just not required to give you what you want. Regardless of whether or not bioware has changed its products in reponse to fan criticism in the past, they're under no obligation  to do so now, if they don't want to. It's the fans' belief that they must do it that makes them seem entitled. 


Personally, the only thing I feel I'm entitled to is a functioning game disk, and that's what I got. Casey Hudson can call me a co-author as much as he wants, but until I get a royalty check, that's not actually true.

[He4vyMet4l]

Everything went to hell and stayed there as soon as the words art and videogames were sentenced together (See what I did there? hrr hrr).

The problem is that when you say art, people today (artists or not) think of it as 19th century art (or even further back). Even worse when you start to compare to renaissance.

Art today sucks because it has politics in it. Too much politics. Screw this art. It is not about the object itself, but what it means.

[The Razman]

MikoDoll wrote...

1. It's still a statement from Bioware. It still refelcts on the company and creates a legtimate basis for expectation as if the novels weren't enough (and I'm pretty sure I noted them).  Game developers lie in interviews yes, but if they didn't think anyone would buy into the lie they wouldn't be there doing interviews to promote the game in the first place. It simply would have no signifficance. When you lie the argument of integrity is not on your side.  Especially when those claims comprimise views on your authority as the sole creative force.  To say "well many lie" as I'm sure some will, doesn't make lying right.

2. As for a legal commitment? That is questionable, doubtful and to assert that I was saying they were legally liable is false. Ethically? Of course they wouldn't be ethically backed. I said they also are changing the books which again only encourages fans to think they can influence Bioware to change parts of the story if they voice their opinions. So it's not just a press statement, it's other things as well.

Oh for christ's sake.

You're acting as if one quote where a guy says "I think we've entered an era of co-creatorship", where he's espousing the virtues of incorporating player feedback into the creative process (something which so many developers do, I'll add) is some kind of expression of commitment to grant right of authorship to fans, or entitles fans to demand such. Which is utter garbage.

Put the quote down and leave it alone. You've taken it to mean what you want it to mean, and are holding Bioware to a ridiculous standard because of it.

[HopHazzard]

He4vyMet4l wrote...

Everything went to hell and stayed there as soon as the words art and videogames were sentenced together (See what I did there? hrr hrr).

The problem is that when you say art, people today (artists or not) think of it as 19th century art (or even further back). Even worse when you start to compare to renaissance.

Art today sucks because it has politics in it. Too much politics. Screw this art. It is not about the object itself, but what it means.

It's funny that you think renaissance art wasn't about politics.

[Ratham]

I am entitled, entitled to the product that was advertised and what I bought...

If I order a steak because its your current special, and you bring me a burger with dog poo ontop of it... Im entitled to my steak..

Modifié par Ratham, 07 avril 2012 - 10:38 .

[RukiaKuchki]

That was a very interesting, thought provoking opening post. However, I think the entitlement issue is getting rather muddled. The demand by some sectors of the ME fanbase for changes to the ending of ME3 is not an issue of entitlement, moreover it is one of percieved ownership. I will try to explain my point of view. 

When one releases any form of entertainment media out into the general public - be it music, books, film, games, lithographs etc - you as the consumer have no creative ownership of the material produced. You essentially have purchased permission to listen/read/watch/play/observe the content (obviously laws vary country by country, and how people adhere to those laws varies from person to person!). Once material is released into a public forum, the public can indulge, abstain or criticise in whatever way they choose. What has happened with ME3 is both incredibly bizarre and largely unprecedented in the gaming world. People have indulged in the ME world to such a degree that they are incredibly passionate about it, they understand the characters, they have pored over the details in the codex, they have carefully crafted their character's personality etc. Consequently, people have started to believe that it is infact their own creation. As personalised as your character is, all of the dialogue that is spoken has been written by someone else. All of the potential outcomes have been written by someone else. All of the character's visual traits have been designed by someone else. All of the characters vocal intonations have been produced by someone else. Ultimately, it is not our creation, it is merely something that we interact with. This to me is the reason that although I wasn't satisifed with the endings, I found the 'Retake Mass Effect' movement so offensive. You cannot 'retake' Mass Effect because it was never yours to begin with and it has not been taken from you. It's a horribly arrogant, ignorant and misguided movement.

Now, as to whether or not people liked the ending, and thought it was 'good' is again not relevent. The question is why do some people feel they have the right to demand (sometimes using offensive or threatening language) the creators to change their own creation to something to fit their own specific ideals, when they could simply say 'I really don't like it', 'it doesn't do what it promised' and walk away disappointed. The simple retort is they don't have the right, legally (again, you have no ownership) or morally (you are merely interacting with something that you have not created, and who is to say what you think is the right way to end the trilogy is the same as what another person thinks is right?). But - it is the immense passion people have for the ME universe that makes them believe what they are doing is okay. Of course the creator can modify their creation to better fit the expectations of those who will indulge in their product (as Bioware is now doing), but they are under no obligation to do this. Fallout 3 is commonly referred to as an example of the developers changing the ending of a game due to consumer criticism. This is a widely held misunderstanding on this forum, and this was not the case at all (even if the end was rather bad!). It was purely a financial consideration because the DLC would not work without a serious retro-fit.

Now the upside to this hysteria is that finally a mature video game has crossed over into the general public arena instead of more specialist publications. Unfortunately gamers have not portrayed themselves for the best in this issue, but finally the non-gaming public is able to catch a glimpse of the gaming world and see the passion and dedication behind it.

Modifié par RukiaKuchki, 07 avril 2012 - 10:46 .

[SalsaDMA]

Xoahr wrote...

AJRimmsey wrote...

read op

yet another

I don't frankly see how it is 'dramatic'. From Wiktionary, a drama queen is: Any exaggeratedly dramatic person, especially female or gay man.

I would say this is the opposite of dramatic. It's a rational, calm, academic look at certain things that have been said.

I actually thought it funny to read his post in a roundabout way, given that his post was made in a way more dramatic way than yours. (the picture of the crying princess really was top notch drama)

So he was merely stating his own contribution to the thread, rather than commenting on you

[HopHazzard]

Ratham wrote...

I am entitled, entitled to the product that was advertised and what I bought...

If I order a steak because its your current special, and you bring me a burger with dog poo ontop of it... Im entitled to my steak..

That's not what happend though. You got your steak, you just didn't like the way they spiced it.

[SalsaDMA]

Dridengx wrote...

Xoahr wrote...

As I have previously mentioned, in the UK, under your consumer rights, you can demand the product which was advertised.

really now? I recall hearing the last few weeks that Gamestation and other stores in the UK were denying returns, how could that be if your consumer rights say you can?

It's no news that business wil try to get away with anything they can. To give an example: In my country there is clearly written in the law that you may not charge different prices based on gender, yet nightclubs do this all the time. Ocasionally someone gets pissed enough and sues them for it, and they get fined. It doesn't stop the businesses from continuing breaking the law, though, as they just keep doing it anyway.

I consider your example on par with my example.

[TheGreenAlloy]

HopHazzard wrote...

Ratham wrote...

I am entitled, entitled to the product that was advertised and what I bought...

If I order a steak because its your current special, and you bring me a burger with dog poo ontop of it... Im entitled to my steak..

That's not what happend though. You got your steak, you just didn't like the way they spiced it.

They told him they wouldn't spice it like that, and they didn't spice it like that the last times he bought it.

[SalsaDMA]

The Razman wrote...

Xoahr wrote...

Amioran wrote...

Xoahr wrote...
Their work is theirs, sure. But so is the work that my neighbour just did, fixing my boiler. Now, if my boiler broke, I'd demand a refund from him, or to fix it again.

That's a defective product, it's another thing.

If the artist for example sells a painting that deteriorates because the background was not well fixed on the canvas in this case the commissioner has all the right to have it changed or redone. But this is about a defect in the way the product is made, on the execution, not on the "artistic" side of it. They are two separate concepts.

The former is tied to execution only (as technique, method of work, etc.), the other abides to many other parameters that are not only formed by "mechanical" parameters. This is the difference.

You seem to have ignored the part where I mentioned the idea of interior decoration, however.

How about if an artist sold a painting which he promised was 'a beautiful puppy' in watercolours and instead you received a crayon sketch of an ugly duck, and when questioned, he merely blathered on about artistic vision, and how your subjectivity is blinding you. Could you request him to paint you the beautiful puppy picture? Is that a defect in the artwork, or the artist, or the consumer? Surely the 'artistic' side there is deeply flawed.

Regardless of how you perceive art, you will find many mechanical parameters within it. Even surrealist art abides by certain laws. This, however, isn't the issue. We're debating entitlement. Do I deserve an ugly duck crayon sketch, or a beautiful puppy watercolour, if I was promised the puppy?

Surely, surely, anybody who's going to weigh in on an argument about artistic value would know the difference between a narrative artistic work and a visual piece of artwork before bothering to say anything?

You can't go to a movie, buy a book or play a video-game which is advertised as being "the best thing you'll ever see!!!" and then try and sue the creators or demand your money back when it isn't the best thing you ever saw. You can't claim false advertising for hype and embellishment on narrative artworks.

There's a clear difference between stating a vague subjective term like "best ever" and then concrete objective facts like all the stuff they said the game would specifically contain, or not contain (depending on the exact sentences pulled forth. HEavens knows there are lots of them and plenty of posts listing them already).

You know this. I know this. You're just trying to deflect the argument.

[Dave of Canada]

Ratham wrote...

If I order a steak because its your current special, and you bring me a burger with dog poo ontop of it... Im entitled to my steak..

You bought Mass Effect 3.
It had Shepard, Garrus, Liara and all the gang in it.
It advertised stopping the Reapers.
You stopped the Reapers.

You didn't buy Mass Effect 3 and got something else instead.

[TomY90]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Ratham wrote...

If I order a steak because its your current special, and you bring me a burger with dog poo ontop of it... Im entitled to my steak..

You bought Mass Effect 3.
It had Shepard, Garrus, Liara and all the gang in it.
It advertised stopping the Reapers.
You stopped the Reapers.

You didn't buy Mass Effect 3 and got something else instead.

its more about what EA/Bioware promised since ME1 about what to expect from ME3 which was our decisions have consequences and there is many endings

which in reality our decisions had little to no effect and there is just 3 endings that are the same just different coloured explosions.

Modifié par TomY90, 07 avril 2012 - 10:53 .

[78stonewobble]

Well it could be about "consumer rights" but it could also be about the artist wanting external input to make his art better than he alone would be able to make it.

[MikoDoll]

The Razman wrote...

Oh for christ's sake.

You're acting as if one quote where a guy says "I think we've entered an era of co-creatorship", where he's espousing the virtues of incorporating player feedback into the creative process (something which so many developers do, I'll add) is some kind of expression of commitment to grant right of authorship to fans, or entitles fans to demand such. Which is utter garbage.

No it's not utter garbage. A lie is a lie. a lie being common doesn't mean it's not a lie nor that lying is good. they are not ethically conveying integrity when they communicate something to the press with the obvious intention someone will believe it and buy the game  upon reading it and then communicate something else. A widespread unethical practice doesn't make it ethical. I fail to see how you've gotten past this. Just saying "it's garbage" is not an adequate refutation. You also convneniently overlook that they did just that (change parts of the story) for the novels when fans complained.

Put the quote down and leave it alone. You've taken it to mean what you want it to mean,

I'm sorry but they said we're co creators and then said they were going to change the books.  I feel no problem when discussing integrity Bioware keeping to their word. Lying isn't good because other people do it. Unethical behavior doesn't become ethical because unethical behavior is a common practice in a certain industry.

and are holding Bioware to a ridiculous standard because of it.

I'm only holding Bioware to a standard they said I could. If they don't like it, they shouldn't lie. They shouldn't act/argue from the position of integrity when lying and hoping someone will buy your comments is not ethical to warrant such an argument. The quote was also supplemented by their actions towards the novels.

Modifié par MikoDoll, 07 avril 2012 - 11:18 .

[Xoahr]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Ratham wrote...

If I order a steak because its your current special, and you bring me a burger with dog poo ontop of it... Im entitled to my steak..

You bought Mass Effect 3.
It had Shepard, Garrus, Liara and all the gang in it.
It advertised stopping the Reapers.
You stopped the Reapers.

You didn't buy Mass Effect 3 and got something else instead.

It also advertised endings that weren't "A, B or C" and I believe, 16 is the number they gave. I believe the website still proudly boasts 'your actions change your ending!' or something similar. Technically, my actions did change my ending (as I chose an ending through my actions), but it's ultimately disappointing when the only major change was the colour of the explosion (cosmetically) and that no thought was given to the coherence - the conclusion makes no sense.

[SalsaDMA]

HopHazzard wrote...

Ratham wrote...

I am entitled, entitled to the product that was advertised and what I bought...

If I order a steak because its your current special, and you bring me a burger with dog poo ontop of it... Im entitled to my steak..

That's not what happend though. You got your steak, you just didn't like the way they spiced it.

When I order my steak well done and they give me one that is rare, you can bet I demand that I get one that is well done instead. I've yet to experience a resturant refusing because of "artistic integrity".

[foo man chew]

AJRimmsey wrote...

MikoDoll wrote...

You're not entitled to expect that the company will change the product.

again in case you guys seem to be missing it:



"CH: Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with the fans. We use a lot of feedback."

Again Bioware responded to fans that they'd revised the books to fill in plotholes etc. They then said fans were co-creators. But then the exact opposite is communicated and fans are too "entitled" for taking Bioware up on that to some people?

only to the gullible who believe pre release twaddle.

games companys have been lying through thier teeth for years,its nothing new.

you would have to be a bubble person to have believed ANY hype from anyone in the last 4 years.

Only the gullible ride a companys jock like they actually care about them.Try harder fanboy.

[HopHazzard]

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

HopHazzard wrote...

Ratham wrote...

I am entitled, entitled to the product that was advertised and what I bought...

If I order a steak because its your current special, and you bring me a burger with dog poo ontop of it... Im entitled to my steak..

That's not what happend though. You got your steak, you just didn't like the way they spiced it.

They told him they wouldn't spice it like that, and they didn't spice it like that the last times he bought it.

That's a matter of individual taste. I ordered the very same steak and it tasted exactly the same as the last one they sold me.

[HopHazzard]

SalsaDMA wrote...

HopHazzard wrote...

Ratham wrote...

I am entitled, entitled to the product that was advertised and what I bought...

If I order a steak because its your current special, and you bring me a burger with dog poo ontop of it... Im entitled to my steak..

That's not what happend though. You got your steak, you just didn't like the way they spiced it.

When I order my steak well done and they give me one that is rare, you can bet I demand that I get one that is well done instead. I've yet to experience a resturant refusing because of "artistic integrity".

I didn't say anything about the way they cooked it. And you're stretching the metaphor.

[MikoDoll]

The question is why do some people feel they have the right to demand (sometimes using offensive or threatening language) the creators to change their own creation to something to fit their own specific ideals, when they could simply say 'I really don't like it', 'it doesn't do what it promised' and walk away disappointed.

because:

GB: So are you guys the creators or the stewards of the franchise?
CH: Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with the fans. We use a lot of feedback.

and then there's the fact that they said they were going to change the novel after fan complaints:

Mass Effect fans have been asking for a comment on recent concerns over
Mass Effect: Deception. We have been listening and have the below
response on the issue.

The teams at Del Rey and BioWare would
like to extend our sincerest apologies to the Mass Effect fans for any
errors and oversights made in the recent novel Mass Effect: Deception. 
We are currently working on a number of changes that will appear in
future editions of the novel. 

We would like to thank all Mass
Effect fans for their passion and dedication to this ever-growing world,
and assure them that we are listening and taking this matter very
seriously.

Your argument relies heavily on the idea Bioware didn't encourage fans to feel as though they had a say in the creative direction of the series when they did. Threatening Bioware with harm is a stretch (not that I saw that myself though), but heated discourse is to be expected if you lied about something like that. Basically the most I'm getting from people supporting them is that it's okay that they lied because lying is common. Again how do you argue integrity if you lied?

Modifié par MikoDoll, 07 avril 2012 - 11:17 .

[Acidrain92]

Xoahr wrote...
This new DLC that BioWare has announced will not 'fix' the ending. It will not address the gaping plot holes, or keep the Shepard you created in character. Ultimately, no major changes will occur from it.

can I borrow your time machine? I made a lot of mistakes in highschool that I wish to correct.

[Xoahr]

Acidrain92 wrote...

Xoahr wrote...
This new DLC that BioWare has announced will not 'fix' the ending. It will not address the gaping plot holes, or keep the Shepard you created in character. Ultimately, no major changes will occur from it.

can I borrow your time machine? I made a lot of mistakes in highschool that I wish to correct.

It's a gesture, nothing more. There will be nothing truly interesting or insightful from it. It's silly to think they'd really go to an effort to appease the fanbase even though they haven't even yet said 'sorry'. I just think back to when Deus Ex or Fallout made mistakes... They handled it so much more graceful. Deus Ex producers gave a humble apology, Fallout 3 released free DLC that changed the ending. 

You don't need a time machine when you can analyse.