138 réponses à ce sujet

[Acidrain92]

Xoahr wrote...

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.

you mean you dont need a time machine when you can speculate. When you are caught holding a gun over the dead body of someone, you dont apologize before you can explain why the gun was in your hand in the first place.

[Scott2998]

MikoDoll wrote...

Simple. An artist has always the last word, no matter what. S/He can make compromises but cannot be forced to adhere to them, no matter what.

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.

...


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

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

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

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

We were hailed as co-creators which infers (especially since they said they took a LOT of our feed back) that we have a creative say just as they do. Regardless of what you feel, Bioware still bears fault in encouraging it's fanbase to think they were co-creators of the story.

They did listen to feedback. Just because some of that feedback was not used and/or did not influence the divisions made by Bioware in no way means you were lied to. 

Modifié par Scott2998, 08 avril 2012 - 12:18 .

[MikoDoll]

They did listen to feedback.

At most they have "heard the fans out." Many could argue they're not actually listening to what bothered fans. According to Bioware:

For fans who want more closure in Mass Effect 3, the DLC will offer
extended scenes that provide additional context and deeper insight to
the conclusion of Commander Shepard’s journey.

Again this isn't going to change the major plotholes in the story, and any of the endings that possibly relied on them. This is going to provide extra content as to how Shepard's journey ends. Is it too much to ask for the story to be changed and the lore cleaned up? If So why did they listen to fans and say they're going to change the novels.

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.

So suddenly when it's a game they can't change content in it because of "artistic integrity" and asserting that they are the only authors of the franchise. Meanwhile they communicate the exact opposite in their response to the novels and in their press releases.  Give at least some of the blame to Bioware for making the situation they are in.  The principle that is missed that they communicated it was beyond "their" art previously which would nullify such an argument. Without it they don't have any basis not to clean up the lore and provide endings.

To behave as though the fans suddenly shouldn't be held to "co-author" status and that the story is strictly theirs to direct would've made the previous statement a lie hence why I said "lie." If an author you worked with heard out your objections, published something anyway and had the legal rights, you may not legally be able to do anything but you'd have a reason to be upset, to voice your discontent.

Modifié par MikoDoll, 08 avril 2012 - 12:36 .

[Gatt9]

Amioran wrote...

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.

Your assertions seem to be missing the part where Bioware frequently and expressly stated we would get something different than what was delivered,  that gamers could not know prior to purchase that they had failed to deliver their promises,  and that it is significant enough that many would have made a completely different purchasing decision.

But I'm sure that was just an oversight,  you didn't really intend to leave out the whole problem people are upset about and try to pretend they just wanted a change without reason,  did you?

[CyberMiguel]

Gamers are not entitled. Gamers purchase a game, and with that purchase a gamer is entitled to consumer rights. It is the equivalent of purchasing a Louis Vuitton handbag, only to discover it is just a leather handbag - a nice one, but not worth the £3995 you just spent. You can return it, and get a refund, without being entitled, because your consumer rights are protected by one rule, which is nearly universal in every country in the western world: When you buy an item from a trader (eg a shop or online shop) the law says the item must be: as described – match the description on packaging or what the trader told you.

People are arguing that the gamer is entitled for demanding change to something they purchased, which did not match what they were told they would get. This 'sense of entitlement' these gamers have is not just an entitlement. Yes, they are entitled, but they are entitled through their consumer rights. It is not perjorative. Ultimately, as a last example, when Fallout 3 came out, there were many complaints about the ending - so much so, that Bethesda fixed it with DLC. There were no complaints about entitlement then.

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. The gamers who are acting entitled, like spoilt little brats, are the complete opposite. They are the responsible consumer. 

THIS!!!! ^  A million times this!!! 

There have been countless threads where they state all the statements made by Casey Hudson, Mike Gamble and Bioware people about how Mass Effect 3 would be and how the ending would be. Are we not as customers entitled to complain about a product that does not meet the description made by the manufacturer/producer? 

People should be more responsible with their products...and I mean ALL of them: TVs, clothes, food, etc. At least I am and I complain when a product has false advertisement. 

[chimpdaddy121]

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?

not sure if anyone has pulled you up on this, but that was misleading in the finest, gamestation in the last few weeks couldnt, the main reason is administration. if Game did not go into administration then you can bet all the money in the world there would have been returns.

[Xoahr]

Acidrain92 wrote...

Xoahr wrote...

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.

you mean you dont need a time machine when you can speculate. When you are caught holding a gun over the dead body of someone, you dont apologize before you can explain why the gun was in your hand in the first place.

I've never shot anyone, so I wouldn't be able to tell. What I can tell, is judging from the past 3 years, and looking at the games which had the strongest backlash to date - DA2 and SW:TOR, they aren't going to do very much at all. No chance I'm going to buy DA3. None at all.

[SalsaDMA]

HopHazzard wrote...

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.

I'm not stretching anything.

They described the product I wanted: a well done steak.
What I got: A rare steak.
Hence I demanded they redo it and bring me a well done steak.

No fancy stuff there. Common dealings in the resturant business, really.

Now, let's take bioware and the potential customer:

They described the product the customer wanted: Choices affecting ends, single player unaffected by multiplayer, etc etc.
What the customer got: choices not affecting ends, multiplayer affecting singleplayer, etc. etc.
Hence the customers demand they redo it and bring the stuff they wanted in the first place.

It shoudl be no fancy stuff there, but for some reason certain companies in the gaming business seems more entitled than companies in other industries and are less interested in providing the same level of service that customers take for granted in other industries.

Modifié par SalsaDMA, 08 avril 2012 - 12:43 .

[TheGreenAlloy]

HopHazzard wrote...

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.

Good for you, but most of their customers don't share that view.

[Xoahr]

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

HopHazzard wrote...

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.

Good for you, but most of their customers don't share that view.

I am dubious about using the food themed analogies, as they aren't exactly accurate - a video game isn't food, whereas food is made for an individual, games are made for large groups. I see where you're coming from, though.

[LiquidLogic2020]

It was only a matter of time until idiots started comparing a generic game to classic art.

[MikoDoll]

Even if it's art they said the fans are co creators. Good gravy it never gets through no matter how much I say it.

[InvincibleHero]

Dave of Canada wrote...

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.

First time I've agreed with every word you've said Dave.

What I see is people trying to justify their selfish demands. Art is art no matter why it was created. The words and story are art regardless if they are in a commerical product. You had no say in creation nor have any right to demand changes post release except for obviously broken things like bugs, performance issues, poor graphics/sound/gameplay glitches, and clear lore violation which even the writers will agree with as in the case of Fallout 3 where they had a radiation immune mutant and ignored it to force you to die or sacrifice another possible squaddie and made you feel like pond scum for doing it.

Complaints about gameplay and graphics and sound are fine, but wanting to change a story to suit yourself is entitlement. You change the story to the creator's detriment and those that liked it as it was. There is not 100% agreement that the ending is broken nor a concrete objective way to say it. When all you have to offer are subjective reasons then you just lost and you should just flat out just say I want it this way period.

[InvincibleHero]

MikoDoll wrote...

Even if it's art they said the fans are co creators. Good gravy it never gets through no matter how much I say it.

If you and everyone realized it for the meaningless rhetoric it was then all would be happier. He meant you can change the game with options they gave and appealed to people's vanity and ego to call them co-creators.

Show me just one word or character or level or anything in the game you designed and got paid for by BW (they said they do not take unpaid unsolicited work after all they said this too) to merit the title and I'll say you're right.

[Gatt9]

InvincibleHero wrote...

MikoDoll wrote...

Even if it's art they said the fans are co creators. Good gravy it never gets through no matter how much I say it.

If you and everyone realized it for the meaningless rhetoric it was then all would be happier. He meant you can change the game with options they gave and appealed to people's vanity and ego to call them co-creators.

Show me just one word or character or level or anything in the game you designed and got paid for by BW (they said they do not take unpaid unsolicited work after all they said this too) to merit the title and I'll say you're right.

You mean like the meaningless rhetoric of "Artistic Integrity" being issued by an employee of a large cooporation whose primary goal is to increase revenues in order to increase stock prices?

[InvincibleHero]

Gatt9 wrote...

You mean like the meaningless rhetoric of "Artistic Integrity" being issued by an employee of a large cooporation whose primary goal is to increase revenues in order to increase stock prices?

I agree with you to a point in that they are going to try and ensure they have a broad target base to sell to, but the story and dialog and some other things are the actual art not the product as a whole. The gameplay is a means to an end to give the player something to do as they go through the story to make it an interactive experience.

They should object to being asked to rewrite their story in part or whole as they need to be able to use their property as they see fit. Now an extreme adherence can cost them in sales, and things like goodwill and people have the right to buy or not and criticize things.

Do you honestly think it would be in a corporation's best interests to cede creative control to the users?

[Amioran]

Gatt9 wrote...
But I'm sure that was just an oversight,  you didn't really intend to leave out the whole problem people are upset about and try to pretend they just wanted a change without reason,  did you?

It is anyway a change without reason because the work is theirs, not yours. You don't like it? Don't buy it, but you cannot pretend them to do what YOU want with THEIR work.

An artist has the right to stand by his/her vision of the work s/he does. You have the right to oppose to that vision not buying the work or not liking it, you don't have the right to CHANGE the work as you would like it to be.

It's not difficult to understand, isn't it? It doesn't matter at all if the change is within "reason" or not, because wanting a change is always against reason in this case.

The fact that they advertised the game differently, then, it's highly debatable. You would like it to be so, but in reality it's not. They never entered in specifics and what they said they did in the literal sense. It is only that you don't agree in the way they did it. Fine, but still, you are not entitled to change the way they did it, no matter what.

Modifié par Amioran, 08 avril 2012 - 07:27 .

[Amioran]

Gatt9 wrote...
You mean like the meaningless rhetoric of "Artistic Integrity" being issued by an employee of a large cooporation whose primary goal is to increase revenues in order to increase stock prices?

The fact that it's a large coorporation that tries to increase revenues doesn't change at all the concept. This is just what you would like to. I already made an example in my first message. Art is not less art just because it is for sale. This is utterly nonsense.

What defines "art" it's all another thing and profit has nothing to do with it.

Modifié par Amioran, 08 avril 2012 - 07:24 .

[GizmoKodiak]

I guess this is as good a thread as any to post this rather relative clip. Its a mock interview between a game review show host and Brian Fargo, on his new game Wasteland 2, being crowd funded on kickstarter. Watch it. Its quite relevant.



And if you can, give em a few bucks, the game seems awesome.

[Suikoden]

Xoahr wrote...

I recently wrote a thread about artistic integrity, that people seemed to enjoy (see here: http://social.biowar.../index/10769603), and which gave some people, hopefully, a deeper understanding of art and the idea of artistic integrity, and how it could be applied to an artistic and commercial setting. This time, I'd like to address the idea of 'gamer entitlement.'

The word 'entitled' is a transitive verb, and has two main definitions:
1. To give a name or title to.2. To furnish with a right or claim to something. In this case, the first definition is more akin to ennobling, the process of gaining a peerage title. The second definition, however, is in the meaning which has been thrown around so loosely lately.

In this case, the word 'entitled' has been used in a perjorative sense, as if the person demanding change is spoilt - that they unduly deserve a greater reward or benefit, as they are bereft of 'true' entitlement, based on either universally accepted rights, or nationally accepted laws. 

I can see their argument, which largely seems to rely on artistic integrity - if the creation is an artistic vision, it is entitled of you to demand change. It would be entitled to demand Shakespeare to rewrite the ending to The Tempest. It would be entitled to demand Stephanie Meyer to stop writing terrible literature. Yet this is where your idea of artistic integrity breaks down. As stated in the other thread, artistic integrity can only be used on art without commercial purpose (i.e, the purest forms of art). In this case, BioWare ultimately do seek profit, or gain from their products, and in that respect, whether the game is art, it lacks artistic integrity due to that commercial connection. They cannot demand artistic integrity whilst also demanding money from consumers. The 'entitled' examples I gave earlier - they're not far from the truth. Was it entitled to demand Sherlock Holmes return from the dead? Was it entitled to demand a new ending for Pip, in Great Expectations? Is it entitled of radio stations to censor swear words in songs?

I would argue, no, it is not entitled. The thing they all have in common is that they are primarily motivated by a commercial neccesity. In this case, Conan Doyle required Sherlock Holmes to pay his bills. Dickens realised how upset people would become if Great Expectations had a truly depressing ending. Radio stations realise that they may lose consumers, offended at the language.

Gamers are not entitled. Gamers purchase a game, and with that purchase a gamer is entitled to consumer rights. It is the equivalent of purchasing a Louis Vuitton handbag, only to discover it is just a leather handbag - a nice one, but not worth the £3995 you just spent. You can return it, and get a refund, without being entitled, because your consumer rights are protected by one rule, which is nearly universal in every country in the western world: When you buy an item from a trader (eg a shop or online shop) the law says the item must be: as described – match the description on packaging or what the trader told you.

This is the issue that certain gamers have with Mass Effect 3. It doesn't make them entitled. Demanding changes doesn't make them entitled. For years, gamers have demanded changes - such as lowering the accuracy of the Ump45 in CoDMW2, or 'nerfing' a certain class in WoW. Patches and updates are released, which gamers demand - for game breaking bugs, or cosmetic changes.

People are arguing that the gamer is entitled for demanding change to something they purchased, which did not match what they were told they would get. This 'sense of entitlement' these gamers have is not just an entitlement. Yes, they are entitled, but they are entitled through their consumer rights. It is not perjorative. Ultimately, as a last example, when Fallout 3 came out, there were many complaints about the ending - so much so, that Bethesda fixed it with DLC. There were no complaints about entitlement then.

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. The gamers who are acting entitled, like spoilt little brats, are the complete opposite. They are the responsible consumer. 

You can buy a LV handbag, but you can't use it until it starts to get worn and torn and then return it for a full refund. Nor can you demand at this point that LV design a new handbag for you. At that point, you're just acting entitled.

Modifié par beutelmarkus, 08 avril 2012 - 07:50 .

[Brohammed]

"Art" doesn't even factor into it. We paid hundreds of dollars and invested days of real time into these games. Hell yes we are entitled.

[Exeider]

@OP,

What is messed up is the people using "Entitled" as a pejorative are idiots because they don't know the language in which they speak, the work they are looking for is "Uppity"

(1) Taking liberties or assuming airs beyond one's place in a social heirarchy. Assuming equality with someone higher up the social ladder. (2) Putting on or marked by airs of superiority.
Self-important; arrogant.

The truth is when someone calls you Entitled you should actually say "yes, thank you for recognizing my right." To be entitled, means you HAVE the right and/or privilege to what it is they are saying your entitled to. That's what it means to be enTITLEd.

For those of you who don't agree that my explanation is the case, please read a dictionary and study the English language, its hard enough to communicate effectively without random people trying to change the definition of words to suit their needs.

I am not saying that you shouldn't call people Uppity if you believe they are trying to speak or act out of place, but please use the correct word when describing these actions or speech.

So before you swing the word Entitlement or Entitled Spoiled Brats, please use proper english. "The Retakers are being uppity." "Such uppity action is only going to make bioware ignore us more." or "don't be uppity you spoiled brat."

I think we get the point, I hope this helps clear up any confusion people are having with English works and their proper use.

Thank You.
-Æ

EDIT: On a personal note, like Seinfeld said "You not artistic and you have no integrity" a phrase I personally believe applies to Casey Hudson.

Modifié par Exeider, 08 avril 2012 - 08:45 .

[Amioran]

Exeider wrote...
The truth is when someone calls you Entitled you should actually say "yes, thank you for recognizing my right." To be entitled, means you HAVE the right and/or privilege to what it is they are saying your entitled to. That's what it means to be enTITLEd.

It's common use in language and writing to use a certain adjective in a way that it becomes actually the opposite. It is as using a "good word" as an insult, if done correctly it becomes more pungent than an usual insult.

I don't know if I explained myself correctly, there are some concepts I cannot yet put fully in english.

Exeider wrote...
EDIT: On a personal note, like Seinfeld said "You not artistic and you have no integrity" a phrase I personally believe applies to Casey Hudson.

If we begin on debating who is an "artist" and who is not based on empyrical evidence we may as well start debating if the egg comes before the hen or the contrary.

The fact is that every form of expression is a form of "art" in its broader sense, and since we are talking here about a broader right (artistic integrity) and not a speficic one (i.e. you don't need to be recognized as an artist to have an integrity as such) then if Hudson is or isn't an "artist" it's a moot point and it has nothing to do with his right to stand by his decisions.

Modifié par Amioran, 08 avril 2012 - 09:45 .

[Xoahr]

Amioran wrote...

Exeider wrote...
The truth is when someone calls you Entitled you should actually say "yes, thank you for recognizing my right." To be entitled, means you HAVE the right and/or privilege to what it is they are saying your entitled to. That's what it means to be enTITLEd.

It's common use in language and writing to use a certain adjective in a way that it becomes actually the opposite. It is as using a "good word" as an insult, if done correctly it becomes more pungent than an usual insult.

I don't know if I explained myself correctly, there are some concepts I cannot yet put fully in english.

Exeider wrote...
EDIT: On a personal note, like Seinfeld said "You not artistic and you have no integrity" a phrase I personally believe applies to Casey Hudson.

If we begin on debating who is an "artist" and who is not based on empyrical evidence we may as well start debating if the egg comes before the hen or the contrary.

The fact is that every form of expression is a form of "art" in its broader sense, and since we are talking here about a broader right (artistic integrity) and not a speficic one (i.e. you don't need to be recognized as an artist to have an integrity as such) then if Hudson is or isn't an "artist" it's a moot point and it has nothing to do with his right to stand by his decisions.

Integrity:
The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness- he is known to be a man of integrity[/i][/list]The state of being whole and undivided- upholding territorial integrity[/i] and national sovereignty[/list]The condition of being unified, unimpaired, or sound in construction- the structural integrity[/i] of the novel[/list]Internal consistency or lack of corruption in electronic data- integrity[/i] checking[/list]It would appear to me, BioWare is lacking in 1), 2), 3) though probably not 4). We can then, easily say that BioWare is lacking in integrity. Please stop throwing around the phrase 'artistic integrity'. It is a phrase which should only be applied to artists who either work for no profit, or sell paintings by themselves. If an artist has been subsidised, they lose their claim to 'artistic integrity'. 

Somebody answered this question 3 years ago: http://answers.yahoo...28222038AAbkCcN - so why has the definition suddenly changed to suit what you need? BioWare lack integrity (through lacking humility, through misleading consumers), and certainly do not have artistic integrity.