138 réponses à ce sujet

[Xoahr]

InvincibleHero wrote...

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.

So why is changing 1 thing in a game not considered violating their artistic integrity, but another thing is? Surely, when a game is released with bugs and glitches, it's how the game was envisioned to be played - after all, why would they have a radiation immune mutant unless they wanted you to die, or sacrifice a squaddie? Maybe that was how they envisioned the ending? Yet they still changed it.

What people did with Fallout 3 was change the story to suit themselves. Yet you're not calling them entitiled.

It is not entitled to criticise the ending, it is not entitled to criticise anything perceived as "broken". You have purchased, with your money, something which does not live to your expectations. The least right you have is to criticise every minutae of it. Furthermore, if somebody complains to the company and asks them to alter it, what harm are they doing to you? Why do you have such a vested interested in BioWare's 'artistic integrity'? Why do you care so much, when it won't affect you in anyway, apart from maybe just having even more endings? This is ultimately why I think it's stupid that people are actively working against other people who feel like this. You're actively defending a company which is merely trying to work a profit, and some of the user base feels violated. Yet you're attacking other members of the user base, the ones who feel violated anyway.

 Maybe you're in denial? I mean, I see people clinging to the Indoctrination Theory like a piece of wood in a shipwreck, almost trying to convince themselves that that is the true ending. The only other alternative as to why you would attack people who are criticising the ending, and requesting a new ending, is because you (in the plural sense, as in the majority of people doing this), have a vested interest in EA or BioWare themselves. It just doesn't make sense otherwise, as to why you would actively defend the company, a company which misled consumers, and abandoned their core fanbase.

Modifié par Xoahr, 08 avril 2012 - 11:29 .

[Heimdall]

Simply put, everyone is entitled to complain about something they dislike in a game. They are entitled to fixes for error's in the game, bugs and glitches. They are not entitled to any change to the intended story or gameplay of the game. If there is a problem, it is very nice of the developer to fix it, but the buyer is not owed it.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 08 avril 2012 - 12:19 .

[Xoahr]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Simply put, everyone is entitled to complain about something they dislike in a game. They are entitled to fixes for error's in the game, bugs and glitches. They are not entitled to any change to the intended story of the game. If there is a problem, it is very nice of the developer to fix it, but the buyer is not owed it.

I agree largely with this.

What would have been amazing is if they'd been greater modding support for ME3, then this hoohah wouldn't really have happened to the degree it has - the community could have made their own endings. But EA doesn't seem to support modding as much as say, Bethesda does. Or Maxis used too.

[Amioran]

Xoahr wrote...
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'. 

I already explained why that's not so. You want to re-read it:
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.

Artists that work for no profit are almost non-existent if they are not already rich or do it for an hobby and 1 or 100 artists working on something doesn't change the outcome, as the outcome doesn't change depending on the motivations why the work is done.

It doesn't matter at all if Carvaggio made the Medusa to bring to bed the model or not, what it matters is the work itself. It doesn't matter at all if Leonardo was a pedophile and many of his works were made to come in contact with children or not on judging his works. It doesn't matter at all if Wagner was a naz*st and created many of his operas to divulgate it on judging his music.

It is not the motivation behind it that defines a work of art. Sometimes it can be a part (it also depends on what the word "motivation" means, in this case it has more to do with what you were talking about than an idea behind the work, that's usual the most used meaning when you talk specifically about art) but not the only one, as you would like to suppose.

Xoahr wrote...
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.

Maybe because that answer is total nonsense (as I've already proved to you many times either here with many examples)? Maybe you would want to read someone a little more expert on these things instead of the first guy on the net that pretends to have an informed opinion about them having no background at all to support what s/he says.

I suggest you to read a little of Adorno and/or Heiddeger on these points that maybe (maybe) are a little more useful on judging the thing seriously.

Modifié par Amioran, 08 avril 2012 - 02:07 .

[PaddlePop]

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. 

This should be stickied.

[zsom]

Actually I think you are missing a very important point. Being entitled or not has nothing to do with artistic integrity. Here is my take on it:

I'm not a native speaker so I could be very wrong, but the way I understand it, which is in line your definition, is that entitled means you have a claim on something, you have the right, legal right to demand something. It's a far stronger word than "deserving", and it actually implies that you could go to the court of law and ask for the second party to be forced to accept your demand, or compensate you in some way.
This is definitely not the case. You can ask Bioware for a new ending, or you can return the copy to a retailer, you can warn people about how you were dissatisfied with the product, but under no circumstances can you force them to make the product you were expecting, but never received.

Am I wrong?

[MikoDoll]

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.

No, they said they take our feedback when putting material into the game along with mentioning fans as co creators. To further examplify:

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.

Again Bioware plans to change content in the novels after they had been published and fans complained.

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.

It's not an issue that they take very specific ideas. But when people make a pretty general demand, tell what they didn't like and provide the creatives the freedoms to change the material within those boundaries, it's not the same thing. At all. That's like treating fan demand for Garrus to come back on the same level as fans demanding major specifics in how he returns to be adhered to. Clearly the later is not possible. But you can't argue that because later is not, Bioware couldn't have brought Garrus back for ME3 because fans made a general demand to see him.

[Xoahr]

zsom wrote...

Actually I think you are missing a very important point. Being entitled or not has nothing to do with artistic integrity. Here is my take on it:

I'm not a native speaker so I could be very wrong, but the way I understand it, which is in line your definition, is that entitled means you have a claim on something, you have the right, legal right to demand something. It's a far stronger word than "deserving", and it actually implies that you could go to the court of law and ask for the second party to be forced to accept your demand, or compensate you in some way.
This is definitely not the case. You can ask Bioware for a new ending, or you can return the copy to a retailer, you can warn people about how you were dissatisfied with the product, but under no circumstances can you force them to make the product you were expecting, but never received.

Am I wrong?

Under at least British law, the mislead consumer is reserved the right to demand the product they were promised, ie, Mass Effect 3, on the website says "every choice you make affects your outcome". As we know, this is misleading. Under British law, you could take the company in charge of advertising that statement (presumably BioWare) to a small claims court and/or demand they provide you with what was originally promised, in a civil dispute case.

[XTR3M3]

what we are "entitled" to.
-we are entitled to complain about a product that was misrepresented like ME3 was
-we are entitled to ask for a refund within a reasonable amount of time.
-we are entitled to refuse to support the EAware label through denying them future DLC and other purchases if they don't make this right.
-we are entitled to wait and see if the EC free DLC fixes the issue, just improves it some, or compounds the issue even further.

what is ridiculous..
-suing them to try and force them to fix the ending. it is that kind of ignorant crap that makes us look bad on the "take back" side.

What I will "take back" is my intention to buy anything else from EAware if the EC DLC doesn't cut it.

[Suparaddy]

Dridengx wrote...

Xoahr wrote...
Do I deserve an ugly duck crayon sketch, or a beautiful puppy watercolour, if I was promised the puppy?

You don't deserve anything that's the point. You wanted a video game. you got one, it works, done deal. regardless if you like it, how long it is, how bad it is. you got what you paid for a working video game in the mass effect universe. details could be wrong things change during production.. its called marketing.


but but but someone said a year ago I could have a pony! yeah, well things change.. get over it. but someone said I could have 16 endings. you do.. just minor differences.. BUT I was under the impression these 16 endings were going to be waaaay different? well, you fell for marketing.. blame yourself?

Wow...way to completely miss the point...

[Kanner]

I'm constantly amazed at the way that people just assume that marketeers are allowed to flat out lie to sell their products.

We spent quite a lot of the last century fixing that. Whether the nuts and bolts of the product advertised *quite* matches the actual product is very much a real, legally important issue these days. And from that point of view ME3 just feels utterly terrible, because it *does* do just exactly enough at the end of the game to avoid technically breaching their 'promises' to players, while failing in all respects to actually keep to the spirit of what was promised.

[Wilkin the Wanderer]

Xoahr wrote...

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.

i beg to differ. There is no such consumer right that states that you can get a refund when you feel like it - like dishing out 3995 for a leather bag and then change your mind about was it worth or not - you bought it, the deal is done and it is only up to the seller if he wants to take it back or not.

in the case of software this is getting problematic, as you don´t even buy some goods, only a license to use a product - this license is sold to you personally and you are not even allowed to reuse/resell it (Steam, Origin and other DRM solutions). So, if the seller decides to give you a refund, it´s a total loss for him - as he can´t even resell it to someone who might like the product.

sorry, Xoahr, i have to tell you that your example is bad and that you are spreading misinformation about consumer rights (take this from a person who was working in this field for 5 years and made sure that consumers did get their rights IF they were entitled to them ).


So, now to Mass Effect 3:

Personally i am over it, i do not give a hoot about it anymore.

i went through the usual 4 steps:

1.) denial (no, no this problem does not exist, bioware doesn´t f*** it up) 
2.) anger (WTF?)
3) sadness (*sigh, they really did f*** it up)
4) acceptance (*shrug, life goes on, it is only a game)

The posts on this forums resemble these 4 stadiums quite good. some ares till in denial that bioware would do something like that, many are caught in the second stadium (HOLD THE LINE; HOLD THE LINE, CUPCAKES!!! BILLBOARDS!!!).

so, lessons learned: if you buy something too soon, you are going to regret it. luckily i didn´t buy DA2, but i fell for ME3 (stupid me... ) well, won´t happen again (at least with BIOWARE products) - and noooo, i won´t buy baldurs gate 2 as a "remake" - even though i loved it many years ago.

[Suikoden]

Kanner wrote...

I'm constantly amazed at the way that people just assume that marketeers are allowed to flat out lie to sell their products.

We spent quite a lot of the last century fixing that. Whether the nuts and bolts of the product advertised *quite* matches the actual product is very much a real, legally important issue these days. And from that point of view ME3 just feels utterly terrible, because it *does* do just exactly enough at the end of the game to avoid technically breaching their 'promises' to players, while failing in all respects to actually keep to the spirit of what was promised.

I'd agree with you if the "lies" everyone keeps quoting Casey Hudson as saying were said after the game was released.  They weren't.  If you saw screenshots half a year before the release of a game that included graphics not in the final game, would you consider these to be lies as well?  There were most likely things added and/or removed from the game right up until release.  Also remember that there was a script leak in November.  Things were bound to change.

For all we know, Hudson was being perfectly honest at the time he made those comments.  And this is why the dev's are better off not telling us anything - because people in the community will just end up holding it against them.

Bottom line, stop acting so entitled.  

Modifié par beutelmarkus, 10 avril 2012 - 08:53 .

[Escocido]

"Entitled" is a horrible term that gets thrown around too much lately. It worries me because it gets thrown around whenever anyone is asking for something, be it reasonable or not. In anarchocapitalistic newspeak it means: "I have the money, suck it".

Don't want to get into politics here, but that is the simple truth. We live in a time when corporations rule and anyone who questions their fairness is "entitled".

As for "artistic integrity", customers have always influenced art, being after ("stick to these guidelines") during ("it looks nice for now, but could you add...") or after ("dude, this sucks, change it or you won't get paid"). It's always been like that with more dignified things that videogames, and I find hilarious that they are trying to pull the "we are great artists" bull**** to avoid fixing a shoddy work.