193 réponses à ce sujet

[shinyelf]

I'm sorry if someone made a post like this earlier, and if that is the case please bear with me.

Throughout the last month I have grown to respect Bioware and to despise quite a lot of their "fans"(no offence meant). When we first got the entire artistic integrity speech I thought: "what the f*** they have got to be ****tin me", but after having thought about it a while (and read some quite aggressive attacks on BW) I decided that it was nice to finally see someone stick to their guns. 

I do not think that we as a fanbase can demand that BW change the ending if it fits in with their vision (I don't want to hear about Sherlock Holmes or broken steel, as both did it because "they" chose to). I do however find the ending pretty disappointing, and wish that BW would live up to their full potential and give us a kickass ending, but still an ending they chose, not us.

P.S. this is not me whining about whining . This is me saying that BW can do whatever they want with their product (neither you nor I own it) but that I think they could do better, and that they should strive to do so (without compromising their vision) by their own choice.

[poerksen]

If they had artistic integrity, then they would have stuck with the original ending, instead of the one we have now. It is repugnant.

I am not demanding anything, simply telling that they have screwed up and I hope they will fix it. 

Also given the fact that they have openly lied in their advertising etc. I think they should at least listen to their fanbase.

Modifié par poerksen, 18 avril 2012 - 09:15 .

[BeefoTheBold]

You're welcome to believe whatever you want to believe, but the "artistic integrity" angle is and has always been a copout. Artists have been changing things at the whim of their patrons for generations. Artists that don't, end up being starving ones.

Going as far back to William freaking Shakespeare, he used to adjust his plays to different audiences to make them more palatable.

You are correct that Bioware can do whatever they want with their product.

And face the consequences of their decisions. In this case, if they fail to fix things, then they may lose future sales.

[HighFlyingDwarf]

Art loses it's integrity when you have to pay for it. Video games aren't art.

[MrAtomica]

Artistic integrity does not compute in a series where DLC has such importance to the story.

It also does not fit in well considering the Extended Cut initiative. The only reason they are releasing it is because we complained, ergo they are NOT "sticking to their guns", as you put it. You could argue that they actually still are, since they are only "clarifying" and not changing anything, but that was likely more PR speak than anything else.

After all, if they admitted that the endings were not satisfactory (due to fan outrage), then they would appear weak. Of course, the fact that they acknowledge "clarification" is needed at all is telling as well. A truly strong story does not need anything to be explained for the viewer/reader. Take from that what you will.

[Icemix]

 They lost their artistic integrity when they made the decision to go with the current ending.

[Swordfishtrombone]

I believe in artistic integrity too, but I also believe that there is such a thing as really, really bad art.

I also believe that a computer game that you market ahead of the time with specific promisses on what the customer can expect to get, is more akin to commissioned piece of art, than an independently made piece of art.

And when you are making a commisioned piece of art, your "artistic integrity" is limited to what you can do while still satisfying the terms of the commission - or, in this case, the promisses made and expectations created during marketing.

I think that the ending to ME3, after the certain hated character appears, is artistically poor, and betrays the terms of the "commission".

Leonardo da Vinchi's "Last Supper" was a commissioned work, and I doubt his patron would have been happy if he'd painted it with three jesuses and their pet llama, and he'd have had every right to demand a product that better met the specifications. Appeals to "artistic integrity" wouldn't have held much water.

[sharkboy421]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

I believe in artistic integrity too, but I also believe that there is such a thing as really, really bad art.

I also believe that a computer game that you market ahead of the time with specific promisses on what the customer can expect to get, is more akin to commissioned piece of art, than an independently made piece of art.

And when you are making a commisioned piece of art, your "artistic integrity" is limited to what you can do while still satisfying the terms of the commission - or, in this case, the promisses made and expectations created during marketing.

I think that the ending to ME3, after the certain hated character appears, is artistically poor, and betrays the terms of the "commission".

Leonardo da Vinchi's "Last Supper" was a commissioned work, and I doubt his patron would have been happy if he'd painted it with three jesuses and their pet llama, and he'd have had every right to demand a product that better met the specifications. Appeals to "artistic integrity" wouldn't have held much water.

^This.
All of it is very reasonable but I particularly liked your first sentence.

[Mojenator12345]

I don't understand why people get hung up on what people do or don't have a "right to demand." BW made an ending. It sucked. We hated it. We asked for it to be fixed. Of course, absurd legal threats notwithstanding, no one can make BW do anything they don't want to do. If they want hang their hats on their current POS ending, more power to them (though it sure seems a lot more like an ego trip than a matter of "sticking to their guns"). Similarly, no one can compel the Retakers to continue to supporting BW or spending money on BW's products (or even to stop ****ing about how crappy the ending is). I don't see how "entitlement" or the "right to demand" even comes into this. But the anti-Retakers sure seem to get hung up on this stuff.

[Fiery Phoenix]

I posted this in one of the polls literally minutes ago:

BioWare's artistic integrity stopped existing the second they decided to take fan feedback into consideration back in 2008. To suddenly claim the endings can't be changed now is laughable at best.

[Callidus Thorn]

Artistic integrity, now used to cover a lack of narrative integrity.

[StabGuy]

True art is a form of expression.

Biowares 'expression' is filtered by various things:
a) money
share holders
c) political correctness (pushing an agenda is propaganda, not art...)

When you combine these three elements, even if we were to say for a second 'ok it's art' - it really doesn't fit the mold. To say any filtered idea is 'art' then where is the definition?

[shinyelf]

HighFlyingDwarf wrote...

Art loses it's integrity when you have to pay for it. Video games aren't art.

Why not? 
Video games can critizice moder society, or one strong feelings, video games is capable of making us regret decisions made in an entirely virtual world in which we can just jump back and redo said decision. 
Most "art" I have ever seen never have me the same sense of fulfillment. Neither The Last Supper, nor masterworks such as Hamlet or Macbeth. I have heard Tchaikovsky (not the real thing but still) and dined at Noma. I read Dante's Inferno just for fun last summer. I have had the opportunity to enjoy some of the finest cultural experiences, but few have ever managed to move me as much, none ever had be so focused as a simple video game. Art is all about making an impression or a statemen if you will, and Mass Effect does this. 

And by the way they still had writers and painters and such involved which clearly make the single parts of the whole art

[megabug7]

I am one of the people who was disappointed about the ending, but I have to concede that the core ending isn't going to change; the starchild isn't going anywhere and neither is anything else.

If they change it to show consequences for MY actions and choices I made over the 3 games and provide proper closure then I'll be content.

But for me the damage was already done as Bioware 'soured the song' of Mass Effect 3 before I even got to the end of the game.

[shinyelf]

I may have went about this wrong, it was meant to be more of a "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar" kind of thing.
I would love a new ending (if only to make the retailers happy) but i don't think anyone is in the right when demanding it.

As for the false advertising I am willing to say that most of I could be interpreted in different ways, and I keep reaching the conclusion that they told the truth, yet we heard it in another way than the one they intended

Modifié par shinyelf, 18 avril 2012 - 09:34 .

[-Spartan]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

I posted this in one of the polls literally minutes ago:

BioWare's artistic integrity stopped existing the second they decided to take fan feedback into consideration back in 2008. To suddenly claim the endings can't be changed now is laughable at best.

Logical position regarding "interactive artisitic integrity" aside.... 

We have a winner folks. 

Modifié par -Spartan, 18 avril 2012 - 09:40 .

[deatharmonic]

OP, I respectfully disagree...

Bioware made the following claims in its advertisement of the game:

“the decisions you make completely shape your experience”

“Along the way, your choices drive powerful outcomes, including relationships with key characters, the fate of entire civilizations, and even radically different ending scenarios.”

Yet we end up in a situation were neither of these statements are true, where's the integrity in that? Furthermore, what makes me cringe is the following statement from Mike Gamble at PAX east spoke about work on the extended cut, concerning the issue of more defined endings he stated "It wasn't in the game because we didn't know there was such a huge demand for it, to be honest with you." ... Didn't know there was a huge demand to see ones choices better reflected in the endings? What happened to the rhetoric mentioned above about player choice? Now one of the producers is saying he was unaware of the demand for it?

Amongst all of this I struggle to find an ounce of integrity in this comedy of errors.

** As a sidenote the Better Business Bureau looked over the ad claims i quoted and stated that technically it was false advertisement, make of that what you will but i suspect they're in a more informed and unbias position to make that call.

Modifié par deatharmonic, 18 avril 2012 - 09:41 .

[shinyelf]

-Spartan wrote...

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

I posted this in one of the polls literally minutes ago:

BioWare's artistic integrity stopped existing the second they decided to take fan feedback into consideration back in 2008. To suddenly claim the endings can't be changed now is laughable at best.

Logical position regarding "interactive artisitic integrity" aside.... 

We have a winner folks. 

I disagree (albeit respectfully). Artists should always accept feedback, however they should not be ruled by it. If I tell someone that I don't like their game it is ok if they change it, but only if they were convince that it was actually a good  idea 

[Arsenic Touch]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

I posted this in one of the polls literally minutes ago:

BioWare's artistic integrity stopped existing the second they decided to take fan feedback into consideration back in 2008. To suddenly claim the endings can't be changed now is laughable at best.

We have a winner!

[-Spartan]

shinyelf wrote...
[..]
I would love a new ending (if only to make the retailers happy) but i don't think anyone is in the right when demanding it.

Why? That is the whole idea behind the "supply and demand" concept. The product as shipped is an epic failure at meeting the demand it was supposed to supply. When customers are not happy with products in other industries they return them and/ or get laws changed to try to insure they get what they pay for. Why is the gaming industry not held to the same standards as other industries? Inquiring minds want to know…

shinyelf wrote...
I disagree (albeit respectfully). Artists should always accept feedback, however they should not be ruled by it. If I tell someone that I don't like their game it is ok if they change it, but only if they were convince that it was actually a good  idea 

 

In business the convincing is done via an exchange of money (and the prospect of future exchanges). 

Modifié par -Spartan, 18 avril 2012 - 09:43 .

[Icinix]

I have no problem with artistic integrity being used, I take issue with it being used here.

This is not the time or place for games to be using the artistic integrity defence. One day gaming will need to use it for something that it will really be warranted, and rather than it being a serious defence and argument for integrity - the defence will be laughed off because it was used for the ending of Mass Effect 3.

Artistic Integrity is a good powerful argument - the ending of Mass Effect 3 was a poor, weak (in both presentation and narrative coherence) and ultimately hollow ending. Using the Artistic Integrity defence to protect it weakens the defence for any future use it may be used for in games - its even worse because it almost gives leave for future money grabbing games and rushed deadlines to use it for whatever rubbish they put out.

Defend the ending on its merits if you so wish, defend it on what the company wanted to do, but don't defend it as Artistic Integrity. It is not art, and nor does it have integrity.

[shinyelf]

@deatharmonic
If you lack the proper ems you get squashed, how do you et more ems? Play the story, make choices, in that way all our choices meant something.
As for the thing about every decision shaping our experience I believe that is just as much about feeling the game, but alson about seing some outcomes throughout the game itself.

And by the way way, I never wants the ending to reflect every choice, just te ones relevant to that specific section

[Il Divo]

I believe in it as well. I just don't think it's particularly relevant. Whether an artist has integrity never decides whether they are successful in the market; whether they produce a product people are interested in does. Anyone who finds himself operating in a medium where their ability to produce art is dependent on a consumer base inevitably is going to be making compromises at some point.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 avril 2012 - 09:53 .

[shinyelf]

@Icinix
We only hollow out the argument by saying that it does not apply. We use the artistic integrity when someone tries to force or coerce us into doing something that we would not otherwise do, but since you will never argue in a case without opposition there will always be someone to claim that you are not defending art.
And if it was an argument only to be used when truly needed one may always claim that a situation in which the need I greater will be just around the corner.