193 réponses à ce sujet

[Gleym]

So I guess that means Charles Dickens wasn't an artist, OP..? Or Bioware, for that matter, considering that they already backpedaled and retracted a Mass Effect novel in order to unf*ck it. Really, defending the artistic integrity claim when Bioware has proven repeatedly that the way in which they are attempting to use the claim doesn't apply to them in the slightest just makes you look silly, naive, and uninformed.

[SeismicGravy]

jakal66 wrote...

So you might like it,you might hate it but you cannot demand them to give you the ending you want.Well you can as many of you have done but what they can do is tell you polittely that the WON'T change it because it's their story and they are unhappy you didn't see it the way they did..

Can I just comment on this?

Let's assume for the moment that your going to buy a car.

You go to the dealer and there's this fantastic car sitting there, in what just happens to be your favourite colour. Naturally you go to the sales rep, eagerly hand over the cash, and wait for the car to arrive.  However, when they finally deliver the car to you it's in a completely different colour which you cannot stand, and so take it back to the dealer and request a replacement car in the colour you asked for.

Are you suggesting that the dealer has the right to decline your request, saying "Sorry to hear you don't like it, but we're not going to change it because it's our car and we think it looks better like that", despite the fact you paid alot of money for something your not happy with?

[shinyelf]

Gleym wrote...

So I guess that means Charles Dickens wasn't an artist, OP..? Or Bioware, for that matter, considering that they already backpedaled and retracted a Mass Effect novel in order to unf*ck it. Really, defending the artistic integrity claim when Bioware has proven repeatedly that the way in which they are attempting to use the claim doesn't apply to them in the slightest just makes you look silly, naive, and uninformed.

Please don't call me silly and naive when you don't even know me.

What I am saying is that when Bioware or Dickens or I (amateur author) change something it should be by our own volition, it should not be to satisfy a raging fanbase, it should be be cause we recognize it as the superior way to present our work.

As for the Mass Effect book, it was filled with mistakes lore wise, and since the BW team does not feel they can vouch for it  changing it is the only right thing to do.

[-Spartan]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

translationninja wrote...

integrity is important you say, hmmm?

I've seen this posted before, and I've asked for the source before - is this REALLY a promotional picture made by EA/Bioware, or a fan-made product intended to smear EA/Bioware? Where is this from? Where does it originally appear?

The sad thing is that I wouldn't put this beyond EA, given their history, but as a proper skeptic, I would like to get some evidence to avoid attributing to them something that they didn't do.

It is what in the PR business is called "spin". EA is speaking in half-truth to spin the public perception to their side. On the positive side the Forbes writer calls them on it in the original article. In the promotional material the EA/BW writer basically Bslaps all fans with the so often overused “entitlement” fallacy. When in fact as customers we have every right to demand the product we paid for. Sad really…

I have half a mind to email the Forbes and ask the writer to do a follow-up in light of the Lit Prof and two other very well crafted critical responses. Interesting enough if you take the time to read the comments nearly all of them slam EA/BW for the blatant disinformation attempt and the others simply laugh at EA.   
  

Modifié par -Spartan, 19 avril 2012 - 06:16 .

[translationninja]

[quote]shinyelf wrote...

[quote]Gleym wrote...

-snip-

What I am saying is that when Bioware or Dickens or I (amateur author) change something it should be by our own volition, it should not be to satisfy a raging fanbase, it should be be cause we recognize it as the superior way to present our work.

As for the Mass Effect book, it was filled with mistakes lore wise, and since the BW team does not feel they can vouch for it  changing it is the only right thing to do.

[/quote]

Aaah I see. Sympathy through empathy. I wouldn't want to be told how I have to tell my story either.

Well, yes and no. It all depends what you have "marketed" before.

ME3 is not some indy title, or some piece of unique art. It's commercial art, and it is commercial art that has used common marketing and sales tactics to broaden the buyer-base as much as possible.

They have done so by applying marketing techniques that suggested certain product properties that would prompt people to buy.

You are right, a writer should be able to write whatever he wants. Does that mean however, that a writer should be allowed to promise you one thing but then deliver something different simply by saying, oh hai, that was my artistic vision?

[-Spartan]

In fact I decided to contact Forbes and have just finished emailing the editor and will soon be contacting a few other outlets to shed more light on this travesty being wrapped up in the fallacious banner of "entitlement" by a few dimwits.

[wolfstanus]

HighFlyingDwarf wrote...

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

So when I buy art... A painting a sculpture etc. it's no longer art because I paid for it... If I pay for a commission that's not art because I bought it and paid the artist for his work... That's good to know... Your logic is flawed by the way.

[DukeOfNukes]

They sold out their artistic integrity when:
Story took a backseat to combat in ME2.
They began introducing characters who are more renown for their..."assets" than their face or personality.
They included a Geth squad member, retconning established lore in the process (See ME1: Geth Incursions)

I could go on...but yeah...I feel like I've said enough

EDIT: Ok, I feel like I do need to clarify a bit more. I'm not saying that they have no artistic integrity, I'm saying that they've shown they are willing to comprimise, or even pander. No reason this ending fiasco should be any different. However, I lost a lot of love for the series as soon as ME2 was released.

Modifié par DukeOfNukes, 19 avril 2012 - 07:37 .

[mebtru]

Another troll who do not own ME3, its funny to see the ones who defend or attack Bioware and do not have the game.

[Chapity]

Ok, to answer a few points:
1). As far as I can tell, the point of artistic integrity is made more for where they are going with the story. If this ending, like or dislike, is in fact a setup, them they are within the right to say no joy to a remake, hence, a rework.
2). Gambles statement does fall into the category of WTF, but it isn't ludicrous to leave the ending a touch ambiguous. Considering the boards were loaded with "leave the reapers a mystery", I don't think that's that off kilter.
3). The endings did reflect your choices, as did the whole game. You have to consider that the whole "retake earth" scenario is infact that ending, not just "starchild" and the choices. Is wrex there, or is kirahe, is the first assault group successful or no. It doesn't have direct correlation, and I get that, but the sequences are in fact different. I know from playing a renegade play and a paragon play. Heck, is the destiny asscention there?
4). Art isn't in a vacuum. You can honestly make the assertion that once something moves from your mind into reality that it has been compromised, but to do so invalidates what is created. I have my dilemmas with considering a video game art, but it mostly has to do with my own hatred of the label "art". Music isn't art, it's music. Music has it's own definition and doesn't require another. Music isn't played by artists, it's played by musicians. Games, or more to the point modern video games fall under "experiences" to me, and that has connotations that can fall under art (especially considering it is a visual format), but to just label it art is missing a large part o what it is. I believe what bioware should have said was "literary integrity", and I think this argument would be more on track. As it stands now, it's way too open and vague a statement.
3). Retcon, spacemagic, and plot hole appears to be the buzzwords of the month for some of you folks. Why can't they setup a reevaluation of certain groups within there narrative (ie. Geth, reapers, prothians) without being torn up for it? Plot holes are even more of a reach considering the vastness of the codex, and if the extended cut dlc can clear up the two obvious debatable problems people have with the end narrative (which I understand and don't have a problem with except, why are they relay jumping?!?!) then what's the problem. Spacemagic is my fav though. You do understand that NONE of this is real right? You didn't really do any of this, you mearly simulated it. All of it, fake.

[Unfallen_Satan]

You said it. I don't know anything about art or artistic integrity. The ending eventually worked out for me, but I recognize many others are not happy about it. They can do whatever in their power to change things to their favor, complaining included, as long as it doesn't become accepted sentiment that there is something objectively wrong with things not going their way, like it's against God or morality or common sense or something. Ok, ok, maybe it's bad for business; there is an objective argument for that.

I myself have castigated other games by EA; C&C 4 comes to mind. Even though I completely gave up on the franchise, my top 3 favorite in nearly 20 years of gaming, I never once thought I had any rights beyond not enjoying the game and giving up on it. I am just a selfish simpleton; I know what I like and I don't care what other people think unless we are doing business together, but I fully support your post.

[Tarothe]

As far as I know, the sole notion of "art" is subject to a heated discussion since Antiquity. Just like the question of what is beautiful, the question what is art are differently answered by philosophers, artists and common people with different social backgrounds, ethnicity or from different epochs.

Many famous sculptures, paintings or books were made with profit in mind, so why is saying that game producers have profit in mind any reason to discredit it as being "art"?

Those notions appear to be objectively qualitative, but are nonetheless subject to social consensus and quite a lot of personal subjectivity.

For me, whether or not it is their "artistic integrity", and whether or not Bioware perceive the story as art, and whether or not we perceive it as art (as a matter of fact, I'm willing to categorize ME story on par with many books perceived as High-culture stuff) I strongly believe that an artist, no matter how good their are, if they strive to be even better, they should be allowed to take constructive criticism, they should be able to accept it and analyze why such criticism arose. It should not diminish their position as artists.

And I believe the ME3 ending critique is nothing, if not constructive, with a lot of thought put into it and with valid points presented to support it.

So, to conclude, more than an issue of marketing and consumer service, I believe the issue with their artistic integrity should be how much of artists they truly are and what good can they make from all that constructive criticism they got.

I'm not saying about simply whining and demands to change things, but bout those people, who carefully analyzed the ME franchise, pointed out various justifiable issues with the Ending and referred to various examples from literature, literary and cultural theory to support their statements.

God, I really need to learn to make myself more concise, so sorry about that.

Modifié par Tarothe, 19 avril 2012 - 08:34 .

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

That's what I want to tell everytime I read the words "artistic integrity":

Well, speaking about artistic integrity, I've spoke with a writer friend of mine.
Basically, he told me there was two kinds of writing: writing for yourself and writing for the others.
Writing for yourself is more satifying for the writer but will basically interest a few % of people aside from yourself, and artist tend to do that twice: at first when they begin to write, the second time when they are already renowned enough to live without their book being a success. So perhaps the lead writer felt that way this time.
But there's a "but".
From a commercial point of view this is a bad decision most of the time, that's a bad decision as your are supposed to do something most people will wants, that's the reason why most writers write for themselves at the start and when they are already renowned. But that's not what's really important here.
The most important part is that in every Game Master's book, one of the core law for being a good GM is to seek for player's pleasure (that's also how you make them pay your pizza ) before yours, and by throwing that by the window, by writing for yourself, you end up creating a negative play experience for most players and ultimately loose them.

[fchopin]

Bioware has actually surprised me with the ME3 endings as it is the first time from the games i played that they showed vision and thought.

In the past people said that Bioware is not as mature as CDPR with the gore and in being realistic in some of the decisions but the first time they include an ending which is controversial and not so pleasant people complain.

[Gleym]

shinyelf wrote...

Please don't call me silly and naive when you don't even know me.

What I am saying is that when Bioware or Dickens or I (amateur author) change something it should be by our own volition, it should not be to satisfy a raging fanbase, it should be be cause we recognize it as the superior way to present our work.

As for the Mass Effect book, it was filled with mistakes lore wise, and since the BW team does not feel they can vouch for it  changing it is the only right thing to do.

Because last-minute starchildren and nonsensical plot elements =/= Lore mistake, right?

Also, Dickens changed a lot of his stuff just to satisfy his fans. He even rewrote the ending to Great Expectations because people didn't like it. So again, I guess based on your statement, Dickens has no artistic integrity.

Also, I don't need to know you to know when something that you've said portrays you as being naive and silly. The fact that you would assume so makes me believe you don't quite have a firm grasp of how the normal way to react towards and analyze a subject, be it a literary work, a videogame's story, or a person for that matter, functions.

Artistic integrity isn't being utilized as anything more than a cheap ploy to excuse lack of effort. If a student decided to hand in a bumbling heap of nonsense on paper for their final term essay, citing 'artistic integrity' as if that were to protect what he wrote, based on the way you keep defending Bioware, the education system would be saturated by lazy slackers getting a passing grade for minimal effort.

The reaction towards the statement is pretty apt, and justified, because prior to this Bioware showed absolutely zero signs of the artistic integrity which you are defending so adamantly, and if I call you naive or silly, it's because the reasons you cite for their claim being acceptable make you seem that way. Just the same as Bioware's effort portrays them as being lazy, uninventive and rude.

Also, fchopin, please do not compare ME3's ending to CD Projekt's efforts. One is a trainwreck created back inconsistensies and lack of creative foresight, the other is a carefully planned and meticulated series of story paths that actually reflect the decisions made within said paths. You're effectively saying that because the ending was sad and depressing because it didn't live up to the bar it set for itself that it is somehow 'mature and edgy' for doing so. That's like saying an Olympic diver snapping their spine because they fudged a jump is 'mature and creative' because of how pityingly sad it is that it happened.

Modifié par Gleym, 19 avril 2012 - 09:37 .

[snfonseka]

Art or not, I consider a game as a product. So if customers are not happy they have the right to complain as much as they want. The developer has the freedom to provide necessary changes to the product in hope of satisfying the customer or ignore the customer and their complains (according to my experience in IT field, this approach will cause long term repercussions).

There is no need to hide behind this "artistic integrity" term. If BW wants to satisfy the dissatisfied customers they need to do the required changes. If not, they can ignore them.

Remember the last ME related novel with a lot of plot holes and inconsistencies? BW said they are going to change the book in future releases. So where is this "artistic integrity" in that?

[fchopin]

Gleym wrote...

Also, fchopin, please do not compare ME3's ending to CD Projekt's efforts. One is a trainwreck created back inconsistensies and lack of creative foresight, the other is a carefully planned and meticulated series of story paths that actually reflect the decisions made within said paths. You're effectively saying that because the ending was sad and depressing because it didn't live up to the bar it set for itself that it is somehow 'mature and edgy' for doing so. That's like saying an Olympic diver snapping their spine because they fudged a jump is 'mature and creative' because of how pityingly sad it is that it happened.

I don’t understand what you mean by inconsistencies and lack of creative foresight, for me the game story was set in the beginning of the game.
 
We had to go to Mars and we all know what happens, this is a no spoiler forum.
We knew from the beginning what we had to do and all the war assets was for this reason, there was never any chance of winning against the reapers in a conventional way and we also knew there was an unknown subject that we would find when we finished making the catalyst so the story was consistent as far as i am concerned.
 
I know there are plot holes but hopefully they will be fixed in the EC and we get better clarifications.

[ZaroktheImmortal]

Video games are not art, they are products. Further more if you buy art you know exactly what you're getting.

Modifié par ZaroktheImmortal, 19 avril 2012 - 10:47 .

[Srau]

I, like you, believe in "artistic intergrity" but sadly for "artistic intergrity" i also believe in capitalism, consumerism, mass market products and the good old cold thing that pay the bills : cash.

[Vez04]

[Comment removed, wrong thread!]

Modifié par Vez04, 19 avril 2012 - 11:15 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

poerksen wrote...

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.

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

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

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.

[Cucobr]

 you dont know the story behind the ending.


The true ending was not that ending that we knowing


The writer of Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 leaves BioWare because the game was taking different direction  than he planned from the beginning.


so please do not give me ''I believe in artistic integrity''.

Modifié par Cucobr, 19 avril 2012 - 11:19 .

[PaulSX]

snfonseka wrote...

Art or not, I consider a game as a product. So if customers are not happy they have the right to complain as much as they want. The developer has the freedom to provide necessary changes to the product in hope of satisfying the customer or ignore the customer and their complains (according to my experience in IT field, this approach will cause long term repercussions).

There is no need to hide behind this "artistic integrity" term. If BW wants to satisfy the dissatisfied customers they need to do the required changes. If not, they can ignore them.

Remember the last ME related novel with a lot of plot holes and inconsistencies? BW said they are going to change the book in future releases. So where is this "artistic integrity" in that?

"artistic integrity" is an overrated term imo. The more popular things become, the more they loses their artistic integrity with the masses. technically BW losed their "artistic integrity" since neverwinter nights. they just used this term to show their superority.

[shinyelf]

mebtru wrote...

Another troll who do not own ME3, its funny to see the ones who defend or attack Bioware and do not have the game.

Sorry i'll go register as soon as I can be arsed