193 réponses à ce sujet

[shinyelf]

Gleym wrote...

And how, then, just out of curiosity, is this different than, say, the Director's Commentary on an Uwe Boll movie where he spends most of the commentary explaining why his artistic vision is brilliant and slamming all of the reviews and critiques? Isn't it exactly what Bioware's doing now? Explaining 'why we are right and you are wrong'?

I think it is because Bioware doesn't say "you are wrong" but actually says, "we can't make an entirely new ending, beacause that would interfere with our vision for the project, but we think we can show you why we like the ending" and then they add something to the game, not just snide remarks and insults, but actual cutscenes and dialogue. 

But maybe I'm wrong, perhaps Hudson is just Uwe Boll in disguise.

[Dude_in_the_Room]

Farbautisonn wrote...

Dude_in_the_Room wrote...

Farbautisonn wrote...

Dude_in_the_Room wrote...

I believe I can fly
I beieve I can touch the sky
I think about it every night and day
Spread my wings and fly away
i believe I can fly

-This isnt helping your e-toughguy image. Come on man. Put some effort into it. Make snide, sarcastic remarks dripping with bitter irony.

Singing songs from a Bugs Bunny flick isnt going to help.

COME AT ME!!!!

-Would you like a carrot? 

..........yes.

[shinyelf]

@ChookAttack

You make some good points, but I don't ever think said that the consumer should not have have a say, I did however say that the consumer does not have the final say. I think Bioware should listen to the community, and try to please as many as possible, but if they feel that they would be violations their vision if they changed the ending, then I am against changing it.

So as long as we convince them, through reasonable debate, that the ending could do with some changes then I am all for it, but I'd we start demanding change then I don't I can truely believe in the cause

[shinyelf]

@ChookAttack

Be that as it may, but I still consider the debate of wether or not one can still maintain artistic integrity in today's climate a valid discussion.
After all the only thing that would make artistic integrity moot is you not believing in it.
Gamers have strived to get our games acknowledged as art for pretty damn log, and this was a chance to say "yes you are right, this is art and we cannot demand that you fix it, but let us have a reasonable debate" however that chance flew out of the window when someone decided that games could only be art when we benefit

[abaris]

shinyelf wrote...

Gamers have strived to get our games acknowledged as art for pretty damn log, and this was a chance to say "yes you are right, this is art and we cannot demand that you fix it, but let us have a reasonable debate" however that chance flew out of the window when someone decided that games could only be art when we benefit

I for one never strived to call games art.

They're an interactive entertainment product on the free market. They're subject to regulations anyway. Just like movies or tv shows they have to look at their ratings in order to get a broader audience. And the only reason to do so is to sell more copies.

Art, real art, is totally free. I think that's how most if not all Western societies approach the matter. It doesn't bend over because one or another lobby or pressure group thinks it's unsuitable for a particular audience.

Third, it's a mass product. Not some brainchild of any given individual. The only game I can think of that really played the art card would be Myst way back in the 90ies.

And fourth, this is all about storytelling. And storytelling is bound to follow rules to be called a story. Aristoteles was the first to put them down in writing. Gaping plotholes and taking shortcuts by introducing a deus ex are a sure way to derail any plot. And any given editor would throw a work featuring these kinds of mistakes back for a redraft.

[Lotion Soronarr]

ChookAttack wrote..

Again, I would be perfectly happy if reasoned debate was capable of influencing anything, but it isn't.  When multi billion dollar corporations are the ones producing what you see as art, then you have not a single say in how that art can be improved.

Except that's not true.
There are plenty fo indie developers. And proft margin aren't the ONLY things influencing game design, otherwise  there would be nothing but COD knock-off on the market.

You are right when you say that distributors/owners limit the artistic decisions of the delopers, and hence reduce artistic integrity. And your answer is to limit it even more by forcing the devs to always listen to the loudest crowds?

I also think you are misinterpreting the message many, if not most, Retakers are trying to get across.  They aren't disputing artistic merit, they are disputing that artistic merit can be used to deflect any and all criticism.  Art is not by definition good.  There is a heck of a lot of bad art out there, and for Bioware to claim that their artistic vision is beyond reproach simply for being an artistic vision will do more to set back the attempt for games to be taken seriously as an art form that anything that the Retakers can do.

No, you see, artistic/merit vision cannot deflect all criticim.
But, even for (to you) absolutely horrible art, it is more than enough reason not to change anything.

See, the ME3 ending may be legitimately bad. The developers/writers may recognize that. But it still remains their ending, and even if their design choices ended up bad, they were still theri hoices. It is their RIGHT to not change a damn thing.

[Il Divo]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Except that's not true.
There are plenty fo indie developers. And proft margin aren't the ONLY things influencing game design, otherwise  there would be nothing but COD knock-off on the market.

You are right when you say that distributors/owners limit the artistic decisions of the delopers, and hence reduce artistic integrity. And your answer is to limit it even more by forcing the devs to always listen to the loudest crowds?

As a creator, if you make something people hate, there are going to be consequences for it. Otherwise it wouldn't be artistic integrity, since nothing of value to the developers is being put on the line. They're forced to battle between their artistic vision and financial success.

Reality is that products which people don't think will sell typically don't get made, so the market doesn't really care about artistic integrity. If Bioware wants to make AAA projects on a regular basis, they're going to be dependent on a consumer base. Besides, there's no reason they have to call this the "canon" ending. How many revisions/retcons do superhero comics undergo? They can call it whatever the hell they want, as long as they address this crap.

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 avril 2012 - 12:33 .

[Gleym]

shinyelf wrote...

I think it is because Bioware doesn't say "you are wrong" but actually says, "we can't make an entirely new ending, beacause that would interfere with our vision for the project, but we think we can show you why we like the ending" and then they add something to the game, not just snide remarks and insults, but actual cutscenes and dialogue. 

But maybe I'm wrong, perhaps Hudson is just Uwe Boll in disguise.

Well, now who's acting obtuse? You can be like someone, and share their business practices and treat people in a similar fashion without BEING that person. And the thing is.. they are telling people 'they are wrong'. The statement alone 'we stand by our artistic integrity' effectively translates to 'we think our decision was the right one'. If they think that their decision is 'right', then that means those who complained are being considered 'wrong'.

Not to mention that there have been plenty of snide remarks and veiled insults floating around from staffers. There was a big hubub about Jessica Merizan's Twitter page at some given point, and I can't remember where I saw it but another Bioware employee pretty much insulted someone directly on their twitter page. Not to mention the ever classic 'end of line' and 'ding dong bannu' incidents where people have been shortchanged in the past.

Just look at Priestly's behaviour in this thread alone. Not only does he pretty much tell anyone who dislikes the eavesdropping gimmick that they're wrong and he's right, he then makes flippant, dismissive remarks that don't even address what people say so him. That thread alone sums up exactly  what I'm talking about.

So yeah, it's not an unfair comparison when you add up the pieces.

Modifié par Gleym, 20 avril 2012 - 12:54 .

[abaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

See, the ME3 ending may be legitimately bad. The developers/writers may recognize that. But it still remains their ending, and even if their design choices ended up bad, they were still theri hoices. It is their RIGHT to not change a damn thing.

Of course it's their right. I guess noone argues that point.

It is their right, regardless if it's art or product.  And regardless if it's art or product, they are the ones having to live with the consequences. They didn't do it for their own enjoyment after all, they want to sell it. And if it doesn't come back to bite them into the proverbial now, it sure comes back when their next artistic vision hits the shelves.

[TheRealJayDee]

sharkboy421 wrote...

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.

+1

[shinyelf]

Gleym wrote...

Well, now who's acting obtuse? You can be like someone, and share their business practices and treat people in a similar fashion without BEING that person. And the thing is.. they are telling people 'they are wrong'. The statement alone 'we stand by our artistic integrity' effectively translates to 'we think our decision was the right one'. If they think that their decision is 'right', then that means those who complained are being considered 'wrong'.

Not to mention that there have been plenty of snide remarks and veiled insults floating around from staffers. There was a big hubub about Jessica Merizan's Twitter page at some given point, and I can't remember where I saw it but another Bioware employee pretty much insulted someone directly on their twitter page. Not to mention the ever classic 'end of line' and 'ding dong bannu' incidents where people have been shortchanged in the past.

Just look at Priestly's behaviour in this thread alone. Not only does he pretty much tell anyone who dislikes the eavesdropping gimmick that they're wrong and he's right, he then makes flippant, dismissive remarks that don't even address what people say so him. That thread alone sums up exactly  what I'm talking about.

So yeah, it's not an unfair comparison when you add up the pieces.

I think one of the most important parts I how your present your case, I can say that I am right without saying that you are completely wrong, it all depends on presentation. 
I think that an artist(or developer) had te right to defend his work however he or she wants to, but I really want them tO do it in a reasonable way.

[Cazychel]

What happened so far was nothing but PR 101 damage control, not "sticking to their guns".

If they had stuck to their guns, they would have gone out here, in the media and everywhere openly fighting against a bad reputation that's been building up since release. They would have explained their view and would have said: "This is our vision. Deal with it!" That would have shown artistic integrity, because it is not a word you can hold in front of you to make criticism go away magically (though they seem to believe in magic), its an attribute that you can either show or not show.
And they have not shown artistic integrity.

[Mylia Stenetch]

Cazychel wrote...

What happened so far was nothing but PR 101 damage control, not "sticking to their guns".

If they had stuck to their guns, they would have gone out here, in the media and everywhere openly fighting against a bad reputation that's been building up since release. They would have explained their view and would have said: "This is our vision. Deal with it!" That would have shown artistic integrity, because it is not a word you can hold in front of you to make criticism go away magically (though they seem to believe in magic), its an attribute that you can either show or not show.
And they have not shown artistic integrity.

If they came up and said 
"This is our vision. Deal with it!"  that would not be artistic intergrity, that is artistic douchery. When they came out and reconized what people were screaming said they are making a extended DLC, talking to the writers/artists about how to change it. That is showing intergrity. While some may not like it, it is what it is. They saw the critizims coming in, they are keeping what they want for an ending and clarifying/editing/correcting (who knows at the moment what they are fully doing). 

They may stick with their guns on the ending but did give up a concession. It is mainly just how the bring it to us will show what their artistic vision for the ending really is.

[HighFlyingDwarf]

The artistic integrity of Mass Effect: Deception is lying in pieces all over the floor...just for the record.

[Blastback]

A big part of this for me is letting Bioware know that I think this kind of direction sucks beyond measure, and I won't be buying any of their products if they continue to use it.

[ShinsFortress]

Ditto.

[Bluko]

 Here's a definition of Integrity:

1. Honesty

To have integrity in something you must be honest and earnest about what it is you're trying to do. I can't say I'm going to build a car and then instead build a bike. In that situation I have lost my integrity as I failed to remain commited to my goal.

Now maybe Bioware is sticking true to their intended goals. But they surely are not telling us what they are. So them claiming to be good and honest is rather ridiculous since it seems their goal is more to be sneaky, deceptive, and perhaps manipulative even. Either way hiding behind the label of "artistic integirty" is pretty laughable when you've already shown you're willing to auction off aspects of story via DLC. And  take fan feedback into consideration when making your product. Also doesn't really work in a free market either you're attempting to get the "best" price not the most "fair" price. Sorry if you sell art you are not a true artist. Granted it can be a little hazy as to what can actually be considered story within a video game of all things. But unfortunately we sort of crossed this bridge probably with Kasumi.

Here's an example. Imagine you go to see Star Wars. But there's a catch. In order to see Star Wars with Chewbacca you're going to have cough up an extra $2.50 That's basically what's going on now. Or in the case of the endings you get to see ROTJ but once Palpatine gets thrown over the rails the screen fades to black. Then George Lucas says you'll get to see the "Extended Cut" this summer. For free! Gee isn't that nice of Mr. Lucas? See he cares about his fans. Oh wait maybe the movie should have just been release in the summer instead.



To be honest the practices of current "gaming industry" are pretty deplorable. Literally Hollywood is starting to look better in comparison. Which is pretty disheartening. To see one of my hobbies be overrun by greed is not something I will rejoice over. I expected gaming to become more commercialized certainly. But why some of you go along with the proverbial bullplop is beyond me. Look it's one thing to defend decisions you agree with. So if you do actually like the endings as they are it's fine that you'd try to defend them. (Though personally I reckon you might want to pay a little more attention to certain details.) But defending Bioware out of some misguided faith is pretty pathetic.

You do not know Bioware. You are not friends with them. Just because you read every news article or follow their every tweet does not make it so. Defending them on some kind of personal basis is simply foolishness. Unless you go to down to their studio and have a beer with them everyday. I mean seriously it's as silly as defending your imaginary friend for something you did.

Complementing any specific Bioware employee is as arrogant as ridiculing them. If you want to praise a creator praise their work. That should be all the gratification they need. Vice versa if you dislike the work then you criticize it for why it is bad. Hopefully they will learn from that. However going after specific individuals on what is essentially a group effort is meaningless, if not also childish in nautre. It's easy to pin all the blame on one or a few persons. Always much harder to accept it is likely the result of many individuals.

Modifié par Bluko, 21 avril 2012 - 03:21 .

[Legion64]

Ah yes, the OP believes in the idea of Bioware making excuses for their mistakes.

Modifié par Legion64, 21 avril 2012 - 03:24 .

[levyjl1988]

This topic again, sigh.

Watch these videos and you will come to understand the reasons why the last 10 min of Mass Effect 3 was a kick in the balls.

(spoiler alert)

[Legion64]

levyjl1988 wrote...

This topic again, sigh.

Watch these videos and you will come to understand the reasons why the last 10 min of Mass Effect 3 was a kick in the balls.

(spoiler alert)

I support this.

[Chapity]

Ok, so if bioware doesn't tell you what the intention of a product NOT YET AVAILABLE is, then thats deception? The last ten minutes of the game is an obvious lead in to the next game, and it's no wonder at all why they wouldn't want to tell you or anyone about it. I didn't at all like the data mined story plot being EVERYWHERE five months ago. You couldnt have a decent speculation thread without every douchebag hater in the world telling you why it was epic fail time. They are still doing it. Give the guys some slack. Do you like having your story's ruined?