632 réponses à ce sujet

[LinksOcarina]

The Invisible Commando wrote...

I expect Bioware will showcase Dragon Age 3 at E3. Mass Effect 3 is over aside from some DLC.

Actually, i'm expecting Command and Conquer to be showcased...

[frylock23]

chemiclord wrote...

jeff359 wrote...

The fact they truly believed they had something good is what makes me concerned. But I have some faith

Believe it or not, people make mistakes.  Even the best writers misguage what fans expect or what they'd want.  Sometimes the story the writer is telling isn't the one the audience is experiencing.

It happens.  At that point, the creator has to balance what the audience expects with what he or she wants to say.  It's not as simple as bending over and giving the fans everything they want and to hell with anything else.  That's empty pandering, and can be done by anyone.

No, you can't give the fans total control, but they couldn't lose sight of the fact that they marketed this game from the start as one where our choices and, thus, our input mattered to some degree. And then, when they started talking about all the wildly different endings ... well, after DA:O's endings, I think most people thought we'd get something similar because they could finally really play with the variables and showcase them.

Then we got A,B,C which is exactly what they said we would not get.

[sw04ca]

KrazyKiko wrote...

 The ME3 team is still working hard on the EC. We have no further news and won't be rushing it or announcements on it.

Had they NOT rushed the game to begin with - regardless of fault (BioWare / EA) - we probably wouldn't be having this thread.  It's a shame how business is becoming more "reactionary" versus proactive in release cycles.

Lots of people would have still hated the ending for what it was, and the ending wasn't a matter of being rushed.  It was a matter of writing oneself into a corner and honestly not knowing how to finish the story from ME2.

[Vizard355]

The ending needs to be fixed, but it at least had "An End Once and For All" and "Das Maletitz" going for it in the interest of auditory awesome. I do, however, believe that the end to "An End Once and For All" was abrupt as it went along with the Normandy ran away. I wouldn't mind if that part of the song was changed. I do have to agree with Total Biscuit on the EC. The longer, the better and throw in the IT while they're at it (but even though I support the IT and hate the Control and Synthesis options as they make no sense, I still believe those who chose them should get something to enjoy).

[Kunari801]

frylock23 wrote...
No, you can't give the fans total control, but they couldn't lose sight of the fact that they marketed this game from the start as one where our choices and, thus, our input mattered to some degree. And then, when they started talking about all the wildly different endings ... well, after DA:O's endings, I think most people thought we'd get something similar because they could finally really play with the variables and showcase them.

Then we got A,B,C which is exactly what they said we would not get. 

I'm not 100% sure we wouldn't have the "A,B,C" ending even if they'd given BW another six-months.  I think they wanted the have the players choose between Destroy, Control, and Synthesis.   I'd hope that more time would have let them test it better and adjust before release instead of after with the EC.  

I think the story the Devs were writing wasn't necessarily what we the players were experiencing.  I'm not sure they would have caught that even with more time.  

[chemiclord]

frylock23 wrote...

No, you can't give the fans total control, but they couldn't lose sight of the fact that they marketed this game from the start as one where our choices and, thus, our input mattered to some degree. And then, when they started talking about all the wildly different endings ... well, after DA:O's endings, I think most people thought we'd get something similar because they could finally really play with the variables and showcase them.

Then we got A,B,C which is exactly what they said we would not get.

See, I really couldn't give one tenth of one **** what Casey Hudson trumped up in an interview.  He's more salesman than writer at this point.  He would have said the game discs were being stamped into 24-carat gold if he thought it would stir up more sales.

On that same token, he could have said the games were being stamped onto cow droppings, and there still would have been millions of people in line at midnight of March 6, 2012, clutching their pre-purchase slips in eager anticipation.

The advertisement static, while definitely something that should be explored for legal ramifications, isn't something that I think REALLY is the heart of the issue.  Had the ending been A, B, and C, but was otherwise incredible, I doubt even a marginal minority of fans would be upset.

[Festilence]

chemiclord wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

No, you can't give the fans total control, but they couldn't lose sight of the fact that they marketed this game from the start as one where our choices and, thus, our input mattered to some degree. And then, when they started talking about all the wildly different endings ... well, after DA:O's endings, I think most people thought we'd get something similar because they could finally really play with the variables and showcase them.

Then we got A,B,C which is exactly what they said we would not get.

See, I really couldn't give one tenth of one **** what Casey Hudson trumped up in an interview.  He's more salesman than writer at this point.  He would have said the game discs were being stamped into 24-carat gold if he thought it would stir up more sales.

On that same token, he could have said the games were being stamped onto cow droppings, and there still would have been millions of people in line at midnight of March 6, 2012, clutching their pre-purchase slips in eager anticipation.

The advertisement static, while definitely something that should be explored for legal ramifications, isn't something that I think REALLY is the heart of the issue.  Had the ending been A, B, and C, but was otherwise incredible, I doubt even a marginal minority of fans would be upset.

I definitely agree with your last paragraph.

[IS1296]

DinoSteve wrote...

what could they announce that they haven't already

an apology

[Kunari801]

chemiclord wrote...
... The advertisement static, while definitely something that should be explored for legal ramifications, isn't something that I think REALLY is the heart of the issue.  Had the ending been A, B, and C, but was otherwise incredible, I doubt even a marginal minority of fans would be upset.

Well said.  I agree if the endings were emotionally satisfying there would not have been nearly as much anger at the endings as there are now.  

[frylock23]

Kunari801 wrote...

chemiclord wrote...
... The advertisement static, while definitely something that should be explored for legal ramifications, isn't something that I think REALLY is the heart of the issue.  Had the ending been A, B, and C, but was otherwise incredible, I doubt even a marginal minority of fans would be upset.

Well said.  I agree if the endings were emotionally satisfying there would not have been nearly as much anger at the endings as there are now.  

No, I agree with all that about the endings.

I just think it's an interesting lesson in how loose lips sink ships.

And for me personally, I can't stand that they squandered so much material. Look at how Tuchanka played out with all the variables. They had no need to worry about trying to continue anything, so they could have done literally anything with all the variables from the first games, and they gave us ... Star Brat?

I can see thinking they were writing a different story than the fans were playing, but they really, really lost touch with their fanbase and couldn't have been paying any attention at all if they thought Star Brat was anything like what we were getting out of their story.

I guess it's another arguement for play testing for more reasons than just to make sure you don't have fatal glitches.

Modifié par frylock23, 29 mai 2012 - 11:03 .

[Computer_God91]

I have a feeling the EC will be a bit more extensive then we are lead to believe.

[Kunari801]

frylock23 wrote...
No, I agree with all that about the endings.

I just think it's an interesting lesson in how loose lips sink ships.

And for me personally, I can't stand that they squandered so much material... 

I guess it's another arguement for play testing for more reasons than just to make sure you don't have fatal glitches.

 
I think the story the Devs were writing wasn't necessarily what we the players were experiencing.  I'm not sure they would have caught that even with more time.   

ME1 made the case that AI's are dangerous and there was no AI that wasn't trying to kill us or some else.  ME1 was consistant with "Organics vs Synthetics" idea setting the "AI's will always destroy organics" logic of Star-brat.  However, ME2 evolved that for players to a more nuanced level with EDI and Legions story arc.  ME3 continued that evolution with EDI and the Geth-Quarian arc.   By the time we run into Star-brat I'm not sure too many still believed that "AI's will always destroy organics" as a universal constant.   Even a full renegade Shepard sees EDI evolve and at least sees the Geth-Quarian arc (assume they didn't turn on Legion).  

The only AI in Mass Effect that was a danger to organics not --as far as we know-- influced by the Reapers was the AI on the Citadel in ME1.  The Geth were influenced by the Reapers... twice.   EDI was the evolved Moon VI and grew beyond her initial violence to become an ally of organics. 

The writers were no longer telling the same story us players were experiencing.  So when we meet Star-brat his argument does not sound logical and does not fit our experences in game. 

Modifié par Kunari801, 29 mai 2012 - 11:26 .

[Dryball]

Taboo-XX wrote...



You probably don't see it as art, you see it as a product meant to be comsumed by the masses.

Unfortunately my friend, it IS closer to a product/consumption relationship than art. In fact, most art is based on a product/consumption relationship. The very few examples of art for the sake of art lies in work that most often is never seen by any public figure until the artist is already gone due to the artist creating it simply for themselves, and NOT public consumption. Most art does not fall into that category. Many may say only the best does fall into that gategory, but it's inmaterial to the idea that art is NOT a sacred bond between creator and medium. Let's look at some examples:

Painting: overwhelming majority of paintings are made for public consumption, usually at the beheast of an artist taking on a contract. He may put his individual flare, but he does it for pay. And throughout history there are many cases where pay was refused for either substandard, or percieved substandard product. Even the greats have had this issue(some entire series from artists were never even appreciated until decades or more after they were gone and other's subjectively found something pleasing or revolutionary in their works). 

Sculpting: overwhelming majority produced for a person or government for pay. Same as above.

Music: I have yet to see a piece soley created for the person creating it, however it is likely that they exist, or perhaps simply unfinished works never divulged. Even Mozart and Beetoven produced their works for pay and for the monarchies of their times. 

Literature: Now this I consider this most free of the arts. It uses more of the individual emotions and experiences of the person/people consuming than any other medium. Still, while there is considerably more freedom of expression on the side of the writer, they must follow basic litterary rules in order to produce something many will enjoy reading. For fiction it's more about establishing and maintaining a secondary mental percieved reality that stays unbroken and draws the reader in. Fail to do this and the reader loses interest and moves on to other things. Succeed, and the reader is putty in the palm of your hand, following word after word and wanting it to go on forever. I'm reminded of the corny "Neverending Story" where it's a story about just such a connection, and in the movie you see the boy reader filled with unmitigated concentration on the story due to his percieved consistency in it. 

Video: Many different formats exist, but overall identicle to literature. Produced almost soley for consumption in the hopes the creator makes money and no other reason.


So you see art is about product consumption in the end. Sure it may be something wholely enjoyed by creator and consumer alike, but it would not exist but for the product/consumption relationship. Many times art is changed to better the income of creator, regardless of personal feelings of said creator, or medium involved. So to say something is protected by "artistic integrity," or simply the feelings of the creator, is baseless and ignorant of the facts in the world of art. Art is created for consumption almost comopletely. So is science. Even philosophy isn't philosophy for it's own sake. It's using a gift either earned or given to make a more secure place for yourself in society. Be it money or praise or whatever you fancy.

 

Modifié par Dryball, 30 mai 2012 - 12:21 .

[chemiclord]

"Artistic Integrity" is the power for a creator to produce a work however they see fit, and the ability to tell someone else, "I am not changing it to suit you."

I will defend that right to my death.

It does NOT protect the creator from the consequences of doing so.  If the audience does not like it, they are under no obligation to support said creator.

I will defend THAT right to my death as well.

Modifié par chemiclord, 30 mai 2012 - 12:39 .

[Dryball]

chemiclord wrote...

"Artistic Integrity" is the power for a creator to produce a work however they see fit, and the ability to tell someone else, "I am not changing it to suit you."

I will defend that right to my death.

It does NOT protect the creator from the consequences of doing so.  If the audience does not like it, they are under no obligation to support said creator.

I will defend THAT right to my death as well.

Unfortunately in this case "artistic integrity" has no value as unlike an artist commisioned to do a portrait, we had to pay upfront like we do for an automobile or toaster. Only, unlike a toaster or automobile there is no recourse for someone to get their money back should they see fit to do so. Nor can we simply take it back to the "bookstore" if we have the game on a PC. We paid for a product as described in writing by the creators, and recieved something different. Kinda like Griswold getting the "Family Truckster" in National Lampoons:Vacation. We have a pre-forced obligation to support the creator.

So it makes the "artistic integrity" excuse far more painful for the majority of fans who bought into the ME franchise. It would have been as if the last book in the Harry Potter series ran on and on about muggles and had absolutely nothing to do with Harry Potter other than to briefly state something like, "He Died, buy more books."

That's why there is such vitriol over the entire subject and across the full spectrum of the gaming world over this game. Wether one person liked it or not, the game has an overwhelming number of detractors from it's most loyal followers the world over. They are the majority, not just a vocal minority no matter how anyone who likes ME3 tries to state otherwise.

Personally, I feel I played a Beta. It sucks, but it's also incomplete and has promise...

Modifié par Dryball, 30 mai 2012 - 01:13 .

[Dryball]

Taboo-XX wrote...

As I said. You had the chance and missed it.

The refund was there and you didn't take it.

If it's just a product to you then why are you still here?

Hope....maybe?

I am. Still here for hope. I never recieved an email, phonecall, text, snail mail, or other form of communication a chance for refund even existed to begin with. Yes, they have all the above options as they have all the above information to complete a message like that. Hell, Honda does for my car...and it's a 1995 Civic...they've followed me across Texas for 7 years now and over 1000miles...and BW has more info than they do. They just have registration records. I know, this was directed at the other guy, but still...point stands...a refund window unannounced and extremely time sensitive makes none at all...

So I hope. I see promise in a foundation and a team I know first hand is capable of much better work than what was released as ME3...

[Kunari801]

Dryball wrote...
...So I hope. I see promise in a foundation and a team I know first hand is capable of much better work than what was released as ME3...

95% of ME3 is a good game, I didn't take the refund becuase I liked the game well enough to keep it.  I too hope for a better ending and I try to keep my wishes grounded to try and avoid another heartache. 

[Dryball]

Kunari801 wrote...


95% of ME3 is a good game, I didn't take the refund becuase I liked the game well enough to keep it.  I too hope for a better ending and I try to keep my wishes grounded to try and avoid another heartache. 

I give it 75%...

But a successful and artfully crafted non-lazy change in 5% would have made the last 20% of faults seem mild and meaningless to me.

[chemiclord]

Dryball wrote...

Unfortunately in this case "artistic integrity" has no value as unlike an artist commisioned to do a portrait, we had to pay upfront like we do for an automobile or toaster. Only, unlike a toaster or automobile there is no recourse for someone to get their money back should they see fit to do so. Nor can we simply take it back to the "bookstore" if we have the game on a PC. We paid for a product as described in writing by the creators, and recieved something different. Kinda like Griswold getting the "Family Truckster" in National Lampoons:Vacation. We have a pre-forced obligation to support the creator.

So it makes the "artistic integrity" excuse far more painful for the majority of fans who bought into the ME franchise. It would have been as if the last book in the Harry Potter series ran on and on about muggles and had absolutely nothing to do with Harry Potter other than to briefly state something like, "He Died, buy more books."

That's why there is such vitriol over the entire subject and across the full spectrum of the gaming world over this game. Wether one person liked it or not, the game has an overwhelming number of detractors from it's most loyal followers the world over. They are the majority, not just a vocal minority no matter how anyone who likes ME3 tries to state otherwise.

Personally, I feel I played a Beta. It sucks, but it's also incomplete and has promise...

No, you CHOSE to pay for it on release day.  You could have very well waited two weeks after release, and the game would have still been there.

You CHOSE, sight unseen, to buy a product.  Yes, it was based on prior relationship, but it was still a sight unseen purchase.

I really don't care how many people hate the ending, or really hate the game as a whole.  I don't care if everyone on planet Earth despised it from start to finish.  I really don't care how loudly they scream in displeasure, either.  None of that changes the fact that it was Bioware's story to tell however they wish, and to tell you, "we're not changing it" if they so wanted.

Caveat Emptor. 

Modifié par chemiclord, 30 mai 2012 - 02:02 .

[Dryball]

chemiclord wrote...



No, you CHOSE to pay for it on release day.  You could have very well waited two weeks after release, and the game would have still been there.

You CHOSE, sight unseen, to buy a product.  Yes, it was based on prior relationship, but it was still a sight unseen purchase.

I really don't care how many people hate the ending, or really hate the game as a whole.  I don't care if everyone on planet Earth despised it from start to finish.  I really don't care how loudly they scream in displeasure, either.  None of that changes the fact that it was Bioware's story to tell however they wish, and to tell you, "we're not changing it" if they so wanted.

Caveat Emptor. 

I chose based on prior relationship AND FALSE ADVERTISING. <--period there not after relationship...

What's your point in mentioning that? I could also have done the same and purchased a Chevy Lumina when they first came out based on prior relationship and false advertising. Except in the latter the Lemon law was created and buyer's were protected. It's EXACTLY the same. Chevy Lumina designers had full say on how it was shaped made and built, but only in so much that it didn't decieve or otherwise "harm" the consumer. In this case "harm" is purely monetary.

I don't dispute BW being able to tell the story how they want, but they should at least follow their own advertising when doing so. They didn't. They already collected millions of dollars for the product, most before it was released. And like it or not it IS NOT PURE ART FOR BEING ART. It is art for money. Commisioned by shareholders and consumers alike. They could also have not made it at all and turned down the commision. Might have actually been better on their part in many ways. Regardless they went the third route. They accepted commision on a third story and failed to provide an acceptable entry. Even by their own standards.

The same thing happens to writers. If they don't put out for the publisher's on the publisher's deadlines or produce substandard product then refunds are issued and the writer is on deck to pay back any and all pre-complete commission wages. 

So essentially nothing you wrote there...mattered...except to you...same as mine...happy? LMAO!

[BaladasDemnevanni]

chemiclord wrote...

"Artistic Integrity" is the power for a creator to produce a work however they see fit, and the ability to tell someone else, "I am not changing it to suit you."

I will defend that right to my death.

It does NOT protect the creator from the consequences of doing so.  If the audience does not like it, they are under no obligation to support said creator.

I will defend THAT right to my death as well.

Just about sums up my opinion as well. Writers can have their artistic integrity. Occasionally, that artistic integrity will be exactly what people will want and the writer can make a huge profit without having to compromise their vision. In other circumstances, the writer will find him/herself having to balance between what they want to see in the story and what people will actually pay to see in the story. The writer can ignore this, as it's his product and risk lower sales, or he can compromise.

Artistic integrity wouldn't really be integrity if the decision to maintain your vision didn't have potential negative consequences.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 30 mai 2012 - 03:14 .

[MegaSovereign]

IS1296 wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

what could they announce that they haven't already

an apology

An apology? LOL

"Sorry you guys didn't like our product"

The **** is wrong with you

[Dryball]

It's hogwash. Artistic Integrity doesn't exist in gaming. Doesn't matter how you spin it, it IS a consumable software product with some artistic elements but an overall necessity to produce the quality it was advertised to have, which it didn't. It's no different that any other consumer based PROFIT engaged product. It wasn't made because someone wanted to see if they could make it. In fact, it takes countless months of planning in a large gaming company just to get past the initial go ahead's from upper management to start the process of cost to production value ratio's and milestone's.

I freakin E. they make no move in the game without being triple checked and only truly care about the "artistic" aspects so much as they are within budget and help sell. That's it. They care nothing more about the true artistic machinations in the game. They will hire 20 fresh grad artists at bottom dollar and care nothing about it to throw them away. Yup, I said the truth. Oh well. The gaming world on the creation side is cutthroat, hard-pressed, and 100% driven by consumer's. Not artists. Artist's may think up some cool idea, but if it never get's past consumer trials...it becomes a b-rated game a very talented but also very poor programmer makes and distributes free on his own time.

Artistic integrity is a corny catch phrase that is simply code for:

Yes we ****ed up but are going to attempt to fix it, but will never fully admit how royally we screwed the proverbial pooch and instead will hide behind made up words to induce some sort of protectionist emotion from fans more loyal to BW than those loyal specifically to the ME story. This is OK because we will then label a consumer product as art shortly before and make it fit into some esoteric genre protected against all insults in some holy book or something.

[chemiclord]

Dryball wrote...

I chose based on prior relationship AND FALSE ADVERTISING. <--period there not after relationship...

What's your point in mentioning that? I could also have done the same and purchased a Chevy Lumina when they first came out based on prior relationship and false advertising. Except in the latter the Lemon law was created and buyer's were protected. It's EXACTLY the same. Chevy Lumina designers had full say on how it was shaped made and built, but only in so much that it didn't decieve or otherwise "harm" the consumer. In this case "harm" is purely monetary.

I don't dispute BW being able to tell the story how they want, but they should at least follow their own advertising when doing so. They didn't. They already collected millions of dollars for the product, most before it was released. And like it or not it IS NOT PURE ART FOR BEING ART. It is art for money. Commisioned by shareholders and consumers alike. They could also have not made it at all and turned down the commision. Might have actually been better on their part in many ways. Regardless they went the third route. They accepted commision on a third story and failed to provide an acceptable entry. Even by their own standards.

The same thing happens to writers. If they don't put out for the publisher's on the publisher's deadlines or produce substandard product then refunds are issued and the writer is on deck to pay back any and all pre-complete commission wages. 

So essentially nothing you wrote there...mattered...except to you...same as mine...happy? LMAO!

You were going to buy ME3 no matter what Bioware said.  Casey Hudson could have said opened vials of plague had been put into each individual box, and you would have still bought it.  At least be honest with yourself.

For what it's worth, I get why people are upset (and it's not because of false advertising).  I'm not happy with the ending either.  I think it sucks and is terrible.  But for me, that's pretty much the end of it.  Bioware decided, after listening to the complaints, to try and make their ending better.  That's far more than I expected.

You may think I'm a bad consumer, when in fact, I think I'm a very good one.  I got a product.  I didn't like it.  I made my complaints known.  If the product does not meet my satisfaction after that, I wash my hands of the whole thing, and I'm done with the company.

What I don't do is keep complaining after the company has already heard me out, and made up their mind on what to do.  It's not worth the anger.  It's just screaming at a brick wall at that point.

As for the false advertising... hey, if an agency thinks it's worth exploring for potential malfeasance, great.  If not, oh well.  It would hardly be the first time a company oversold their product's features.  It won't be the last.  And chances are, absolutely nothing will be done about it.  At that point, you need to get angry at the agencies who are supposed to be protecting you from this sort of BS, not the companies that you know are going to use every inch of rope they're allowed to use.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Since artistic integrity seems to be a phrase that bothers you so much, I'll put it differently: writers make stories. Commercial or not, writers will often come to care about the story they created. That story, like it or not, belongs to the writer. If the writer likes what he makes, he is under no obligation to change it whether one or one hundred or one thousand people hate it. As its his property, that is all artistic integrity is. The author can choose to alter it, due to fan complaint, or he can maintain his vision, which (potentially) can have adverse consequences for future product sales. It's not really a hard concept to understand.