Reorte wrote...
Completely and utterly wrong because it's treating something blindly as black and white. Like everything, there's a time and place for it and you can never say you should never do this or always do that under any circumstances because it's simply not true. In this case it assumes that the author is incapable of making a complete mess of things and producing a better work if they listen to feedback and correct it.
You are mixing things up. I never said that an iterative design process does not have its place. Yet I do not believe that a story should be released, *then* amended by player feedback. I'm all for Bioware taking note of fan feedback when they *create* things, but I absolutely do not condone an artist (or developer, if you prefer that) to retroactively change their stories. It devalues a plot completely, as you can never be sure if whatever detail or major point you are interpreting for yourself won't just be changed or removed completely later on, just because a group of people did not agree with it.
Collaborative storytelling has its place, but a) it's not the principle Mass Effect has been built on, which has always been Bioware's story, and
, it's something that needs to happen proactively, not in retrospect.
Reorte wrote...
It's true of someone building a house, it's true of someone writing a story and it's also true, of course, that it doesn't always make things better. But to refuse to ever change at all is just being pig-headed and prideful. There's a whole continuum between that and being a slave to your audience.
Again, no, there is not. Either you have the integrity to stand behind your creation, no matter how the feedback (and I certainly do believe that the negative feedback appears to be much more widespread judging by these forums than it does in the real world), or you don't. To follow up on your own metaphor, you can take all the help and feedback you want when you plan the house, but once it has been built, you don't go back to it, tear down some parts and rebuild them.
Reorte wrote...
If your dad had ended his story in a graphically gruesome battle for example, completely unsuitable for the audience, it would be far better changed when his son hates it. Or if the knight had come charging in on a rhinoceros.
First, this is absolutely not what happened. The endings are not unsuitable at all, they just do not satisfy everyone.
You missed the point of my metaphor. It is about a story taking the backseat to satisfying one's emotional demands, being entitled to form the story, rather than going with it, and directing one's anger about the story at the creator. All these things happen a lot here. The first time I read people personally attacking Mac Walters and Casey Hudson here just because the story did not pan out the way *they* wanted, I didn't even know what to think, yet this seems to have become common practice here. The whole discussion has pretty much degenerated into whining about not getting what (some) people wanted, personally attacking the writers for it, resorting to ridiculous hyperboles ("worst ending of all time", "ruined the whole series", etc...), and generally trying to spoil it for everyone who liked it (angsty, stupid, ...).
Retour en haut
