6432 réponses à ce sujet

[Bierwichtel]

artistic integrity can go fong itself...

[Ozida]

Bierwichtel wrote...

and as for DLC practically paying itself: how I wish that was true, then the producers would listen to the demands of the fans, not the demands of their own bank accounts...

one more point I have to make:

the people in charge, the people who fund the production do not care about the product itself, they only ever care about their bottom line...

Ok, I am not arguing for the sake of arguing, lol, but it seems that Mr. Hudson cares a lot about his writing. Maybe even too much... Maybe if they cared about profit a bit more, they wouldn't keep arguing against any changes that may spoil their "piece of art". I mean, even EC seemed as a huge compromise with their "a. i.".

Other than, I agree, DLC would be pretty sweet and would still make many people happy, even those who abonded ME3.

ETA:

Bierwichtel wrote...
artistic integrity can go fong itself...

And I agree with this one too. Games are for fun!

Modifié par Ozida, 21 septembre 2012 - 05:11 .

[3DandBeyond]

Bierwichtel wrote...

artistic integrity can go fong itself...

Such a thing rarely truly exists when one chooses to sell one's art.  And I'm not saying this is BW's mindset.  It is the mindset of a lot of so-called fans, that ME is their art.  No, it's consumer art if anything.  You can say J. K. Rowlings stuck to her story, but you don't know that for a fact.  She had editors and a publisher who told her what fans liked and didn't like.  She created HP to appeal to fans and not just as something she liked.  She used a lot of things to make sure it appealed to people and considered killing Harry off-she didn't because she knew some way some how what fans would feel about that.

People may say HP isn't art.  Well, if ME is, then HP is too.  And both are derivative and not unassailable or untouchable.  Both involved fan participation and love in order to be successes.  J. K. wrote HP to make money.  I'm pretty sure that's why BW created ME.

[Bierwichtel]

I do not like the notion of so called artistic integrity for several reasons:

1) art is too subjective as you so rightly pointed out, which turns it into arbitrary, subjective integrity...

2) art is fluid, art changes, the term artistic integrity denotes that art shall not change, art is stagnant, art is status quo... (which, as I hope we can all agree, it is not and never will be)

art has alway broken rules, broken boundaries, made people uncomfortable...

an artist, by definition, creates... thus continually changes the world around him and himself even...

Modifié par Bierwichtel, 21 septembre 2012 - 05:21 .

[3DandBeyond]

Bierwichtel wrote...

I do not like the notion of so called artistic integrity for several reasons:

1) art is too subjective as you so rightly pointed out, which turns it into arbitrary, subjective integrity...

2) art is fluid, art changes, the term artistic integrity denotes that art shall not change, art is stagnant, art is status quo...

Exactly.  Art is fluid.  Art also changes due to social mores, technology, current events, and all kinds of external pressure that has absolutely nothing to do with some narrow-minded static vision of things.  I like to paint, but if I never react to external stimuli what I paint will always be the same.  I react to other things and what people like.  And I don't paint to sell what I paint. 

I take photos and just love changing light.  Impressionist painters took advantage of new paint technology and even more portable paint so they could paint au plein aire.  And many of them painted in teams, painting the same views from different perspectives and using different techniques.  Photography started to take the place of formal portrait painting and most early photography was centered around cataloging life, not creating art.  It was recognized as art and then changed to appeal to that.

Art and what is art is always an agreement between the creator and the consumer.

[Bierwichtel]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Bierwichtel wrote...

I do not like the notion of so called artistic integrity for several reasons:

1) art is too subjective as you so rightly pointed out, which turns it into arbitrary, subjective integrity...

2) art is fluid, art changes, the term artistic integrity denotes that art shall not change, art is stagnant, art is status quo...

Exactly.  Art is fluid.  Art also changes due to social mores, technology, current events, and all kinds of external pressure that has absolutely nothing to do with some narrow-minded static vision of things.  I like to paint, but if I never react to external stimuli what I paint will always be the same.  I react to other things and what people like.  And I don't paint to sell what I paint. 

I take photos and just love changing light.  Impressionist painters took advantage of new paint technology and even more portable paint so they could paint au plein aire.  And many of them painted in teams, painting the same views from different perspectives and using different techniques.  Photography started to take the place of formal portrait painting and most early photography was centered around cataloging life, not creating art.  It was recognized as art and then changed to appeal to that.

Art and what is art is always an agreement between the creator and the consumer.

the creator (here Bioware) on one side and the consumer (us) on the other side...

supply and demand

supply without demand is just pointless, demand without supply is an opportunity...

btw, who's your favourite painter? You mention impressionism, so I've got to ask...

Modifié par Bierwichtel, 21 septembre 2012 - 05:34 .

[Bierwichtel]

alleyd wrote...

Bierwichtel wrote...

and as for DLC practically paying itself: how I wish that was true, then the producers would listen to the demands of the fans, not the demands of their own bank accounts...

one more point I have to make:

the people in charge, the people who fund the production do not care about the product itself, they only ever care about their bottom line...

Just wanted to respectfully disagree with the last point. With a brand, it is too simplistic to say that the bottom line is all that ever matters. That attitude can kill a brand quicker than anything else. If those steering the ship don't believe in a brand, the chances are this will damage a brand far more than any other factor.

Several times in my career I worked as a Brand Analyst and I reported direct to the executive boards of the brand and the parent company. In every case those at the helm cared far more about the brand than many think. The executives had more to lose than others, unless they had a "Golden Parachute" contract, of course. 

of course you are right, I have been called a cynic by many a people... my rather bleak view stems from the fact that I have seen the "Golden Parachute" scenario way too often...

[AresKeith]

 not really artistic vision or integrity when it gets sold  lol

[darthoptimus003]

true on all counts but maybe we need to buy dlcs just to prove we mean we airnt joking when we say we willbuy ending dlc
the pt gives a good example on what bw might be thinking with future dlcs but who knows anymore

[Redbelle]

Bierwichtel wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Bierwichtel wrote...

I do not like the notion of so called artistic integrity for several reasons:

1) art is too subjective as you so rightly pointed out, which turns it into arbitrary, subjective integrity...

2) art is fluid, art changes, the term artistic integrity denotes that art shall not change, art is stagnant, art is status quo...

Exactly.  Art is fluid.  Art also changes due to social mores, technology, current events, and all kinds of external pressure that has absolutely nothing to do with some narrow-minded static vision of things.  I like to paint, but if I never react to external stimuli what I paint will always be the same.  I react to other things and what people like.  And I don't paint to sell what I paint. 

I take photos and just love changing light.  Impressionist painters took advantage of new paint technology and even more portable paint so they could paint au plein aire.  And many of them painted in teams, painting the same views from different perspectives and using different techniques.  Photography started to take the place of formal portrait painting and most early photography was centered around cataloging life, not creating art.  It was recognized as art and then changed to appeal to that.

Art and what is art is always an agreement between the creator and the consumer.

the creator (here Bioware) on one side and the consumer (us) on the other side...

supply and demand

supply without demand is just pointless, demand without supply is an opportunity...

btw, who's your favourite painter? You mention impressionism, so I've got to ask...

Jon Culshaw.......... oh wait, a painter...........

[3DandBeyond]

Bierwichtel wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Bierwichtel wrote...

I do not like the notion of so called artistic integrity for several reasons:

1) art is too subjective as you so rightly pointed out, which turns it into arbitrary, subjective integrity...

2) art is fluid, art changes, the term artistic integrity denotes that art shall not change, art is stagnant, art is status quo...

Exactly.  Art is fluid.  Art also changes due to social mores, technology, current events, and all kinds of external pressure that has absolutely nothing to do with some narrow-minded static vision of things.  I like to paint, but if I never react to external stimuli what I paint will always be the same.  I react to other things and what people like.  And I don't paint to sell what I paint. 

I take photos and just love changing light.  Impressionist painters took advantage of new paint technology and even more portable paint so they could paint au plein aire.  And many of them painted in teams, painting the same views from different perspectives and using different techniques.  Photography started to take the place of formal portrait painting and most early photography was centered around cataloging life, not creating art.  It was recognized as art and then changed to appeal to that.

Art and what is art is always an agreement between the creator and the consumer.

the creator (here Bioware) on one side and the consumer (us) on the other side...

supply and demand

supply without demand is just pointless, demand without supply is an opportunity...

btw, who's your favourite painter? You mention impressionism, so I've got to ask...

I like a lot of them, TBH.  Renoir, Monet, Manet, Cezanne, Pissarro, Degas, Sisley.  But I also do like Renaissance masters as well.  I just like art and can appreciate all different types of work.  Andrew Wyeth and Rockwell, and so on. Abstract, not so much.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 21 septembre 2012 - 06:17 .

[Ozida]

darthoptimus003 wrote...

true on all counts but maybe we need to buy dlcs just to prove we mean we airnt joking when we say we willbuy ending dlc
the pt gives a good example on what bw might be thinking with future dlcs but who knows anymore

But by buying more DLCs wouldn't we be proving that we rather support BioWare's approach regarding how ME3 ended? Kind of following their plan?
I'd rather say: "I will buy it, but if it is worth buying". And if BW thinks I am jocking, well, maybe they need to learn something about customer-seller relationships.

[Bierwichtel]

alleyd wrote...

Bierwichtel wrote...

alleyd wrote...

Bierwichtel wrote...

and as for DLC practically paying itself: how I wish that was true, then the producers would listen to the demands of the fans, not the demands of their own bank accounts...

one more point I have to make:

the people in charge, the people who fund the production do not care about the product itself, they only ever care about their bottom line...

Just wanted to respectfully disagree with the last point. With a brand, it is too simplistic to say that the bottom line is all that ever matters. That attitude can kill a brand quicker than anything else. If those steering the ship don't believe in a brand, the chances are this will damage a brand far more than any other factor.

Several times in my career I worked as a Brand Analyst and I reported direct to the executive boards of the brand and the parent company. In every case those at the helm cared far more about the brand than many think. The executives had more to lose than others, unless they had a "Golden Parachute" contract, of course. 

of course you are right, I have been called a cynic by many a people... my rather bleak view stems from the fact that I have seen the "Golden Parachute" scenario way too often...

I agree that form of practice is one of the worst aspects of certain executives and has caused a vast amount of damage in all areas of society. I don't believe that any executive/employee should be offered this form of protection if they fail. A far better way would be to prosecute or penalise failure. 

I was talking about successful brands that can grow and still satisfy their customer base. My industry knowledge was in soft drinks and the luxury whisky brands and have seen how carefully brand perception was managed to good effect and how important they took the views of their consumers.

maybe it depends on the age and size of an industry, whisky brands, especially the luxury ones you mentioned, are usually centuries old... carefully cultivated through generations... by more or less localised companies (Whisky is, as far as I know, you can correct me on this of course, only made in certain towns (looking at scotch for example))

sadly the business practice of "Golden Parachute" is all to normal from what I have had to experience (basically since leaving the Navy)

[Bierwichtel]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Bierwichtel wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Bierwichtel wrote...

I do not like the notion of so called artistic integrity for several reasons:

1) art is too subjective as you so rightly pointed out, which turns it into arbitrary, subjective integrity...

2) art is fluid, art changes, the term artistic integrity denotes that art shall not change, art is stagnant, art is status quo...

Exactly.  Art is fluid.  Art also changes due to social mores, technology, current events, and all kinds of external pressure that has absolutely nothing to do with some narrow-minded static vision of things.  I like to paint, but if I never react to external stimuli what I paint will always be the same.  I react to other things and what people like.  And I don't paint to sell what I paint. 

I take photos and just love changing light.  Impressionist painters took advantage of new paint technology and even more portable paint so they could paint au plein aire.  And many of them painted in teams, painting the same views from different perspectives and using different techniques.  Photography started to take the place of formal portrait painting and most early photography was centered around cataloging life, not creating art.  It was recognized as art and then changed to appeal to that.

Art and what is art is always an agreement between the creator and the consumer.

the creator (here Bioware) on one side and the consumer (us) on the other side...

supply and demand

supply without demand is just pointless, demand without supply is an opportunity...

btw, who's your favourite painter? You mention impressionism, so I've got to ask...

I like a lot of them, TBH.  Renoir, Monet, Manet, Cezanne, Pissarro, Degas, Sisley.  But I also do like Renaissance masters as well.  I just like art and can appreciate all different types of work.  Andrew Wyeth and Rockwell, and so on. Abstract, not so much.

most of those are french artists if I'm not mistaken?

but good taste anyway...

[Snypy]

Ozida wrote...

darthoptimus003 wrote...

true on all counts but maybe we need to buy dlcs just to prove we mean we airnt joking when we say we willbuy ending dlc
the pt gives a good example on what bw might be thinking with future dlcs but who knows anymore

But by buying more DLCs wouldn't we be proving that we rather support BioWare's approach regarding how ME3 ended? Kind of following their plan?
I'd rather say: "I will buy it, but if it is worth buying". And if BW thinks I am jocking, well, maybe they need to learn something about customer-seller relationships.

But BioWare doesn't listen to what we have to say. The company is ignoring us, and this thread proves it. Therefore, we're damned if we buy future DLCs becuase nothing will change, and we're damned if we don't buy them because there won't be any new ones.

Anyway, I have bought every story DLC so far. But I'm not really sure about Omega. If it doesn't feature fully voiced squadmates, then I certainly won't buy it.

Modifié par Snypy, 21 septembre 2012 - 06:41 .

[Benchpress610]

3DandBeyond wrote...

I like a lot of them, TBH.  Renoir, Monet, Manet, Cezanne, Pissarro, Degas, Sisley.  But I also do like Renaissance masters as well.  I just like art and can appreciate all different types of work.  Andrew Wyeth and Rockwell, and so on. Abstract, not so much.

Sorry to interject here, but we kinda have similar taste. I can add Rembrandt, Velasquez and Reynolds to the list

[Ozida]

Snypy wrote...

But BioWare doesn't listen to what we have to say. The company is ignoring us, and this thread proves it. Therefore, we're damned if we buy future DLCs becuase nothing will change, and we're damned if we don't buy them because there won't be any new ones.

Anyway, I have bought every story DLC so far. But I'm not really sure about Omega. If it doesn't feature fully voiced squadmates, then I certainly won't buy it.

Well, I still have hope that after they see their official BSN-review survey, BioWare may re-consider to become more involved with these forums. Call me at optimist, but I hope that once they see that true haters (you know, those crazy people who threaten developers and argued for no good reason) have left, there are intellegent people left here to be talked too.
I personally have some sort of deadline. I am waiting for Open Survey results (the one in my sign), and if this comes before BioWare starts talking, then I most likely will just move on and put ME on a shelf.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I'm just waking up, so pardon the misspellings and stuff. There are a few factors involved here as to what went wrong and to what is going wrong. I'll post them and they are hypothetical. I've been through corporate mergers and stuff and they get ugly. People leave sometimes when they see the handwriting on the wall.

* The person who used to keep Casey Hudson on a leash all those years is now at 343 Games working on Halo 4. He left during ME2. Casey has no one keeping him in check now hence the endings to ME3. And now the rumors of Synthesis as the basis for ME4?

* The most recent retirements of the doctors? I'm skeptical about the reasons. Six months notice? I'm sure Ray and Greg got "golden parachutes" and good ones. There was a lot of negotiation that went on for those. They're quite young, way too young for traditional retirement. They could easily decide to go play on the golf course, and probably will this taking a vacation winter in So. Cal, but I don't buy the lost interest in video gaming excuse not one bit. The next two years will be about raising money. These agreements usually forbid them from doing anything in the business for two years. Look for them to start up a new company or go to work leading a small one in a couple of years.

-------------------

Some creative minds like Casey's are great and all that but they need others to say, "Uh, Casey, that's crap" because they don't have that filter themselves.

I've created music that was crap and will never see the light of day. I've also seen that parts of it were good and gone back weeks later and revised the hell out of it and turned it into a good solid composition. I've also have people who act as my "tin ear" listen before anything goes out to a client. If a get an "it's fine" from a client, I have to ask what don't they like because on my techno stuff if they're not saying "pass the x" at 6 minutes on the sample I'm going to want to revise it because it's not good enough.

Casey needs a focus group around of people who do not report to him with the "tin ears" to tell him something is crap. He doesn't have that anymore.

And Bioware loses two more of its best.

If they want to salvage ME3 and hold the fan base there are two ways:

Puzzle Theory with the High TMA Refuse, and use the James Kirk Style successful refuse convincing the Catalyst that it is the source of the problem and that its new solutions are derived from the same faulty programming -- the plot twist that the reapers were being controlled all along from something within the Citadel via QE communication was foreshadowed in ME1 (Vigil), and they can go dead like the Geth (which would be foreshadowed by Rannoch reaper death) on the self-destruction of the Catalyst AI, and the allied fleets win conventionally by wiping out the remaining reapers all over the galaxy. Once the Catalyst self-destructs, the reapers become dumb as varren and can no longer indoctrinate. The Crucible gives them the locations with the infometric relay component. Mass Relays survive. Shepard lives. No space magic involved.

The other way is Elephant Theory.

Puzzle Theory would be more profitable for the company. This one would purchase all the DLC and finally put Shepard's story to rest. Few people are invested in the refuse ending, but when all the pieces are put together it could make the most sense because all the choices presented by the catalyst are flawed. We've already paid the price in blood. The reapers are slaughtering us by the billions in the galaxy. We're killing ex-people (husks, banshees, marauders, brutes, cannibals, ravagers) and Cerberus (husk hybrids).

[Benchpress610]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I'm just waking up, so pardon the misspellings and stuff. There are a few factors involved here as to what went wrong and to what is going wrong. I'll post them and they are hypothetical. I've been through corporate mergers and stuff and they get ugly. People leave sometimes when they see the handwriting on the wall.

* The person who used to keep Casey Hudson on a leash all those years is now at 343 Games working on Halo 4. He left during ME2. Casey has no one keeping him in check now hence the endings to ME3. And now the rumors of Synthesis as the basis for ME4?

* The most recent retirements of the doctors? I'm skeptical about the reasons. Six months notice? I'm sure Ray and Greg got "golden parachutes" and good ones. There was a lot of negotiation that went on for those. They're quite young, way too young for traditional retirement. They could easily decide to go play on the golf course, and probably will this taking a vacation winter in So. Cal, but I don't buy the lost interest in video gaming excuse not one bit. The next two years will be about raising money. These agreements usually forbid them from doing anything in the business for two years. Look for them to start up a new company or go to work leading a small one in a couple of years.

-------------------
*sniped*

I think you are right on the money with that assessment. We might see the good doctors start another dev studio in a couple of years.

[Iakus]

Snypy wrote...

Ozida wrote...

darthoptimus003 wrote...

true on all counts but maybe we need to buy dlcs just to prove we mean we airnt joking when we say we willbuy ending dlc
the pt gives a good example on what bw might be thinking with future dlcs but who knows anymore

But by buying more DLCs wouldn't we be proving that we rather support BioWare's approach regarding how ME3 ended? Kind of following their plan?
I'd rather say: "I will buy it, but if it is worth buying". And if BW thinks I am jocking, well, maybe they need to learn something about customer-seller relationships.

But BioWare doesn't listen to what we have to say. The company is ignoring us, and this thread proves it. Therefore, we're damned if we buy future DLCs becuase nothing will change, and we're damned if we don't buy them because there won't be any new ones.

Anyway, I have bought every story DLC so far. But I'm not really sure about Omega. If it doesn't feature fully voiced squadmates, then I certainly won't buy it.

It's our own personal RGB

Me, I choose turn off the game.

[Snypy]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

* snipped *

I like your point about having to keep creative minds on a leash. Mac Walters also got carried away a bit with his ultra-powerful Cerberus, given the fact that, according to ME1 lore, Cerberus is a small, unimportant pro-human faction. In ME2, they become a powerful faction (good thing Drew Karpyshyn was still on the team). And in ME3, their information network rivals that of the Shadow Broker, their finances are virtually unlimited, and their agents are better in espionage than the STG. I don't want to know what would happen if there was Cerberus in ME4.

Anyway, the fact is that almost every piece of the ME3 story had to be peer reviewed by the rest of the writing team as a sort of quality control mechanism, except for the ending.

Modifié par Snypy, 21 septembre 2012 - 07:46 .

[AresKeith]

Snypy wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

* snipped *

I like your point about having to keep creative minds on a leash. Mac Walters also got carried away a bit with his ultra-powerful Cerberus, given the fact that, according to ME1 lore, Cerberus is a small, unimportant pro-human faction. In ME2, they become a powerful faction (good thing Drew Karpyshn was on the team). And in ME3, their information network rivals that of the Shadow Broker, their finances are virtually unlimited, and their agents are better in espionage than the STG. I don't want to know what would happen if there was Cerberus in ME4.

Anyway, the fact is that almost every piece of the ME3 story had to be peer reviewed by the rest of the writing team as a sort of quality control mechanism, except for the ending.

I heard there was a narrative director who used to keep the lead writer(s) from going over board with the plot during ME1 and ME2 but left Bioware and went to Halo 4 before ME3

[Snypy]

AresKeith wrote...

Snypy wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

* snipped *

I like your point about having to keep creative minds on a leash. Mac Walters also got carried away a bit with his ultra-powerful Cerberus, given the fact that, according to ME1 lore, Cerberus is a small, unimportant pro-human faction. In ME2, they become a powerful faction (good thing Drew Karpyshn was on the team). And in ME3, their information network rivals that of the Shadow Broker, their finances are virtually unlimited, and their agents are better in espionage than the STG. I don't want to know what would happen if there was Cerberus in ME4.

Anyway, the fact is that almost every piece of the ME3 story had to be peer reviewed by the rest of the writing team as a sort of quality control mechanism, except for the ending.

I heard there was a narrative director who used to keep the lead writer(s) from going over board with the plot during ME1 and ME2 but left Bioware and went to Halo 4 before ME3

Yep, there was. Armando Troisi.