648 réponses à ce sujet

[drayfish]

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

April 2013

...Correct?

Sorry, are you checking yourself after suffering a concussion?

[ScriptBabe]

tevix wrote...

@Scriptbabe

Seconded, though I would dare argue many already consider games a form of art.

inb4 fix

If anyone fixes this with "artistic vision/artistic integrity" I will give your profile a dirty look.

I agree that this is already an art form.  Which means they need to pay as much attention to story as they do to game play and graphics.  And trying to  claim this ending was "art" and we didn't understand it did not wash because it was a fundamental failure of  the "art" of story telling.  (See what I did there?)  

[Wayning_Star]

drayfish wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

this stuff is way too advances for general VG audience, why discuss stuff that doesn't apply, even IF it's applicable to your assessment?

Treat a character in a space video game? Trust me, the basis of existence isn't being threatened by it.. Nor are the sanity of any given philosophers..they're already pretty much nuts. Part of the job description.

I'm sorry to say, but this post makes me extremely disheartened, if (and I hope I'm not) I am reading you correctly.

Are you seriously suggesting that videogames are too 'low brow' of a medium to be spoken of in the same context as the rich tradition of narrative and theme that is human expression?  Because if so, I'm not sure I even know where to begin in responding to that...

Whether you think that they are successful at doing so or not, videogames tap into innumerable traditions of narrative and visual art.  Games like Deus Ex stem directly from cyberpunk narratives that trace their roots all the way back through Frankenstein and Prometheus (a point Human Revolution recently made quite explicit); games like Red Dead Redemption tap into and reconstruct Greek myth in profound and telling ways (go back and play it again and keep an ear out for the amount of times characters reference The Iliad, or pay attention to the direct, telling parallel to Odysseus' journey to return to his son Telemachus, and John's journey to return to his son).  Hell, even The Legend of Zelda knowingly takes up cues from fairytale and heroic myth.

Games are extensions of humanity's natural, evolving expansion of narrative through fiction, film, television, graphic novels, offering expansive stages upon which to create more interactive, immersive explorations of all of those fundamental tropes and motifs that are hardwired into our psyches from the very first moment our elders tell us stories to lull us to sleep.

Of course they reiterate, re-contextualise and reinvent the familiar.  They are an organic expression of our creation and play, and at our very core, that is everything that makes us human.

not me dray, I wouldn't dare...but it would 'seem' that others might be?

Of course, who knows what makes us, say human. I'm almost certain ME will alter reality for those who plays it.

Over all though, the act of volunteering informative posts, doesn't require it.

I'm more curious who the stargazers were than if they're worried about existentialism, or VG threats to modern man, or aliens...from other planets,etc. Hard to work that into the theorem. Sounded more like a collective hyperbolic rant than critique, from this side of relativistic social endeavor. Artistry aside, it's more about function, than subsidy, in any event. You might just be over analyzing... a tad? I don't see the 'direct connection' to applied 'great works'. But I've not read any in years, but still, enough to not super impose on VGs those qualities, just because they've filled my world, so to speak.

But it doesn't 'hurt' to apply some governance to VG's as to their artistic integrity. No need to drag in and over compensate with derivative philosophical attachments. It's over powering the structures involved. Terms as 'our very core' etc, exemplifies the frustration, confuses the issue. Makes it sound 'baggy'..

Greek myth? hunh? I'm unsure of (most) fans actually see that, as much as you apply it, in the context of VG's.

[drayfish]

Wayning_Star wrote...

not me dray, I wouldn't dare...but it would 'seem' that others might be?

Of course, who knows what makes us, say human. I'm almost certain ME will alter reality for those who plays it.

Over all though, the act of volunteering informative posts, doesn't require it.

I'm more curious who the stargazers were than if they're worried about existentialism, or VG threats to modern man, or aliens...from other planets,etc. Hard to work that into the theorem. Sounded more like a collective hyperbolic rant than critique, from this side of relativistic social endeavor. Artistry aside, it's more about function, than subsidy, in any event. You might just be over analyzing... a tad? I don't see the 'direct connection' to applied 'great works'. But I've not read any in years, but still, enough to not super impose on VGs those qualities, just because they've filled my world, so to speak.

But it doesn't 'hurt' to apply some governance to VG's as to their artistic integrity. No need to drag in and over compensate with derivative philosophical attachments. It's over powering the structures involved. Terms as 'our very core' etc, exemplifies the frustration, confuses the issue. Makes it sound 'baggy'..

Greek myth? hunh? I'm unsure of (most) fans actually see that, as much as you apply it, in the context of VG's.

You might be over-thinking it.

My point in that blog was never to say 'Everyone must see the link between The Odyssey and Mass Effect or else they have missed the point!'  That would be an utterly reductive argument that would reduce all discussion of texts to a cryptic crossword of allusion and influence, and would fly in the face of the whole point of discussing or analysing texts.

My point was that Mass Effect violates its own internal narrative logic, and I was using The Odyssey as a (hopefully) revealing parallel.  It was about analogy, not required reading.

Indeed, the writers of Mass Effect probably had no idea how the two texts related, they were just writing into a narrative tradition that has been immeasurably, and inextricably influenced by that text.  Pick any major journey narrative, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, The Dark Tower, hell, Finding Nemo, and you will see the same broad thematic architecture articulated three thousand years ago in The Odyssey.  The audience doesn't have to pay heed to it in order to follow the fiction (indeed, it should be naturally chugging away in the background unnoticed), but they most certainly feel it when it derails.

Modifié par drayfish, 02 avril 2013 - 03:52 .

[XxDarkTimexX]

Here's a tip for Bioware:
Going against your Fan Base will get you to fail like others before but standing with your Fan Base will make you fly. Your Fan Base does the power to take you down when u fail. Take your time for what you are creating (not like Duke Nukem) but like Valve, Rock star, and CD Project Red. Take advice from your fans or others when your out of ideas (not steal).

[tevix]

@Scriptbabe

I'm proud of you child.

[ScriptBabe]

tevix wrote...

@Scriptbabe

I'm proud of you child.

Thank you?  But why?

[tevix]

@Scriptbabe

<.<

You asked if I saw what you did. You either succeeded in using the word "art" in all three contexts, ninja fixed my post, or both.

[chemiclord]

XxDarkTimexX wrote...

Here's a tip for Bioware:
Going against your Fan Base will get you to fail like others before but standing with your Fan Base will make you fly. Your Fan Base does the power to take you down when u fail. Take your time for what you are creating (not like Duke Nukem) but like Valve, Rock star, and CD Project Red. Take advice from your fans or others when your out of ideas (not steal).

1) Roughly half the buyers for ME3 appear to be "new."  Your "core" fans are an always shrinking group by default.  You really CAN'T make a game for "them", you have to always be trying to entice a larger audience.

Another thing, you're always going to be "going against" SOMEONE in your fanbase.  That's inevitable.  What makes YOU more important than someone else?

2) Judging from the fact that EA denied an extension of the deadline... taking their time wasn't an option.

[ScriptBabe]

tevix wrote...

@Scriptbabe

<.<

You asked if I saw what you did. You either succeeded in using the word "art" in all three contexts, ninja fixed my post, or both.

Oh, right, sorry went away to ponder a scene and sort of forgot where I was in the discussion.   I was trying to be ironic and a bit silly with the art thing.  It's been a long day, and I think I may have sprained my brain while trying to get this scene to work.  Apologies.

[Wayning_Star]

drayfish wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

not me dray, I wouldn't dare...but it would 'seem' that others might be?

Of course, who knows what makes us, say human. I'm almost certain ME will alter reality for those who plays it.

Over all though, the act of volunteering informative posts, doesn't require it.

I'm more curious who the stargazers were than if they're worried about existentialism, or VG threats to modern man, or aliens...from other planets,etc. Hard to work that into the theorem. Sounded more like a collective hyperbolic rant than critique, from this side of relativistic social endeavor. Artistry aside, it's more about function, than subsidy, in any event. You might just be over analyzing... a tad? I don't see the 'direct connection' to applied 'great works'. But I've not read any in years, but still, enough to not super impose on VGs those qualities, just because they've filled my world, so to speak.

But it doesn't 'hurt' to apply some governance to VG's as to their artistic integrity. No need to drag in and over compensate with derivative philosophical attachments. It's over powering the structures involved. Terms as 'our very core' etc, exemplifies the frustration, confuses the issue. Makes it sound 'baggy'..

Greek myth? hunh? I'm unsure of (most) fans actually see that, as much as you apply it, in the context of VG's.

You might be over-thinking it.

My point in that blog was never to say 'Everyone must see the link between The Odyssey and Mass Effect or else they have missed the point!'  That would be an utterly reductive argument that would reduce all discussion of texts to a cryptic crossword of allusion and influence, and would fly in the face of the whole point of discussing or analysing texts.

My point was that Mass Effect violates its own internal narrative logic, and I was using The Odyssey as a (hopefully) revealing parallel.  It was about analogy, not required reading.

Indeed, the writers of Mass Effect probably had no idea how the two texts related, they were just writing into a narrative tradition that has been immeasurably, and inextricably influenced by that text.  Pick any major journey narrative, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, The Dark Tower, hell, Finding Nemo, and you will see the same broad thematic architecture articulated three thousand years ago in The Odyssey.  The audience doesn't have to pay heed to it in order to follow the fiction (indeed, it should be naturally chugging away in the background unnoticed), but they most certainly feel it when it derails.

I probably am, lol bad habit..hard to resist.

But really, I can better see the point, as stated. Thanks.

What this does "seem" to say that writers in general, are bound by their tautology  discipline.( I was gonna say indoctrination for laughs, but thought better of it..maybe. But I doubt I'd see those 'influences' as I've no such training to deal with, as just as many other VG fans. But it's nice to know about, just in case. With that I didn't feel the derailment, or at least in that way. I saw, generally speaking, that fans felt disconnected, with the results, as there seems to be no end to the story, as if it were eternal. How that relates to great works, I'd defer to you, a studier of those. (See what I mean about 'application' and relevance. Disconcerting.. dissonance with each user reality set/knowledge base, etc.)

edit: struck through as the wrong word for it, even though, catchy, and 'sort of' applicable..

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 02 avril 2013 - 04:28 .

[AshenShug4r]

Agree with OP. We could have handled it way better.

[Nightwriter]

Yes, I remember only too well the day I received the summons from the Mass Effect Fan Consulate to appear at the Fanmoot so we could decide by congressional vote what our organized reaction would be. I was dressed like Amidala and I'd gotten on my hovering platform to speak before the Senate. I counseled wisdom, but the Viceroys stole the floor, and then when it came time to vote on the e-ballot everyone chose "torch and pitchforks" over "calm thoughtful protest."

Was it an unfortunate decision? Yes, but I keep telling people: fanbases are democracies, and we must all accept that sometimes democracies come to bad decisions. We were all there that day and we all had our vote. I think we can all say that we must accept responsibility for it as a collective.

[Reorte]

chemiclord wrote...

1) Roughly half the buyers for ME3 appear to be "new."  Your "core" fans are an always shrinking group by default.  You really CAN'T make a game for "them", you have to always be trying to entice a larger audience.

Another thing, you're always going to be "going against" SOMEONE in your fanbase.  That's inevitable.  What makes YOU more important than someone else?

2) Judging from the fact that EA denied an extension of the deadline... taking their time wasn't an option.

For (1) the new players are less likely to be influenced either way so it's pretty irrelevent to them. The bits people are getting worked up about aren't there to appeal to new players instead. As for going against someone, look at the arguments made and see whether they have merit or not, although that first requires the people on the receiving end to being able to admit to the possibility of having made a mistake (not the same as actually admitting it).

As for (2) that's sadly right, (lack of) time is the enemy of quality.

[Reorte]

Nightwriter wrote...

Yes, I remember only too well the day I received the summons from the Mass Effect Fan Consulate to appear at the Fanmoot so we could decide by congressional vote what our organized reaction would be. I was dressed like Amidala and I'd gotten on my hovering platform to speak before the Senate. I counseled wisdom, but the Viceroys stole the floor, and then when it came time to vote on the e-ballot everyone chose "torch and pitchforks" over "calm thoughtful protest."

Don't kick up enough noise and you'll just get ignored and / or sidelined although there's a fine line between being ignored and being an overly rabid nutcase (and the more unintelligent people on the other side will just look at the nutcases, even if their number is tiny, and try to claim that's their entire opposition).

[charredrex]

Why does everyone always forget the leaked content from the demo? This was 4 or 5 months before release if I remember right and they (hackers) pulled a broad patch of script from that and fans got in an uproar then but it was small and got shot down because we were told by BioWare that this stuff that had been pulled from the leaked demo was not going to be in the final game and had been changed.

They were correct that 'little' details had been changed and excised but the basic ending idea was there, several of the boss fights with Kai Leng ended up getting way over-simplified, a choice like on Virmire was excised a few other things. Overall though people who looked at the leak were very disappointed with the endings and we said as much, but again were told that this had been changed.

That wasn't the case. Little details were changed yes, but overall the basics were already laid out, so with several fans already saying the endings were kind of, not great, almost half a year before release, nothing changed. If I remember right the Illusive Man's ending dialogue didn't even get written and recorded until mid to late November.

I think the bigger question, seeing our initial reaction to the leak and knowing that the basics hadn't changed and we weren't happy with them, were they so surprised when the fanbase flipped out at the final release? The signs were there. I could easily see the trainwreck coming, but I had the benefit of being on the outside looking in.

[Malchat]

Nightwriter wrote...

Yes, I remember only too well the day I received the summons from the Mass Effect Fan Consulate to appear at the Fanmoot so we could decide by congressional vote what our organized reaction would be. I was dressed like Amidala and I'd gotten on my hovering platform to speak before the Senate. I counseled wisdom, but the Viceroys stole the floor, and then when it came time to vote on the e-ballot everyone chose "torch and pitchforks" over "calm thoughtful protest."

Was it an unfortunate decision? Yes, but I keep telling people: fanbases are democracies, and we must all accept that sometimes democracies come to bad decisions. We were all there that day and we all had our vote. I think we can all say that we must accept responsibility for it as a collective.

Quoted for awesome and truth.

I'd also like to add that the ME3 ending controversy was not unique in the way it developed. We've seen similar patterns in other clashes of overreaching developers versus a very invested (or fanatical, entitled, choose your poison) fan base.

Looking at the recent EVE Online microtransaction crisis, the fan-maligned flaws of Diablo III or the ongoing Sim City state-of-launch debate, you can see that the initial pusback is fairly even-handed - the sentiment is mostly disappointment and confusion, the voices of anger still a minority.

But then the developer starts stonewalling and deflecting, hiding behind PR or even deceitful spin, and within the span of a few weeks, the brushfire becomes an inferno. Those first official reactions are crucial in setting the tone of the debate, yet corporations consistently get this wrong. When you give every outward appearance of not  listening to your audience's grievances, guess what? Your audience will start wailing louder. You cannot then turn around and say: 'we can't listen to these rantings, it's just a big cacophony... so let's take solace in our Metacritic score and our own vision of gaming's future'.

If we look at what happened with EVE and Diablo III (great examples because we also have the admissions of the companies involved), it seems hubris plays a major part in getting the first reponse wrong (combined with an understandable siege mentality). When you're too close to what you're creating, it's hard to see the faults even when half the internet is trying to tell you what's wrong.

I don't know what the next great gaming controversy will be ... but I do know that the response of the masses will not, and will never be, measured, constructive criticism until developers decide to be honest from the very start. And since AAA development is all about shareholder value, appealing to the largest possible demographic and protecting the viability of brands, I don't have high hopes for the future.

That said, Bioware is due for a break... right?

Modifié par Malchat, 02 avril 2013 - 11:36 .

[chemiclord]

That's a problem with corporations as a whole, really.

They are beholden to their shareholders, not necessarily the supporters of the product. A company starts stepping forward and admitting their product is anything less than how it is designed, shareholders bail. It doesn't take much for a group of day traders to buy out and depress your stock value.

However, thanks to the wonders of the internet, those customers who before could be muted to the rest of the outside world have a venue to express their displeasure very loudly to anyone who has a way onto the Internet, and their stock suffers anyway, but corporations are still stuck in the old belief of, "If we admit to nothing, eventually they will go away."

Now, fans aren't COMPLETELY in the right, though.  Far too many customers will lose their **** over the most trivial things, or accuse maliciousness where a simple mistake would be much closer to the truth.  But the people accused really don't have an effective means of making their case.  The court of public opinion makes their decisions quickly and without much evidence, and are not likely to be swayed no matter how much evidence is presented.

Modifié par chemiclord, 02 avril 2013 - 02:05 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

I'm still somewhat surprised that they didn't go with one of the other stock corporate tactics.

Namely finding a scapegoat, blaming everything on that scapegoat, firing them, and then acting like the problem is solved.


They even had a perfect head to put on the chopping block.

Modifié par Grand Admiral Cheesecake, 02 avril 2013 - 02:13 .

[drayfish]

I would also throw into the mix:

It doesn't help player/developer relations when a third party leaps into the fray to call all fans who had criticisms 'entitled whiners', and the developers cowards if they bend their 'artistic integrity' to satisfy the rabble.

I have rarely seen such unhelpful, pigheaded and ignorant opinion as was shouted from the vast majority of gaming 'journalists' during the reaction to ME3's reception - and it unquestionably enflamed and calcified the sense of outrage and contempt on all sides of the issue.

That gaming publications were clumsily wailing about the sanctity of artistic integrity when almost none of them (rather suspiciously) had mentioned the ending of the game at all, made no mention of face import issues, bugs, glitches, the lie of the 'no need for multiplayer' promise, the issues of day-one paid DLC, the several glaring contradictions between the pre-release promises of Bioware (that often they themselves had printed) and what was delivered in game, all rather spoke to their own integrity as 'critics' and 'journalists'.

One suspects that they felt themselves being judged for not maintaining an objective perspective when they came to analyse and score the game, and so decided to react instinctively and petulantly to cover their inadequacy - but if so this would be a striking hypocrisy, since that was pretty much what they were accusing fans of doing in the first place.

Modifié par drayfish, 02 avril 2013 - 09:26 .

[AlanC9]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

I'm still somewhat surprised that they didn't go with one of the other stock corporate tactics.

Namely finding a scapegoat, blaming everything on that scapegoat, firing them, and then acting like the problem is solved.

They even had a perfect head to put on the chopping block.

I can see that happening if ME3 hadn't made its numbers, but AFAIK it did.

Sacking people for something as squishy as "too much" fan rage isn't  a great way to run a business. That's more like the sort of thing a political campaign does.

[AlanC9]

drayfish wrote...
That gaming publications were clumsily wailing about the sanctity of artistic integrity when almost none of them (rather suspiciously) had mentioned the ending of the game at all, made no mention of face import issues, bugs, glitches, the lie of the 'no need for multiplayer' promise, the issues of day-one paid DLC, the several glaring contradictions between the pre-release promises of Bioware (that often they themselves had printed) and what was delivered in game, all rather spoke to their own integrity as 'critics' and 'journalists'..

Do the gaming publications think there's a problem with day-one paid DLC in the first place? I don't read them enough to know.

I'm also not sure that ME3 was glitchy enough to mention. OF course, I've been gaming a long time, and a game has to be pretty badly glitched to actually bother me. Like, TOEE bad.

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 avril 2013 - 09:48 .

[Applepie_Svk]

AlanC9 wrote...


I can see that happening if ME3 hadn't made its numbers, but AFAIK it did.

Sacking people for something as squishy as "too much" fan rage isn't  a great way to run a business. That's more like the sort of thing a political campaign does.

This ship is already sinking... they maybe made a goldmine from ME3 and its DLC cycle but they also damanaged their reputation as maybe none ever before in gaming industry. Many people either already left these waters or they will reconsider another purchase of their products. It´s not just that game didn´t live up for its expectations but also about BioWare saying truth and handling their PR...

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

AlanC9 wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

I'm still somewhat surprised that they didn't go with one of the other stock corporate tactics.

Namely finding a scapegoat, blaming everything on that scapegoat, firing them, and then acting like the problem is solved.

They even had a perfect head to put on the chopping block.

I can see that happening if ME3 hadn't made its numbers, but AFAIK it did.

Sacking people for something as squishy as "too much" fan rage isn't  a great way to run a business. That's more like the sort of thing a political campaign does.

Fair enough.

I've just always thought that was a near perfect out for them.

"We support the majority of our work but it turns out these two mavericks wrote the bit everyone hated, here's an extended cut and we are..."renegotiating" their contracts."


Hell they could have even gone with "Yeah those two got a bit out of hand, we'll make sure all our work is peer reviewed before we ship it out"


They are going to take a hit anyway, they might as well try to salvage some goodwill.

[drayfish]

AlanC9 wrote...

drayfish wrote...
That gaming publications were clumsily wailing about the sanctity of artistic integrity when almost none of them (rather suspiciously) had mentioned the ending of the game at all, made no mention of face import issues, bugs, glitches, the lie of the 'no need for multiplayer' promise, the issues of day-one paid DLC, the several glaring contradictions between the pre-release promises of Bioware (that often they themselves had printed) and what was delivered in game, all rather spoke to their own integrity as 'critics' and 'journalists'..

Do the gaming publications think there's a problem with day-one paid DLC in the first place? I don't read them enough to know.

I'm also not sure that ME3 was glitchy enough to mention. OF course, I've been gaming a long time, and a game has to be pretty badly glitched to actually bother me. Like, TOEE bad.

Well, in my experience it's not Aliens Colonial Marines broken, by any means.  But for a AAA title I had several game freezes, characters suffering unholy possession (twitching their heads about and spinning their eyes during cut scenes), I frequently saw dialogue appear in subtitle that was either clipped or skipped by the audio, the journal system was a muddled mess compared to both of its predecessors, I 'rescued' the Elcor civilians before the Elcor councilor had even asked me to, and I remember getting stuck in an endless gun turret loop on Thessia.  (I've also heard of others getting stuck in the geometry of Joker's chair, and some game crashes on certain levels that I did not experience.)*

Overall it just lacked the polish and refinement of either of the previous games, or indeed, any of the Bioware games I have played (it should be mentioned here that I've not experienced Dragon Age 2).  Something, personally, I saw play out in the hurried nonsense of the ending too.

But all any of the reviews mentioned was gushing praise for the aesthetic of the game, what a bombastic spectacle it was, and how it pushed gaming to its limits and beyond...  You know, the usual hyperbolic pabulum.


* EDIT: Also, how could I forget the facial import bug that was not patched for months?  A rather peculiar glitch for a game that is all about the personalised RPG experience, and who arguably founded their trilogy upon this feature.

Modifié par drayfish, 02 avril 2013 - 10:24 .