391 réponses à ce sujet

[crimzontearz]

No.

They require a payment, it is a product, it requires quality, amongst other things, and to meet expectations. I, for one, will not buy further BW games without thoroughly spoiling myself first especially if the game requires emotional investment and DOUBLY SO if Mac and Casey are working on it.

Oh and, BW is now a branch of EA....you know, just to put things into perspective

[Archonsg]

crimzontearz wrote...

No.

They require a payment, it is a product, it requires quality, amongst other things, and to meet expectations. I, for one, will not buy further BW games without thoroughly spoiling myself first especially if the game requires emotional investment and DOUBLY SO if Mac and Casey are working on it.

Oh and, BW is now a branch of EA....you know, just to put things into perspective

You have to wonder, how long before the Bioware logo and Brand isn't shown and BW's stuff will just be EA RPGs. and then as with Westwood and other studios EA has taken over,brought to a ditch and shot when the genre that they specialize in takes a downturn.

 Bioware is no longer on my "...take my money now!" pre-order list nor will I make day one purchases.
I have at this moment in excess of $500.00++ in pre-orders / kickstarter pledges.

[crimzontearz]

I give it 3 years

If CDPR did NG+ in TW they would have become my "take my money" no questions asked company....sadly they do not tho

But I have a LOT of respect for them

[Archonsg]

crimzontearz wrote...

I give it 3 years

If CDPR did NG+ in TW they would have become my "take my money" no questions asked company....sadly they do not tho

But I have a LOT of respect for them

The Witcher is a very good game Irregardless.
The Witcher 2 though, *waggles hand* is so so for me.

As far as RPGs and good story based games are concerned, I think it'll be Obsidian's http://eternity.obsidian.net/' class='bbc_url' title='Lien externe' rel='nofollow external'> Project Eternity and the currently still active on kickstarter https://torment.inxi...rtainment.com/' class='bbc_url' title='Lien externe' rel='nofollow external'> Torment : Tides of Numenera who will be the ones to create games, "art" if you will, that doesn't leave me feeling like I have been cheated out of time and money.

[robertthebard]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

As Jade pointed out, the question of authorship is particularly complex in cases like Mass Effect. Mac Walters was a minor writer on ME1. Drew Karpyshyn, on the other hand, was a major one. Yet the ending that defines what the story was about is all Walters and no Karpyshyn. Now, if I were to doodle a moustache on the Mona Lisa, that would significantly alter whatever the meaning of the painting is. Yet I would insist on my Artistic Integrity in doing so, and I expect BW apologists would leap to my defense against any unenlightened accusations of me defacing a priceless masterpiece.

Chemiclord has repeatedly stated that while he personally shares the view that the ME3 ending is a mess, he nevertheless respects the right of the artist to inflict that mess on his work. But the "author" of the work is nowhere near identical to the "author" of the ending. It is just a matter of corporate hierarchy who gets to imprint the overarching meaning to the whole of the work. This is a capitalist claim, not an artistic one. We should be extremely wary of attributing the dignity of artistic creation to a corporate body. Because art is what humans do.

As for hiding behind the "Artistic Integrity" excuse, that is exactly what BioWare as an organization tried to do. The founder of BW said it himself. Lawyering for BW won't change this. Chemiclord himself has frequently pled Artistic Integrity on behalf of BW on numerous occasions. Saying "It's our story, and we couldn't tell it in any other way" is an appeal to "artistic integrity". If not, what is it?

Clearly it is an attempt to leverage the social prestige of "art" against people who recognize a shoddy cop-out when they see one. But BW can hardly be said to create their works with the kind of integrity (yes) that implies, when the whole production is subject to the whims of the parent corporation, to begin with. Is nickel and diming you for Supah Spectre Packs art, of all things? Is cutting out pages from a book and selling them separately for inflated prices the sign of a real serious novelist? And so on and so forth.

So you painted the original Mona Lisa?  If so, despite not considering myself an apologist, I would certainly defend your right to do what ever you want to your work.  If the answer to the question is no, then I would certainly hand you over to the police so I could collect the reward, assuming there is one, for defacing a masterpiece.  Do you see the difference here?  I could no more tell Leonardo Da Vinci that the Mona Lisa shouldn't have a moustache than I can tell BW how they should have ended their game.  I have my own list of how they should have done it, but, it's their product, and if they want to jack it up, they are free to do so.

As a consumer/patron, I have the right to be dissatisfied with the product.  I have the right to complain about it, and to make suggestions.  I do not have the right to attempt to change the meaning of a word, or a concept just because I am unhappy with what they delivered.  Just because the painting is bad, it doesn't mean it's not art.  Because it's art, the artist can "hide" behind artistic integrity.  This doesn't mean that the patron that commissioned the work needs to be happy with it, but it also doesn't mean the patron has a right to say "You can't say that this is art, because it sucks".  More accurately, the patron most certainly can say it, but it doesn't mean they are correct in doing so.  Art is art, good, bad, masterpieces and WTF is that.  My refridgerator was covered by drawings made by GF's kids.  Most of them have stick people, and none of them was very good, but it was still art, created by her kids for me.

And yet, there are books that have been sold a chapter at a time, or could be purchased that way.  I point to a prominent author that comes up frequently in these threads, and his greatest masterpiece:  The Lord of the Rings.  If you had been alive when these books were originally published, you could have purchased them as they were released, much as we did with the ME games.  For myself, while I was alive when they were released initially, I was too young to go to the bookstore to buy them, but they were released in Chapters, as they were completed.  I get what you're trying to say:  But Day 1 DLC means it's not art.  But selling extra stuff means that it's not art.  To this, you are wrong.  Day 1 DLC doesn't change the definition of the word, nor of the concept.  Nor does any future DLC, not an issue here, since this chapter of Mass Effect is closed, but all of it is art.  It adds to the original work.  Releasing From Ashes as day 1 DLC made me kinda mad too, but not because they released day 1 DLC, but because they released the bulk of what made up the Collector's Edition as DLC on day 1, hence cheapening the experience of buying the Collector's Edition.

TL;DR version:  They stuck to their guns.  It may have been bad for relations, but it doesn't mean they can't claim artistic integrity, nor does it mean that the end product isn't art.  Some people liked it, not sure how, and some didn't, I understand that, but that doesn't mean that the people that didn't like it can suddenly rewrite the English language to say that it's not art because they didn't like it.

[darkway1]

TiaraBlade wrote...

I am sick and tired of apologists like the OP.

1. Art, like anything, is a product. Indeed, most great artists worked on commission and you had better believe that they sought to please their patrons!

2. We are the patrons of Bioware and their games. Sure, they can make any game they want BUT if the patrons are not happy with it, we will not support it and then Bioware and its incredible designers are out of work artists. That doesn't work for anyone, now does it?

3. There was no artistic vision in how the game ended. Let's be honest here: the ending changed at the last minute because of the leaked documents and this is how they ended. Furthermore, most art has a theme that stays consistent, only deviating with very, very good reason if it is to stay true to itself and to the patron. In Mass Effect, its themes include choice, the power to overcome great odds, and that we can all come together for the greater good.

The ending undercut all of that, using fallacious logic of an out of left field Star Child to justify it. Then we cut to the Normandy crash landing on a jungle planet. What kind of ending is that? Or vision? Certainly it does not reflect any type of satisfaction. If it's some sort of Adam and Eve ending, there is not enough genetic diversity to start a new society and any planet that sustains humans will be a death sentence to Tali and Garrus.

As for what a video game can do, it does has its limits based on its format. So do books and movies and they do different things well. A book is great for getting inside a characters head. A movie can create a visual scene that no amount of words can convey with as much life, certainly not in a compact manner. As for games, they provide a visceral feel and sense of ownership.

All formats can tell interesting stories and even have twist endings. However, a twist ending that is depressing for a two hour movie is not going to work with most games due to different investments of money, time, and effort. A two hour European movie where everything sucks hints that the ending may not be a happy one and you expect that as a possibility. Even if you don't like it, well you won't go do another movie like tha agin and only wasted two hours and ten dollars.

By contrast, people over the course of 6 years, 3 games, and 200+ dollars helped craft a story, one where they were told their choices matter only to have Bioware tell them in the end that their choices didn't matter, our "vision" overrides what you want, what you should have earned through gameplay, and it even undercut everything about the games leading up. That is not a vision, certainly not one that we would have invested so much time, energy, and money in.

People will die, friends will be lost, and Shepherd may even have to make the ultimate sacrifice but it has to be based in a manner consistent with the game: your choices, your efforts, and the Hero's Journey that we have taken with Shepherd across this epic adventure that should not be treated like a depressing European movie where the world controls you and you can not affect it, thus giving you an expected downer ending.

This is why people were so upset; not because we are too stupid or lazy to understand the ending (but of course the OP and other apologists are brilliant and thus do understand the hidden wisdom) but because Bioware undercut everything we invested into the games and undercut their own themes to do it!

As a result, we as patrons let it be known that we would not support Bioware; their products would not satisfy us as consumers and we were not going to support them, "just for the art." Bioware, artist that they are, are also producers who must satisfy the consumer base or they will not have the resources to create new games.

If they want to take chances with a vision, they must accept the risk and consequences. Perhaps creating a smaller game with a new IP rather than an existing one where so many invested so much.

Fortunately, sanity was seen and Bioware worked hard both through the extended cut and the Citadel DLC. I still don't see why they refused to give in to have a Victory Scenario but I guess that's pride. It will be interesting to see how DA3 and ME4 sell after this. Hopefully well IMHO but I also hope that Bioware "gets it" now and understands that experimentation is good but it must be rational and consistent with the product you put out.

Absolutely agree,great post.

[wright1978]

This art BS excuse. ME3 ending is just a case of atrocious storytelling and delivery wrapped up in a big art excuse. So no i'll continue to hammer the trainwreck of an ending because i want games and Bioware to actually deliver good storytelling.

[dani1138]

TiaraBlade wrote...

3. There was no artistic vision in how the game ended. Let's be honest here: the ending changed at the last minute because of the leaked documents and this is how they ended. Furthermore, most art has a theme that stays consistent, only deviating with very, very good reason if it is to stay true to itself and to the patron. In Mass Effect, its themes include choice, the power to overcome great odds, and that we can all come together for the greater good.

Even the most complex story can be eventually boiled down to a single line hypothesis, and the story is a means of testing this hypothesis, with the climax of the story as the final judgement.

Hell if I can ever figure out what ME3's story hypothesis could be. One that matches the ending completely disregards the rest of the story, and one that works well in the main body of the story is rudely ignored by its conclusion. What a mess.

The ending undercut all of that, using fallacious logic of an out of left field Star Child to justify it. Then we cut to the Normandy crash landing on a jungle planet. What kind of ending is that? Or vision? Certainly it does not reflect any type of satisfaction. If it's some sort of Adam and Eve ending, there is not enough genetic diversity to start a new society and any planet that sustains humans will be a death sentence to Tali and Garrus.

This is what I don't get about the claim that the EC wouldn't change the ending, just expand and clarify. It quite clearly did change the ending, in very dramatic ways. The overall tone is compromised severely. We go from people being quite literally trapped in the consequences of Shepard's decision to everyone returning to their lives just fine.

If they want to take chances with a vision, they must accept the risk and consequences. Perhaps creating a smaller game with a new IP rather than an existing one where so many invested so much.

Fortunately, sanity was seen and Bioware worked hard both through the extended cut and the Citadel DLC. I still don't see why they refused to give in to have a Victory Scenario but I guess that's pride. It will be interesting to see how DA3 and ME4 sell after this. Hopefully well IMHO but I also hope that Bioware "gets it" now and understands that experimentation is good but it must be rational and consistent with the product you put out.

Yes, every new BW game has been demoted from "instabuy" to "approach with caution" for me. I truly do hope they're able to win back the trust they lost at some point in the near future. I really want to love BW games again!

Excellent post, TiaraBlade.

[Nicodemus]

If Bioware had used the phrase "creators vision" to defend their work then people would not jump up and down so much. Using "Artistic Integrity" was a massive mistake because in no way is ME3 really an artistic product.

It has major flaws that any artist would be ashamed to be proud of. Plenty of artists in history have created something and been unhappy with the flaws they see and then either painted over the original or stuck it at the back of the workshop never to see the light of day.

ME3 is a commercial product that was designed to be sold in large volume to make a lot of profit. Would people who think ME3 is art think that Microsoft Windows is art? Of course not, it's a product designed to help us, entertain us and work for us. Can a programmer create art, yes, you only have to look at fractal programs and see that a programmer can create something beautiful, but is the programming of a video game art?

Video games in general are not an artform, they are a massed produced form of entertainment. Barbara Cartland wrote a lot of books for the mass market, they were not art. TV produces a lot of soap operas, they are not art. Michael Bay makes a lot of films, none of them are art.

The ME3 story is weakly written, there are plenty of programming glitches that appear in the game, there are design flaws in the game, there are production decisions that are flawed within the game. If Bioware had "Artistic Integrity" then none of the above would have been allowed out of the door. The only phrase you can use to describe letting a product out of the door with those flaws is "Commercial interest". Once you start letting "Commercial interest" dictate your decisions, anything remotely artistic has been forfeited.

Until companies can guarantee that the product they produce is free from flaws when it is released to the consumer then video games will never be seen as art, just mass market entertainment.

[ZLurps]

iakus wrote...

MrDavid wrote...

4) I don't know if this counts but I would say that people aren't going to forget Mass Effect 3's ending anytime soon. So does that mean it stands the test of time? I mean it's been a year and clearly we all are very passionate about it. Just some food for thought.

Ed Wood movies have stood the test of time too, just saying...

We can go almost any place on the world and ask people from baby boomers to generation Z if they know Pac Man and Mario and people would know. We do the same with Mass Effect or Commander Shepard and most people would say no.

That said, there are people who are to film culture around the world who would probably know Ed Wood and Plan 9 from Outer Space but in any other term than establishing what defines bad film, and further, film that is so bad that is actually good works of Ed Woods are pretty irrelevant, but groups who really are to that particular sub-culture, or niche.

To put things in perspective, Mass Effect series have really long way to go to be anywhere near the significance of Pac Man, Mario or even Plan 9 from Outer Space. If I think just gaming culture, it have long way to go before being anywhere near significance of Doom (break through title for FPS genre), Counter Strike (global multi player, clan culture) or StarCraft (eSports).

We all have something that we feel is special to us, whatever it is that sparks that something special inside of us, it's natural that we feel that such things should be appreciated more and so on. Regarding ME3 That special something is how BW used strength of game as media, especially certain things on the Citadel (NOT DLC) during campaign.

World building is just fantastic, everything is there, graphics, writing, voice acting, art direction... everything contributing to the story.
Make it a book and this sort of thing easily starts defining it, make it a film and there's the same problem. Make it a game, let player experience this setting as they wish and we have something entirely different.
I feel it's ironic in sort of sad way. Pieces where BW tried to copy Hollywood are among most hated sequences of game but whatever it was where BW was aiming for when they wrote Citadel they were writing that content as great game first and result was something that was practically kicking Hollywood to where it hurts the most. I sure as hell don't get to see that happen everyday.

Then, nobody cares, why? Is it all because of ending controversy or is it because that sort of thing isn't what is important to gaming culture after all? We never get to know. Personally I feel it's sad, but then Led Zeppelin and their works are remembered for a reason and works of about million other bands that were "almost like Led Zeppelin" are forgotten for a reason too. Works of Bach, Welles, hell, Kubric had major cultural impact among other things. Rising something that was almost like famous piece X but then didn't quite cut it and never had any cultural impact on same status as works that did serves no purpose, in fact it would be counter productive.

Modifié par ZLurps, 29 mars 2013 - 01:56 .

[ZLurps]

Nicodemus wrote...

If Bioware had used the phrase "creators vision" to defend their work then people would not jump up and down so much. Using "Artistic Integrity" was a massive mistake because in no way is ME3 really an artistic product.

It has major flaws that any artist would be ashamed to be proud of. Plenty of artists in history have created something and been unhappy with the flaws they see and then either painted over the original or stuck it at the back of the workshop never to see the light of day.

ME3 is a commercial product that was designed to be sold in large volume to make a lot of profit. Would people who think ME3 is art think that Microsoft Windows is art? Of course not, it's a product designed to help us, entertain us and work for us. Can a programmer create art, yes, you only have to look at fractal programs and see that a programmer can create something beautiful, but is the programming of a video game art?

Video games in general are not an artform, they are a massed produced form of entertainment. Barbara Cartland wrote a lot of books for the mass market, they were not art. TV produces a lot of soap operas, they are not art. Michael Bay makes a lot of films, none of them are art.

The ME3 story is weakly written, there are plenty of programming glitches that appear in the game, there are design flaws in the game, there are production decisions that are flawed within the game. If Bioware had "Artistic Integrity" then none of the above would have been allowed out of the door. The only phrase you can use to describe letting a product out of the door with those flaws is "Commercial interest". Once you start letting "Commercial interest" dictate your decisions, anything remotely artistic has been forfeited.

Until companies can guarantee that the product they produce is free from flaws when it is released to the consumer then video games will never be seen as art, just mass market entertainment.

Games can have major cultural, economical and therefore historical value. Again, Pac Man and Mario.

But what comes to marketing products, I think this controversy is very good example of how mass market doesn't give a damn if it's art or not. There are just millions of people out there who seek to entertain themselves.

When people were complaining about narrow field of view in ME3, BW answered that it is because they felt that it was their artistic vision that this offers the best experience for player. And it's true! It sure is fancy way of saying "well, if we had wider FoV game would stutter as hell on PS3." but it's true.

Of course corporation is free to use the word "art" in their marketing as they wish, but as handy of using such abstract may appear, results may also be... unpredictable.

[SpamBot2000]

robertthebard wrote...

So you painted the original Mona Lisa? 

This is exactly the point. Ending brought to you by: People who didn't write the whole story. Just like Leo da Vincio or whatshisface and me are not the same guy.

"BioWare" is not an Artist. It's a division of Electronic Arts, Inc.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 29 mars 2013 - 02:28 .

[SpamBot2000]

Archonsg wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

No.

They require a payment, it is a product, it requires quality, amongst other things, and to meet expectations. I, for one, will not buy further BW games without thoroughly spoiling myself first especially if the game requires emotional investment and DOUBLY SO if Mac and Casey are working on it.

Oh and, BW is now a branch of EA....you know, just to put things into perspective

You have to wonder, how long before the Bioware logo and Brand isn't shown and BW's stuff will just be EA RPGs. and then as with Westwood and other studios EA has taken over,brought to a ditch and shot when the genre that they specialize in takes a downturn.

 Bioware is no longer on my "...take my money now!" pre-order list nor will I make day one purchases.
I have at this moment in excess of $500.00++ in pre-orders / kickstarter pledges.

You know, last year that studio that's making the new Command & Conquer: The Microtransaction Assault was known as BioWare Victory. Now it's called Victory Games. I wonder why.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 29 mars 2013 - 02:34 .

[Archonsg]

@zlurps

First impressions count, as do the finishing touch that completes one's work.

The MEU had a very good first impression, so much so that little bits and pieces that were "off" such as Project Lazarus can be easily swallowed or accepted since, the end is yet to come.

And while detractors will say that the journey is more than the destination, in truth one undertake a journey to get to a destination and that destination decides if the journey was worth it.

Take a blind date for example, might not start off well, but if at the end, you and your partner enjoyed yourself snd want to see each other again, it made that awkward journey at the begining well worth it.

If that same date started great, and you enjoyed both dinner and entertainment beyond your expectations but ends in a date rape, well now, "its the journey, not the destination..." right?

Likewise, ME3 I think if it was a movie, book, or even a single one off *adventure* game where I have no agency as to what happens, where my only active participation is to shoot stuff, I can accept it for what it is.

For a RPG that had you invested 5 years, over 3 games, getting you actively deciding and affecting the fate of not just your character but of companions and those around you, where emotional investment is reinforced with every stage of the game's series, to end as it did, to only cater to *one* play style, path and possibility, is just wrong.

No doubt they can't cover every possibility, but at least for a game one usually has to give the options that would range from failure to absolute victory.

There are exceptions of course, but very few has managed a Pyrrhic Victory ending. ME3 is not one if them.

[Edorian27]

UniqueName001 wrote...

I think this game is art. That doesn't change the fact that the endings were awful. "Art" is not a defense against criticism, especially when that art was, in fact, "commissioned art".

I reject the idea that we have to blindly accept all games for "the good of the industry". I also reject the idea that "we just didn't think about the endings hard enough". Neither is a defense of a rushed and incomplete product.

well said.

@OP:

I see where you are coming from. Actually, my first reaction was the same. I was open for the ending, interested what just happened. Did Shepard meet god? Is he dreaming? Is this real? I liked it, but didn't understand it.
So I came to these boards in search for an explanation.  
The longer I thought and read about the ending, the more I saw how many flaws then ending has. When people don't understand something, they analyze.
I loved and still love IT, because it gave sense to the ending and fitted the game.

So maybe it is a piece of art (and a fantastic game apart from the endings), but what do you do when the whole audience stands in front of it and doesn't understand what is meant, how it fits into the previously seen?
If you don't explain it, people get angry.

Bioware did not explain, so people got angry, and (for me) EC made it worse because it tried to tell me things were really happening when it still contradicts logic when they do.

After all, I made my peace with it, deleted the EC and headcanon IT. Bioware won't change it, but the didn't convince me that it is flawed in too many ways to count, and I would've liked either an explanation or them admitting it was bad.

[Auld Wulf]

It's nice to see that someone else actually appreciates art in video games and pines for it to become more common. There actually used to be a lot of art and symbolism in video games, it was common. But a lot of that was Japan's fault. Japan loves art and symbolism to the point where their entire culture is wrapped around it as a construct, it was something of a golden age for gaming.

Sadly, most Western developers never seemed to understand that. Their understanding for what people wanted went as far as "People wanna kill other people, right?" and that's that. This means that there's a massively underserved demographic of people like myself who actually appreciated that art, back then, and now pine for it and miss it. Let's be honest, you can't compare Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, and Shenmue with Call of Duty. To me, there's no art to Call of Duty, it's just an interactive action movie. (Often with cheap shock value thrown in.)

There have been some Western mutants though that weren't indepndent games. Ecco the Dolphin: Defender of the Future and Spec Ops: The Line both were artistic. And to be honest, as it stands, if you do your research then you'll find that there are as many people who like those artistic games as there are that like Call of Duty. But they've become resigned to the fact that gaming has regressed into some prepubescent form, and that maturity isn't common.

What makes Mass Effect interesting is that it mutated within its own series. Mass Effect 1 was just a trumped up Space Invaders. Let's be honest. The geth were the spaceships, Sovereign was the big alien ship, and the Normandy was the one ship defending earth. I shook my head at how simplistic the plot of ME1 was. It was a game that represented the most primal of entertainment values. You had gun, you killed people. You had ship, you killed big ship.

ME2 started to break away from that by having its characters introduce interesting philosophies. Legion and Mordin especially. It was enough to get me interested. I loved discussing ethics with those two. Plus, it had some interesting factors, like trying to save the crew. It was a step above the usual entertainment slurry that Western gaming has become. ME3 though... it just completely blew that away and amped up the artistic values of 2. ME3 wasn't pulling any punches.

I think that's why it made people upset. People who were with the series since ME1 (I played ten minutes of ME1 and watched the cutscenes on Youtube, I fell asleep) were expecting something that was part of the usual entertainment slurry. You know, steroid pumped person with gun runs around shooting things. Very typical. I think ME2 and ME3 tried to open people up to a more mature style of game. Sadly, the effort was a failure as it didn't work for the many, but I vastly appreciated the effort. The artistic values of ME3 have cemented it as one of my all-time favourites -- right up there with Shadow of the Colossus.

My only worry is that after this reprisal, BioWare will stop being brave and return to the Western entertainment slurry, not even trying to be philosophical, poignant, clever, or intellectual. I really hope that won't be the case.

[sharkboy421]

Archonsg wrote...

You have to wonder, how long before the Bioware logo and Brand isn't shown and BW's stuff will just be EA RPGs. and then as with Westwood and other studios EA has taken over,brought to a ditch and shot when the genre that they specialize in takes a downturn.

 Bioware is no longer on my "...take my money now!" pre-order list nor will I make day one purchases.
I have at this moment in excess of $500.00++ in pre-orders / kickstarter pledges.

While I agree EA has made some questionable decisions, I don't think they will ever drop the Bioware name/logo.  Even at some point in the future all that remains is the name, that name alone will sell more games than some "EA rpg" name.  At least I don't think EA could be that foolish. 

[dreamgazer]

Auld Wulf wrote...

What makes Mass Effect interesting is that it mutated within its own series. Mass Effect 1 was just a trumped up Space Invaders. Let's be honest. The geth were the spaceships, Sovereign was the big alien ship, and the Normandy was the one ship defending earth. I shook my head at how simplistic the plot of ME1 was. It was a game that represented the most primal of entertainment values. You had gun, you killed people. You had ship, you killed big ship.

ME2 started to break away from that by having its characters introduce interesting philosophies. Legion and Mordin especially. It was enough to get me interested. I loved discussing ethics with those two. Plus, it had some interesting factors, like trying to save the crew. It was a step above the usual entertainment slurry that Western gaming has become. ME3 though... it just completely blew that away and amped up the artistic values of 2. ME3 wasn't pulling any punches.

I think that's why it made people upset. People who were with the series since ME1 (I played ten minutes of ME1 and watched the cutscenes on Youtube, I fell asleep) were expecting something that was part of the usual entertainment slurry. You know, steroid pumped person with gun runs around shooting things. Very typical. I think ME2 and ME3 tried to open people up to a more mature style of game. Sadly, the effort was a failure as it didn't work for the many, but I vastly appreciated the effort. The artistic values of ME3 have cemented it as one of my all-time favourites -- right up there with Shadow of the Colossus.

My only worry is that after this reprisal, BioWare will stop being brave and return to the Western entertainment slurry, not even trying to be philosophical, poignant, clever, or intellectual. I really hope that won't be the case.

There is a mix of truth and fallacy in your assessment, AW, and it boils down to the fact that people would've embraced ME3's more "artistic" and "philosophical" inclinations had they been implemented within a clearer perspective that didn't break from the narrative's established through-line. Awareness of the threshold of consistency, and keeping an eye on the boundaries, is key.  I hope they don't completely revert to Western pew-pew too, that they continue to think outside the box, but they also don't need to abandon practicality, either.

[darkway1]

How on earth can the original red,green,blue (almost identical) endings be acceptable to anyone??........that wasn't art...it wasn't clever.....it wasn't meaningful...........it was rushed,unfinished,unfitting for such an epic franchise.........WHY was it released this way?.....WHY do people defend such poor produced ending?

Is the reality,nothing more than the deadline?.......5 years of gaming pleasure (guessing 9 years for developers) can all be trashed over a simple deadline?..........that can't be acceptable,that just wrong.

[dreamgazer]

darkway1 wrote...

WHY do people defend such poor produced ending?

Honestly, I think those people like the idea of what the ending tried to accomplish in context of this story, the Asimov-like conflict of ideologies, more than they do the execution. Under better circumstances, it would've been an interesting conversation. 

Modifié par dreamgazer, 29 mars 2013 - 03:37 .

[spirosz]

Troxa wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Troxa wrote...

Not in storytelling

Is a painting not telling a story in itself? Is music not telling a story? Is any form of creative freedom not in relation to expressing one's self and their experiences through a form that allows them to tell their story?

No, you can't compare the two one storytelling narrative coheranse to be art.

Fun fact btw, a teacher at a university who teaches about writing in
videos games used ME3 as an example of how NOT to do a video game. What
they did with the Catalyst goes even against the teachings of Plato!

You can't call it art when there is no narrative coheranse

So one teacher = everyone's definition? Thanks for enlightening me.

Also, that's just one aspect of the game, the story itself. I do agree that it isn't as consistent as I'd like it to be, but if we were to argue just that one aspect, when there's more to consider, then I don't see the point.

Also, as others have stated, "artistic" integrity was never a defense for their game. This whole art debate is flawed because where I perceive something in one manner, you for example see the same thing in a different light and that's fine, but neither are right or wrong in this argument, IMO - since the main aspect of art is subjectivity in relation to one's expression. Where as I stated before, I see "technology" as the game developers canvas, as I see a rock as a sculptures, just different mediums of the form.

Now, I'm not saying everyone art piece that is made is considerable "art", since I personally don't see the value of flipping a toilet upside down and calling it art, but that's what makes me an individual in that aspect and relating to what I wrote about - people will view things in a different way and that's what makes creating anything, interesting.

The ME series provokes emotion better than most games do, but I personally see specific indies games as a form of "art", like Journey, Flower, LIMBO - where these games provoke a wide variety of emotions, without trying to force the emotions, that's the difference, but maybe it's not fair to compare them, since they're a different type of game, compared to Mass Effect.

[ZLurps]

Archonsg wrote...

@zlurps

First impressions count, as do the finishing touch that completes one's work.

The MEU had a very good first impression, so much so that little bits and pieces that were "off" such as Project Lazarus can be easily swallowed or accepted since, the end is yet to come.

And while detractors will say that the journey is more than the destination, in truth one undertake a journey to get to a destination and that destination decides if the journey was worth it.

Take a blind date for example, might not start off well, but if at the end, you and your partner enjoyed yourself snd want to see each other again, it made that awkward journey at the begining well worth it.

If that same date started great, and you enjoyed both dinner and entertainment beyond your expectations but ends in a date rape, well now, "its the journey, not the destination..." right?

Likewise, ME3 I think if it was a movie, book, or even a single one off *adventure* game where I have no agency as to what happens, where my only active participation is to shoot stuff, I can accept it for what it is.

For a RPG that had you invested 5 years, over 3 games, getting you actively deciding and affecting the fate of not just your character but of companions and those around you, where emotional investment is reinforced with every stage of the game's series, to end as it did, to only cater to *one* play style, path and possibility, is just wrong.

No doubt they can't cover every possibility, but at least for a game one usually has to give the options that would range from failure to absolute victory.

There are exceptions of course, but very few has managed a Pyrrhic Victory ending. ME3 is not one if them.

I understand what you mean. I have read many posts on forums since even before the the controversy, read about expectations, watched the trailers among others, had my WTF! moment when I finished ME3 campaign and I think I understand most arguments from both sides of the fence.

That said, I never was part of re-takers, I knew ME3 is going to be my last title I purchase from EA when I pre-ordered it in December 2011, I thought I may buy DLC though, and I did. Anyway, joining re-takers were made me hypocrite, my issues with certain things weren't related to ME3 endings to begin with. There are great things that may be lost because of endings, then maybe it's just me.

That said, I never been in pro-enders camp either. If EA were been able to get away with  "Take the Earth Back" etc. there were been conseqeunces too, practically, suits were seen it like investing more to marketing and less on production would be increasingly better option to get larger profits.

You are very spot on what you wrote about us swallowing the project Lazarus, etc. BW had lot of good will from customers, people thought, well, ME3 is going to be even better. Then in ME3 BW spent that good will on Kai Leng and Cerberus Empire, pace weren't great... great sequences, bad sequences, over all pretty good to average, but people were expecting climax and we all know how well that turned out.

I never been very eager to discuss endings per se. I'v made few pretty wild analogies, but after a while I noticed it's simply pointless. There are questions how this all happened, I was curious too and started searching around the net. I and couple of others have posted few times info from other forums where it comes pretty easy to form a picture what happened, then people pass on that like nothing and start the same debate again in other topic, so I don't see much point doing that either.

This topic however, maybe people could start asking from themselves if good game, even excellent game can be just great game... or average game and there's nothing wrong enjoying it. Not everything needs to be "art" to give us great experience and perhaps games in general can never be considered art because they aren't appreciated for what they are. Then for games to evolve, no matter what the industry says, there's no any need for that to happen if repeating one formula fill companies chests. If there aren't customers who expect better.

[SiriusXI]

There was art in Mass Effect 3, but not in the ending. Mass Effect 3's ending may be the reason video games won't be considered real art in the near future.

What do you think will happen? Art critics will look at ME3's ending because the developers defended their "artistic integrity" so eagerly, so there must be something to it, right? And what will they see?

- abandonment of core themes
- lack of narrative coherence
- poor unerstanding of science
- primary school level of writing-
- introduction and celebration of themes with horrible implications: genocide, dictatorship, brainwashing

Art critics will look at this and say: "artistic value of games... yeah... we have dismissed that claim".


So thank you ending supporters. That one is on you!

[dreamgazer]

SiriusXI wrote...

There was art in Mass Effect 3, but not in the ending. Mass Effect 3's ending may be the reason video games won't be considered real art in the near future.

What do you think will happen? Art critics will look at ME3's ending because the developers defended their "artistic integrity" so eagerly, so there must be something to it, right? And what will they see?

- abandonment of core themes
- lack of narrative coherence
- poor unerstanding of science
- primary school level of writing-
- introduction and celebration of themes with horrible implications: genocide, dictatorship, brainwashing

Art critics will look at this and say: "artistic value of games... yeah... we have dismissed that claim".


So thank you ending supporters. That one is on you!

That escalated quickly. 

[spirosz]

dreamgazer wrote...

darkway1 wrote...

WHY do people defend such poor produced ending?

Honestly, I think those people like the idea of what the ending tried to accomplish in context of this story, the Asimov-like conflict of ideologies, more than they do the execution. Under better circumstances, it would've been an interesting conversation. 

Basically.  That's why I've come to terms with it.  I know it's not executed well, but I understand what was trying to be expressed and I understand limits, budget, EA sheit.