1470 réponses à ce sujet

[JamesFaith]

@eddieoctane

First - test public or some hints to public before releasing are still part of creative process - same as betatesters in videogames. Any change during this stage is still part of creation and they have different nature then changes demanded after releasing.

Second - I never judge artists by "how artistic they are". By my opinion they have all same right including stands by their work and refuse to change it, same like Dan Simmons is refusing one small change in Summer of night more then 20 years or G. Martin refusing change Red wedding.

When I start making exception from that right like "it isn't so much artistic as this and that" or "it was made for masses" it would make me hypocrite.

Modifié par JamesFaith, 08 mai 2013 - 07:15 .

[Kel Riever]

Robosexual wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

How did they design the crucible to incorporate the catalyst if they don't know what the catalyst is?

It's possible that another race did. The Protheans basically did, and they were handed down that information from a previous cycle just like ours.

Well, we are left to headcannon it, because it wasn't explained.  I personally thought it was worth taking time to make the crucible make more sense, but honestly, on the level of hand wavium, it is down the list at like #10.

[PsyrenY]

Greylycantrope wrote...
The Wulfie is strong in that one.

Wulf has the right idea for dealing with some.
But I've fed the troll enough for one day.

Robosexual wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...
How did they design the crucible to incorporate the catalyst if they don't know what the catalyst is?

It's possible that another race did. The Protheans basically did, and they were handed down that information from a previous cycle just like ours.

And we know at least one organic race knows of the Catalyst's existence - Leviathan.

dreamgazer wrote...

And Mass Effect is neither Citizen Kane nor The Hangover.

Correct.

[samgurl775]

I'm facepalming so hard at them "not knowing how attached people were to the characters".

[eddieoctane]

dreamgazer wrote...

Oh, good. Another comparison between artistic extremes.

The point wasn't about artistic extremes as much as much as the underlying motivations, but you were quick to gloss over that. I can only speculate as to why. Perhaps it was easier to not refute my point with logic, or perhaps you're just a huge Zach Galifianakis or Picaso fan. I digress.

Mass Effect was never about Hudson challenging himself, it was all about making money while ostensibly enjoying the process. When we look at other art mediums that have profit as the primary motivations, alterations to appeal to the consumer are the norm. If video games can't be compared to other media, then they can't fairly be called art. I took classes in jazz, film, and theater in college. In all of them, we looked at other forms of art as well because valid comparisons can be made. When you put video games in a vacuum, you separate them from art. If it is art in some form, my criticisms are valid. If it isn't, then the defenses of it are not.

[Felya87]

JamesFaith wrote...

Felya87 wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

Because critics and fan feedback normaly work this way?

Result of these is lesson for next work, not be forced to reform your previous work. 

maybe I'm thinking as the merchant I am, but usually, if the client complaine about something he buy from me, I try to make him happy with the actual purchase, than I try to sell him/her something else.

a satisfied client means more clients in the future.
loosing a client means possibly loosing a lot of future clients.

even if the request is strange, or hard to obtain, I'll try everithing. sometimes I can ever lose money in the process, but usually it pay me in the future. usually with the chance of a new purchase happening.

but if a client is not happy about what I sell to him/her, I can forget about having that client again in my shop. and I'll loose even more money that way. and possibly friends and aquitance of the client.

Don't forget that you are speaking about product with features which are creation of artist. Thing you told can be applied on shoes, cars or food in restaurant, but not here.

If problem was in some major technical part of game like graphic or sound problems, they should fix it, because it would be objective flaw. Here your points would be valid.

But problem here was with story. And how many books you know which were changed after released? Or movies (don't speak about test audience, which is part of creative process)? Did you ever come to bookshop and demand new version of book because you ddidn't like its ending and want it fixed? Or demand change of music in some movie?

not true. artists chance their work every day if their work is not of the taste of their client. I have worked for some time painting walls and Windows of various shops. artist are just artisans, but with little more freedom to use their imagination.

of course, if we are speaking about artists that want to live with the cash that came from thier work.

I'm all for art, when is well done. but usually, the art, to be called like this, must be considered art by someone else than the artist who made it. or is just an arrogant statemant.

and for ME3...if I have a tecnical problem with the game, I would be angry at the shop where I buy the game. but tecnically, I have no problem. the problem is from Bioware who made the product. because is flawed at the base.

many books have been changed because peple didn't like them. Pinocchio and Sherlock Holmes, for example. if a book happen to make something a la ME3, two things could happen: or a sequel book who "repair the wrong", or no book will come out again from that writer. or if came out, usually is a flop. because people would not buy it, since the prevous book was bad.

[Kel Riever]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...
The Wulfie is strong in that one.

Wulf has the right idea for dealing with some.
But I've fed the troll enough for one day.

*Facepalm*  He's talking about you.  This is why.....nevermind.  You should look up the word, 'Coherent,' and attempt to pursue its meaning in your posts.

[HiddenInWar]

AresKeith wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

N7 Shadow 90 wrote...

OXM: What type of spin-off game would you like to see?
MG: Following the story of Javik would be pretty cool.

YES.

I was just thinking about this the other day. I don't even read comics but a series of Javik, especially him and the indoctrination of his crew, would be incredibly interesting to read.

As a book I agree it would

but as a game, noooo

^this.

A book would be wonderful.

[Clayless]

eddieoctane wrote...

The point wasn't about artistic extremes as much as much as the underlying motivations, but you were quick to gloss over that. I can only speculate as to why. Perhaps it was easier to not refute my point with logic, or perhaps you're just a huge Zach Galifianakis or Picaso fan. I digress.

Mass Effect was never about Hudson challenging himself, it was all about making money while ostensibly enjoying the process. When we look at other art mediums that have profit as the primary motivations, alterations to appeal to the consumer are the norm. If video games can't be compared to other media, then they can't fairly be called art. I took classes in jazz, film, and theater in college. In all of them, we looked at other forms of art as well because valid comparisons can be made. When you put video games in a vacuum, you separate them from art. If it is art in some form, my criticisms are valid. If it isn't, then the defenses of it are not.

That doesn't make any sense. Everything is art. You can't just say it's not art because you disagree and expect to be taken seriously, nor can you go "A few other pieces of art changed therefore this one should too" and expect any other response than "I disagree".

You can't argue what is or isn't or what should and shouldn't happen to art and expect that debate to go anywhere. You're point wont be any more correct no matter how much time you spend saying it.

[PsyrenY]

Felya87 wrote...

I'm all for art, when is well done. but usually, the art, to be called like this, must be considered art by someone else than the artist who made it. or is just an arrogant statemant.

ME3 clears this requirement easily.

Felya87 wrote...

many books have been changed because peple didn't like them.

And many more have not.

[HiddenInWar]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Felya87 wrote...

I'm all for art, when is well done. but usually, the art, to be called like this, must be considered art by someone else than the artist who made it. or is just an arrogant statemant.

ME3 clears this requirement easily.

Felya87 wrote...

many books have been changed because peple didn't like them.

And many more have not.

Wasn't there just one book that got recalled? (Deception)

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

I would like the people who did that interview to play The Matrix: Path of Neo.

I'd like them to play it to the end. I'd like them to play right up to where the game recreates the climax from the third Matrix film.

Almost everything they needed to know is explained to them in that scene.

[Kel Riever]

Robosexual wrote...

eddieoctane wrote...

The point wasn't about artistic extremes as much as much as the underlying motivations, but you were quick to gloss over that. I can only speculate as to why. Perhaps it was easier to not refute my point with logic, or perhaps you're just a huge Zach Galifianakis or Picaso fan. I digress.

Mass Effect was never about Hudson challenging himself, it was all about making money while ostensibly enjoying the process. When we look at other art mediums that have profit as the primary motivations, alterations to appeal to the consumer are the norm. If video games can't be compared to other media, then they can't fairly be called art. I took classes in jazz, film, and theater in college. In all of them, we looked at other forms of art as well because valid comparisons can be made. When you put video games in a vacuum, you separate them from art. If it is art in some form, my criticisms are valid. If it isn't, then the defenses of it are not.

That doesn't make any sense. Everything is art. You can't just say it's not art because you disagree and expect to be taken seriously, nor can you go "A few other pieces of art changed therefore this one should too" and expect any other response than "I disagree".

You can't argue what is or isn't or what should and shouldn't happen to art and expect that debate to go anywhere. You're point wont be any more correct no matter how much time you spend saying it.

I wouldn't go so far as to call ANYTHING art.  Defining art is so the wrong direction to go about the 'Artistic Integrity comment, anyway, which is where it seemed that this whole thing started.

Now, I wouldn't call a video game like Mass Effect art, because I just think that is damn silly, even though yes, it does have artistic elements to it.  The product is a video game, and that is what you call it.  Now, writing is art, and since the excuse given to the story of Mass Effect had the term 'Artistic Integrity' attached to it, I wouldn't say that aspect was out of bounds.

What WAS out of bounds, however, was using the term 'Artistic Integrity' as an excuse.  Simply put, if you really are an artist, your work speaks for itself.  Defending your work with a sorry attempt to say it couldn't be changed due to 'Reason:  Artistic Integrity' screams hack.  And reveals a self knowledge that the job wasn't done, with a heavy hand wave as to the reasons why, so the hard looking doesn't have to be done.  The proper response would have been simply to let the work stand on its own merit, and never make such stupid comments in the first place. 

Arguing about what is art has no part in any of that.

Modifié par Kel Riever, 08 mai 2013 - 07:41 .

[dreamgazer]

eddieoctane wrote...

The point wasn't about artistic extremes as much as much as the underlying motivations, but you were quick to gloss over that. I can only speculate as to why. Perhaps it was easier to not refute my point with logic, or perhaps you're just a huge Zach Galifianakis or Picaso fan. I digress.

Well, I do dream of Galifianakis playing Picasso.

Limiting your perception of the creative process based on "this vs. that" isn't a sound way of building your perspective, nor is the "art vs. product" angle that constricts creative freedom and occasionally renders worse productions as a result. If you start forcing the product label on something, you're really going to get a perfunctory product.

PS: The above piece of work carries very different motivations for its conceptualization and the ways it engages the audience than the Mona Lisa.

Three Musicians is an example of Picasso's Cubist style. In Cubism, the subject of the artwork is transformed into a sequence of planes, lines, and arcs. Cubism has been described as an intellectual style because the artists analyzed the shapes of their subjects and reinvented them on the canvas. The viewer must reconstruct the subject and space of the work by comparing the different shapes and forms to determine what each one represents. Through this process, the viewer participates with the artist in making the artwork make sense.

[JamesFaith]

Felya87 wrote...


not true. artists chance their work every day if their work is not of the taste of their client. I have worked for some time painting walls and Windows of various shops. artist are just artisans, but with little more freedom to use their imagination.

.....

many books have been changed because peple didn't like them. Pinocchio and Sherlock Holmes, for example. if a book happen to make something a la ME3, two things could happen: or a sequel book who "repair the wrong", or no book will come out again from that writer. or if came out, usually is a flop. because people would not buy it, since the prevous book was bad.

There is one main problem with your first article - works you described were made for one or small group of specific clients who told you exactly what they wanted. But books, films and videogames are mostly made for unknown huge number of people whose unknown and varied, often even contradictory wishes author can only guess and he isn't obliged to meet them all. One my teacher call this "Art bet" - everytime you buy such type of art (book, movie...), you have to be ready you wouldn't like it.

And second point just repeat what I told at my first respond - author taking lesson for future. To counter my point you have to show many rewrote books because people don't like them. 

[SpamBot2000]

Shakespeare. Now there was a decent character writer. Didn't mean he didn't change his stuff to suit the audience. You know the witches in Macbeth? Apparently they were "fates" or some such originally. But as it happens, King James had a thing about witches, he even wrote a book about them (Daemonologie, 1597). And Mr. Shakespeare was a member of a company called "The King's Men". So... "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes!"

It should probably be noted that many scholars don't think Shakespeare wrote the witches' lines himself, but that someone else kindly changed the play for him. And it seems to be quite popular, even some 400 years later. Don't see many people weeping about artistic integrity there.

Of course, Shakespeare wasn't very precious about the art and all that. That kind of conception of the artist wasn't yet in vogue back then. Mr. Shakespeare knew he was working in the entertainment industry, and accordingly did not traffic in sucker punch twist endings. Yet his work has a decent enough reputation even some 400 years later.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 08 mai 2013 - 07:51 .

[PsyrenY]

HiddenInWar wrote...

Wasn't there just one book that got recalled? (Deception)

For myself, I meant books in general, not ME books.

It's hard to see Deception as anything other than a steaming turd though. I haven't seen anyone stepping up to defend it.

[SpamBot2000]

Optimystic_X wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

Wasn't there just one book that got recalled? (Deception)

For myself, I meant books in general, not ME books.

It's hard to see Deception as anything other than a steaming turd though. I haven't seen anyone stepping up to defend it.

Apart from Casey Hudson of course. But perhaps "hyping" would be more accurate.

"Finished my final review of the #MassEffect Deception novel. A really fun lead-in to #ME3! Kai Leng is a badass. January 31 release."

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 08 mai 2013 - 07:52 .

[Kel Riever]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Shakespeare. Now there was a decent character writer. Didn't mean he didn't change his stuff to suit the audience. You know the witches in Macbeth? Apparently they were "fates" or some such originally. But as it happens, King James had a thing about witches, he even wrote a book about them (Daemonologie, 1597). And Mr. Shakespeare was a member of a company called "The King's Men". So... "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes!"

It should probably be noted that many scholars don't think Shakespeare wrote the witches' lines himself, but that someone else kindly changed the play for him. And it seems to be quite popular, even some 400 years later. Don't see many people weeping about artistic integrity there.

Of course, Shakespeare wasn't very precious about the art and all that. That kind of conception of the artist wasn't yet in vogue back then. Mr. Shakespeare knew he was working in the entertainment industry, and accordingly did not traffic in sucker punch twist endings. Yet his work has a decent enough reputation even some 400 years later.

To be fair, Shakespeare is a legend.  And not the kind of legend that gets tacked on after a whole long list of credits, either. 

[NeonFlux117]

BioWare should just stop trying to make RPG's. Best to leave it to the pros like Cdprojekt Red, and Bethesda Softworks.

[SpamBot2000]

Kel Riever wrote...

To be fair, Shakespeare is a legend.  And not the kind of legend that gets tacked on after a whole long list of credits, either. 

Well, he wasn't back in the day. The highbrow people thought he was kinda ok, but no Ben Jonson. 

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 08 mai 2013 - 07:55 .

[AresKeith]

Optimystic_X wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

Wasn't there just one book that got recalled? (Deception)

For myself, I meant books in general, not ME books.

It's hard to see Deception as anything other than a steaming turd though. I haven't seen anyone stepping up to defend it.

Well there was one user on here who did about everything in that book

[dreamgazer]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Shakespeare. Now there was a decent character writer. Didn't mean he didn't change his stuff to suit the audience. You know the witches in Macbeth? Apparently they were "fates" or some such originally. But as it happens, King James had a thing about witches, he even wrote a book about them (Daemonologie, 1597). And Mr. Shakespeare was a member of a company called "The King's Men". So... "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes!"

It should probably be noted that many scholars don't think Shakespeare wrote the witches' lines himself, but that someone else kindly changed the play for him. And it seems to be quite popular, even some 400 years later. Don't see many people weeping about artistic integrity there.

Of course, Shakespeare wasn't very precious about the art and all that. That kind of conception of the artist wasn't yet in vogue back then. Mr. Shakespeare knew he was working in the entertainment industry, and accordingly did not traffic in sucker punch twist endings. Yet his work has a decent enough reputation even some 400 years later.

A more detailed description of Shakespeare's changes to his source inspirations.

[johnj1979]

so if they knew that there is a problem why more than a year later have they STILL not fixed it

[Clayless]

Kel Riever wrote...

I wouldn't go so far as to call ANYTHING art.  Defining art is so the wrong direction to go about the 'Artistic Integrity comment, anyway, which is where it seemed that this whole thing started.

Now, I wouldn't call a video game like Mass Effect art, because I just think that is damn silly, even though yes, it does have artistic elements to it.  The product is a video game, and that is what you call it.  Now, writing is art, and since the excuse given to the story of Mass Effect had the term 'Artistic Integrity' attached to it, I wouldn't say that aspect was out of bounds.

What WAS out of bounds, however, was using the term 'Artistic Integrity' as an excuse.  Simply put, if you really are an artist, your work speaks for itself.  Defending your work with a sorry attempt to say it couldn't be changed due to 'Reason:  Artistic Integrity' screams hack.  And reveals a self knowledge that the job wasn't done, with a heavy hand wave as to the reasons why, so the hard looking doesn't have to be done.  The proper response would have been simply to let the work stand on its own merit, and never make such stupid comments in the first place. 

Arguing about what is art has no part in any of that.

It wasn't used as an excuse. You seem to be muddling up what he said with people who took it out of context and turned it into a meme.