217 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

FlamingBoy wrote...

Hiding behind the "original intention of the creation" is the art argument, its the whole the artists creation is sacred. Its just a different way of saying it but its the exact same thing.

No, you're making your own leap there, actually.

BioWare couldn't give a damn about whether ME3 is considered art or not, really, but they're standing by what their employees produced. There's a difference between hiding behind ideology and sticking to your guns, and they did the latter---again, while also folding in some fan feedback. 

[FlamingBoy]

Its not a leap its basic rational deduction from the fact when the extended cut was announced. Ray Muyzka major theme was art, integrity, and how to balance that with fan response.

Once again, you do not have to agree, but even you could see how I, or others like me, came to that conclusion.

[chemiclord]

FlamingBoy wrote...

Hiding behind the "original intention of the creation" is the art argument, its the whole the artists creation is sacred. Its just a different way of saying it but its the exact same thing.

Well... it IS really.

An artist does not HAVE to change something within his or her work due to fan complaints.  That's all "artistic integrity" is.  It does NOT mean fans have to like it or support that artist in the future.  If they want to stand by that initial creation and suffer the consequences (whatever that may be), that is their right to do so.

At this point... I'm sorry, but it's YOUR problem, not THEIRS.  Walk away, because that wall ain't movin' no matter how much you scream.

Modifié par chemiclord, 18 juin 2013 - 02:36 .

[Ticonderoga117]

AlanC9 wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

How can you change what you don't know? The whole Reaper cycle thing hinges on the idea that no one ever looks too deep into the Citadel. How can you build something to work with that? 

Where was this argument when ME1 came out?

For what exactly?

[FlamingBoy]

chemiclord wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

Hiding behind the "original intention of the creation" is the art argument, its the whole the artists creation is sacred. Its just a different way of saying it but its the exact same thing.

Well... it IS really.

An artist does not HAVE to change something within his or her work due to fan complaints.  That's all "artistic integrity" is.  It does NOT mean fans have to like it or support that artist in the future.  If they want to stand by that initial creation and suffer the consequences (whatever that may be), that is their right to do so... no matter how much fans want to scream about it.

I have already answered my interpretation of their "rights" in a previous post... I appreciate your effort but I cannot write the same thing over and over again.

[dreamgazer]

FlamingBoy wrote...

Once again, you do not have to agree, but even you could see how I, or others like me, came to that conclusion.

I can see how others misconstrued the statement to their benefit, sure.

[FlamingBoy]

dreamgazer wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

Once again, you do not have to agree, but even you could see how I, or others like me, came to that conclusion.

I can see how others misconstrued the statement to their benefit, sure.

It is not possible to reason with you. You won't give me an inch, and its getting ridiculous.

Also stop butchering my quotes, I like full context when I am quoted so that important parts are not "forgotten"

[dreamgazer]

FlamingBoy wrote...

I have already answered my interpretation of their "rights" in a previous post... I appreciate your effort but I cannot write the same thing over and over again.

Of course you can! I mean, that's what the BSN has been since March of last year, right?

[FlamingBoy]

dreamgazer wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

I have already answered my interpretation of their "rights" in a previous post... I appreciate your effort but I cannot write the same thing over and over again.

Of course you can! I mean, that's what the BSN has been since March of last year, right?

Its more of an issue that I wrote a post as recently as half an hour ago. On the exact same thing, On the exact same thread that I find fustrating.

Edit: an inappropriate critcism of texasgold rush when he was not relevant to conversation. Apologies to the board member in question.

Modifié par FlamingBoy, 18 juin 2013 - 02:50 .

[dreamgazer]

FlamingBoy wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

Once again, you do not have to agree, but even you could see how I, or others like me, came to that conclusion.

I can see how others misconstrued the statement to their benefit, sure.

It is not possible to reason with you. You won't give me an inch, and its getting ridiculous.

Also stop butchering my quotes, I like full context when I am quoted so that important parts are not "forgotten"

Neither will you, sir. I see where your perspective comes from, but I disagree with your rationale. That won't change.

And apologies for trimming the content ("butchering" lol), but I like to keep posts tidy. If you're concerned with how others are viewing your position, they can read back just a wee bit.

[FlamingBoy]

dreamgazer wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

Once again, you do not have to agree, but even you could see how I, or others like me, came to that conclusion.

I can see how others misconstrued the statement to their benefit, sure.

It is not possible to reason with you. You won't give me an inch, and its getting ridiculous.

Also stop butchering my quotes, I like full context when I am quoted so that important parts are not "forgotten"

Neither will you, sir. I see where your perspective comes from, but I disagree with your rationale. That won't change.

And apologies for trimming the content ("butchering" lol), but I like to keep posts tidy. If you're concerned with how others are viewing your position, they can read back just a wee bit.

I think we let the issue rest for now.
Apology accepted :happy: I really appreciate it.
The issue I have with it is that people only quote the stuff they like and can more easily attack. Its not that you do it, but I put the principle on all people to prevent a misrepresentation by others on purpose or otherwise.

[Wolfva2]

chemiclord wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

Hiding behind the "original intention of the creation" is the art argument, its the whole the artists creation is sacred. Its just a different way of saying it but its the exact same thing.

Well... it IS really.

An artist does not HAVE to change something within his or her work due to fan complaints.  That's all "artistic integrity" is.  It does NOT mean fans have to like it or support that artist in the future.  If they want to stand by that initial creation and suffer the consequences (whatever that may be), that is their right to do so.

At this point... I'm sorry, but it's YOUR problem, not THEIRS.  Walk away, because that wall ain't movin' no matter how much you scream.

Quoting this for truth.

Let's talk art for a moment.  Is a cross in a bottle of urine art?  Howabout a picture of Mohammad with a bomb for a turban?  Or, an enigmatically smiling woman?  A vase with flowers?  A sonnet?  

I used to be a poet.  Even got published.  I stopped writing because to many people would tell me how much they loved my work, then proceed to explain my poems to me, even to the point of arguing that I was wrong about the meaning of what I wrote.  I WROTE the damned things.  I think I know what I was trying to say.  Anyways, it became a 'fan v creator' argument.  I see the same thing here; so called 'fans' who aren't actually fans of the material at all.  People who are incapable of creation trying to put their own impetus on someone else's work. 

Well, guess what spankies?  I know this has been mentioned time and time again, ad nauseum.  It will be repeated ad nauseum.  But good?   Bad?  It's SUBJECTIVE.  YOU don't get to decide for Bioware if their creation is GOOD.  YOU only get to decide whether or not YOU like it.  And ONLY YOU; you do not speak for ANYONE other then yourself...no matter how many times you put "we"  or 'the FAAAANSSSS...." in your posts.

If you don't like the game, DON'T PLAY IT.  If you think BW makes crap, DON'T BUY their products.  If you think the Devs are lazy and should be fired, then buy up a controlling share of their stock and FIRE them.  But stop throwing temper tantrums just because YOU don't like something.  Bioware isn't making games for YOU...the person who hates them.  They're making games for US, the people who like the games.

Of course, that advice will go unheeded, as it has on dozens of other game forums.  Because no matter the game, you hear the exact same complaints on their forums.  No matter how popular the game may be.  No matter how much money it brings in.  No matter how long it's around.  It's always the EXACT.  SAME.  COMPLAINTS.  The game sucks. The writing is horrible.  The devs don't know what they're doing, and/or they're lazy.  The company is just in it for the money.  Anyone who disagrees is a faaaanboooiiiii.  Anyone who likes the game is just a trolllllll.  Etc etc.  I've come to the conclusion that it's not actually about the game.  It's about the complainer.  His need to feel important.  To feel like he has some power in the world; that he isn't impotent.   Which is why you see the SAME people, over and over again, kvetching about the same things, month after month.  Sometimes year after year.  And yet, these same people who so hate the ending, who think BW is the worst company in the world...will go on to complain about the various DLC.  Wait a second...they hate the game...they think it sucks...yet they bought the DLC?  Then, the sequel comes out, and it's the same thing.  Wait...they bought the sequel?  Oh look!  Another sequel has just been anounced!  And there they are...complaining about how bad the sequel will be.  It comes out and you guessed it!  There they are, kvetching about the sequel and how they shouldn't have bought IT as well!   Go figure.

They remind me of the guy who keeps bashing himself in the testicals with a hammer who moans about how much his balls hurt.  Who then get mad when you tell them to stop hitting themselves with the hammer. <shrug>  Hey, you can't cure stupidity.  And I can think of little that is dumber then buying games you hate.

[remydat]

Yeah I don't know how people interpret artistic integrity as f**k off. If you don't like the artists work then don't consume it. That is your right as a consumer. The artist's right as the artist is decide for himself whether any feedback is worth altering the original intent of the story or not.

If I wrote a story and it is the story I wanted to tell then I am sticking to my story period. You are free to not read it. You are free to tell me it sucks. Hell you are free to tell me I suck. But it is a product for you. You did not invest your blood, sweat, and tears to create it. The game developers did and they have no obligation to cede to your demands nore are they douchebags if they don't. It is their idea and their vision. If you want control over an idea or vision then create your own.

[Iakus]

remydat wrote...

Yeah I don't know how people interpret artistic integrity as f**k off. If you don't like the artists work then don't consume it. That is your right as a consumer. The artist's right as the artist is decide for himself whether any feedback is worth altering the original intent of the story or not.

If I wrote a story and it is the story I wanted to tell then I am sticking to my story period. You are free to not read it. You are free to tell me it sucks. Hell you are free to tell me I suck. But it is a product for you. You did not invest your blood, sweat, and tears to create it. The game developers did and they have no obligation to cede to your demands nore are they douchebags if they don't. It is their idea and their vision. If you want control over an idea or vision then create your own.

Easy to say when "no refunds"  is standard procedure for said product.

[David7204]

This is not and never has been an issue of money. And trying to make it one in order to justify your outrage against the developers is not going to work.

[AlanC9]

FlamingBoy wrote...


You have a point, but me 1 had sequels hence the burden of explaining stuff was put on me3.

I recently posted an ign article of me1 and 2 being the "preamble" hence it was implied this question would be answered.

Edit: yes I feel dirty for going to ign

Heh.

But was a further explanation implied? My impression was that the prothean scientists managing, somehow, to stop the Citadel Relay from being opened was simply accepted by everyone playing ME1.

Nothing wrong with simply accepting it for both games, or simply rejecting it in both games. But accepting it in one and rejecting it in the other?

[FlamingBoy]

AlanC9 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...


You have a point, but me 1 had sequels hence the burden of explaining stuff was put on me3.

I recently posted an ign article of me1 and 2 being the "preamble" hence it was implied this question would be answered.

Edit: yes I feel dirty for going to ign

Heh.

But was a further explanation implied? My impression was that the prothean scientists managing, somehow, to stop the Citadel Relay from being opened was simply accepted by everyone playing ME1.

Nothing wrong with simply accepting it for both games, or simply rejecting it in both games. But accepting it in one and rejecting it in the other?

There comes a concept of "taking it to far" what happen in me1 did not compromise the story as I understood it, despite the pitfalls in was narratively cohesive experience.

Mass Effect 3 took us to (metaphorically) the moon and back without explanation. Yes there were plot holes in both me2 and me1 but the plotholes weren't the main objective of the narrative. For example the Terminator reaper was a small aspect of the game and while it did not make sense it did not damage an otherwise supreme expereience.

The crucible on the other hand was not only a huge part of the game, its the driver of the plot. To have a driver, a motive, and not even have the opportunity to understand it in some rational way is just not acceptable.

[remydat]

iakus wrote...

remydat wrote...

Yeah I don't know how people interpret artistic integrity as f**k off. If you don't like the artists work then don't consume it. That is your right as a consumer. The artist's right as the artist is decide for himself whether any feedback is worth altering the original intent of the story or not.

If I wrote a story and it is the story I wanted to tell then I am sticking to my story period. You are free to not read it. You are free to tell me it sucks. Hell you are free to tell me I suck. But it is a product for you. You did not invest your blood, sweat, and tears to create it. The game developers did and they have no obligation to cede to your demands nore are they douchebags if they don't. It is their idea and their vision. If you want control over an idea or vision then create your own.

Easy to say when "no refunds"  is standard procedure for said product.

What forms of entertainment can you get a refund for?  Do you get a refend for a movie?   Does the director change the movie because you didn't like it?  Do you get a refund if you go the Disney and hate it?  Can you buy a painting from an art gallery and then return it after you have had it for a few months on the basis you don't actually like it?

Here is a thought, rent the f**king game next time.  It costs a fraction of the cost.  But no, you wanted to buy it the first day it came out instead of renting it and now want to express buyer remorse after you have played the whole f**king thing, lol.  Are you serious?  Your option in that scenario is to sell it back to the story you got it from.  Do it quick enough and you can still get a decent price.  

Modifié par remydat, 18 juin 2013 - 03:57 .

[FlamingBoy]

remydat wrote...

Yeah I don't know how people interpret artistic integrity as f**k off. If you don't like the artists work then don't consume it. That is your right as a consumer. The artist's right as the artist is decide for himself whether any feedback is worth altering the original intent of the story or not.

If I wrote a story and it is the story I wanted to tell then I am sticking to my story period. You are free to not read it. You are free to tell me it sucks. Hell you are free to tell me I suck. But it is a product for you. You did not invest your blood, sweat, and tears to create it. The game developers did and they have no obligation to cede to your demands nore are they douchebags if they don't. It is their idea and their vision. If you want control over an idea or vision then create your own.

The way artistic integrity was used implied a level of unquestionability. For example

This does not represent bioware but bioware never tried to distance themselves from such a position.

This option of "buy it or don't" instead of the right of protest, to complain, to criticise was belittled during this controversy. It implied that bioware was beyond criticism simply because its there story. It implied that they could had the right not to meet adversting and marketing promises simply because it was "their" story.

A story sold on the marketing fact that it was "our" story. To be belittle for not liking a game was a disgrace by bioware and the gaming media of the highest kind.

Modifié par FlamingBoy, 18 juin 2013 - 04:16 .

[IanPolaris]

remydat wrote...

iakus wrote...

remydat wrote...

Yeah I don't know how people interpret artistic integrity as f**k off. If you don't like the artists work then don't consume it. That is your right as a consumer. The artist's right as the artist is decide for himself whether any feedback is worth altering the original intent of the story or not.

If I wrote a story and it is the story I wanted to tell then I am sticking to my story period. You are free to not read it. You are free to tell me it sucks. Hell you are free to tell me I suck. But it is a product for you. You did not invest your blood, sweat, and tears to create it. The game developers did and they have no obligation to cede to your demands nore are they douchebags if they don't. It is their idea and their vision. If you want control over an idea or vision then create your own.

Easy to say when "no refunds"  is standard procedure for said product.

What forms of entertainment can you get a refund for?  Do you get a refend for a movie?   Does the director change the movie because you didn't like it?  Do you get a refund if you go the Disney and hate it?  Can you buy a painting from an art gallery and then return it after you have had it for a few months on the basis you don't actually like it?

If you are watching a movie and the power goes out meaning that you didn't get to see the last 20 minutes, then at the very worst any reputable theatre will give you a pass to see another movie which is in effect a sort of refund.

-Polaris

[Wolfva2]

iakus wrote...

remydat wrote...

Yeah I don't know how people interpret artistic integrity as f**k off. If you don't like the artists work then don't consume it. That is your right as a consumer. The artist's right as the artist is decide for himself whether any feedback is worth altering the original intent of the story or not.

If I wrote a story and it is the story I wanted to tell then I am sticking to my story period. You are free to not read it. You are free to tell me it sucks. Hell you are free to tell me I suck. But it is a product for you. You did not invest your blood, sweat, and tears to create it. The game developers did and they have no obligation to cede to your demands nore are they douchebags if they don't. It is their idea and their vision. If you want control over an idea or vision then create your own.

Easy to say when "no refunds"  is standard procedure for said product.

No one forces you to buy it.  YOU made the decision to take the risk that you might not like it.  If you don't like it, then learn from your mistake and move on.  Don't scream to the mountain tops that the artist is horrible and everyone MUST agree with you because ONLY your opinion matters.  That's just childish. 

Actually Remy, I'd say '**** off" is the PERFECT definition of 'artistic integrity'.  I know I used to think it quite often when people tried to explain my own ideas to me <LOL>.

[FlamingBoy]

IanPolaris wrote...

remydat wrote...

iakus wrote...

remydat wrote...

Yeah I don't know how people interpret artistic integrity as f**k off. If you don't like the artists work then don't consume it. That is your right as a consumer. The artist's right as the artist is decide for himself whether any feedback is worth altering the original intent of the story or not.

If I wrote a story and it is the story I wanted to tell then I am sticking to my story period. You are free to not read it. You are free to tell me it sucks. Hell you are free to tell me I suck. But it is a product for you. You did not invest your blood, sweat, and tears to create it. The game developers did and they have no obligation to cede to your demands nore are they douchebags if they don't. It is their idea and their vision. If you want control over an idea or vision then create your own.

Easy to say when "no refunds"  is standard procedure for said product.

What forms of entertainment can you get a refund for?  Do you get a refend for a movie?   Does the director change the movie because you didn't like it?  Do you get a refund if you go the Disney and hate it?  Can you buy a painting from an art gallery and then return it after you have had it for a few months on the basis you don't actually like it?

If you are watching a movie and the power goes out meaning that you didn't get to see the last 20 minutes, then at the very worst any reputable theatre will give you a pass to see another movie which is in effect a sort of refund.

-Polaris

That happened to me for Superman Returns, lets just say I did not take them up on their offer.

[chemiclord]

IanPolaris wrote...

If you are watching a movie and the power goes out meaning that you didn't get to see the last 20 minutes, then at the very worst any reputable theatre will give you a pass to see another movie which is in effect a sort of refund.

-Polaris

That's not a very accurate analogy, man.  Like... at all.

ME3 is not unplayable.  The product you have can be completed from beginning to end.  That you do not LIKE that content does not mean the game is broken.  

[remydat]

FlamingBoy wrote...

The way artistic integrity was used implied a level of unquestionability. For example

This does not represent bioware but bioware never tried to distance themselves from such a position.

This option of "buy it or don't" instead of the right of protest, to complain, to criticise was belittled during this controversy. It implied that bioware was beyond criticism simply because its there story. It implied that they could had the right not to meet adversting and marketing promises simply because it was "their" story.

A story sold on the marketing fact that it was "our" story. To be belittle for not liking a game was a disgrace by bioware and the gaming media of the highest kind.

But that is not bioware like you said.  So now you want Bioware to defend you when someone else says something about you.  Give me a break.  I confess, I did not read all the interviews but give me something from Bioware not a third party.

[remydat]

IanPolaris wrote...

If you are watching a movie and the power goes out meaning that you didn't get to see the last 20 minutes, then at the very worst any reputable theatre will give you a pass to see another movie which is in effect a sort of refund.

-Polaris

This is a terrible example.  The power did not go out.  Your game disc was not defective.  You played the last 20 minutes and did not like it.  Tough sh*t.  If you go to the movie theater and you don't like the last 20 minutes of the latest Star Wars film disaster, you don't get your money back.

Try a more relevant comparison because this one stinks dude.