bloodmoon0011 wrote...
Ninja Stan wrote...
I think that there will be a big difference in what BioWare thinks are the mistakes it needs to learn from and what the fans think are the mistakes that need to be learned from. BioWare has to make decisions that are the best for the game. Some fans believe that only their opinion/taste/preference/tolerance matters and want the game more tailored to themselves. This is not something BioWare is interested in doing, nor is "what Francis R. Gamer wants in the next game" necessarily a "mistake" in ME3.
... With all due respect, sir, that is the single most idiotic thing I have ever heard, and I'm going to explain why. The fans ARE the company, as sad as it may sound. The fans buy the game. If you continually displease your fans enough, then not enough buy the game and your company is done for.
No offense taken, though I'd question how much information you take in if my comment is, in fact, the most idiotic thing you've ever heard. I mean, I'd put anti-vaxxers, homeopathy, and moon landing hoaxers on that list, not to mention those who believe in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, and psychics. But you and I are different people.
That said, I disagree with you. The fans are not the company. The "we pay your salaries" argument rarely works with mass market products. The fans did not commission Mass Effect 3 from BioWare or EA, nor did they fund its development. BioWare/EA spent millions of dollars developing the game, marketed it, and the fans bought it (and hopefully enjoyed it). But I think you're putting the cart before the horse. BioWare got fans because gamers really liked the games they made and bought them. But remember that "fan" is short for "fanatic," and not everyone who enjoys a BioWare games is a "fan" of BioWare; they might just liek the game. So yes, while it's true that a company needs a certain level of sales to justify further development and sequels, a game not doing well does not automatically spell demise for the studio.
And please don't presume to speak for "the fans". "The fans" are individuals young and old, from varying backgrounds, nationalities, and ethnicities, representing a spectrum of wants, needs, preferences, and tolerances in their games. You are the only person you care about pleasing with your game, but BioWare/EA has to contend with millions of potential gamers' wants, some of which are contradictory, some of which are vague and undefined, and they have to do that years before the gamers get to say whether they agree or disagree.
I've heard far more than enough of this nonsensical "artistic integrity" crap. If BioWare HAD that, they wouldn't have spent so much time on freaking Jessica Chobot's character and then did a random google search and a high school photoshop job on Tali's face, which was supposed to be quite a reveal and ended up feeling pathetically shoe horned in.
I can't justify what BioWare did, since I wasn't a part of the team and I wasn't a part of that decision-making process, but I will ask this: Did you consider it a "high school Photoshop job"
before you knew where the image came from? Did you feel it was "shoe horned in"
before you read about the controversy? Do you believe that there was any design for Tali's face that wouldn't have disappointed some section of gamers? And finally, are you using the phrase "artistic integrity" because you actually believe the definition is accurate for your argument, or are you using it as an insult the way the BSN and the internet has been using it? I ask that last question because it may put your other responses to my questions into better context.
Why was Chobot even IN this game? I normally wouldn't have a problem, but fun fact: IGN rabidly defended EA and BW when the completely justifiable ****storm happened over the horribly mishandled endings. Why? Because... Okay, I don't even think I should bother explaining that one, because if you don't get it, I doubt you're actually able to read this anyway.
Oh good, a thinly veiled insult and presumption that your opinion is the only/best/correct one. The short answer is: I don't know why Jessica Chobot was put into the game. The longer answer is: I also don't know why Mark Meer was hired to be the voice of male Shepard. I don't know why people have a problem with Mark Meer's voice. And I don't know why so many people enjoyed From Ashes yet complain about it so vehemently. I can certainly come up with plausible reasons for them, but since I was on a different project at the time, any reason I come up with is likely to be incomplete, inaccurate, or just plain incorrect. But please, person who must have worked on the project in a capacity that allowed him access to not just BioWare's but EA's meetings with IGN personnel wherein Jessica Chobot was discussed, please tell me what you learned in those closed-door meetings to make your opinion the best/only/correct one in this case.
The point is this: Artistic integrity is fine. No, seriously, it is. For a NON-commercial art medium. Games are COMMERCIAL art, which means you're creating something to sell, not to make a point. At this juncture, BW has one serious question they need to ask themselves: "How much money do WE feel our 'artistic integrity' and message are worth, compared to the cost of what our goal should be in the first place, ie, pleasing the people that are writing our paychecks?"
I don't think they have to ask themselves that question at all, because it's nonsensical, arrogant and presumtuous of you, and based on incorrect information.
First of all, your understanding of the entertainment industry and art is a little out of step with reality. Artistic integrity is not limited to non-commercial art, otherwise we would have no well-regarded professional writers, painters, actors, architects, sculptors, musicians, vocalists, dancers, designers, etc. Unless you're implying that professional artists have no integrity, or artists necessarily need to be unsuccessful in order to be well-regarded? Who's going to tell Jennifer Hale that she shouldn't have any artistic integrity?
Secondly, "artistic integrity," as the internet is using it for ME3, is based on a misquote and misunderstanding of a blog post by Ray Muzyka. Ray used the term "artistic vision" in a blog post demonstrating public support and admiration for his people in the wake of a very explosive internet freak-out, where people were calling for developers to be fired and many people were yelling and screaming about ME3. I thought it was a classy move on Ray's part, but that's the kind of boss he is. It's why people like working for him so darned much. The post was not made to deflect or dismiss anyone's criticism. It was made to show the ME3 team that he stood behind them and was proud of them, even if some people didn't like certain parts of the game. This then was turned into the "artistic integrity" insult by internet freaker-outers and used as ammo in their freaking-outing.
Major projects need an artistic vision so that all the different departments and all the staff are working towards the same goal. It is not infallible, nor is it a guarantee of a project's success, but it's there to serve as a guide for building the project.
Finally, "the fans" and the customers do not write any developer's paycheque. In the case of an independent studio, developers are paid by the studio, who is paid by the publisher, who get their money from companies making bulk orders for their games. Those companies get money from sales of products in their individual stores. So when you pay for a game at retail, you may be contributing to the success of an individual title, but you're not paying anyone's salary, not even that of the game store employee who handled your purchase.
Companies exist to make money, so in very general terms, EA's question is: how much does this game cost to produce, and how much revenue will it get? BioWare's questions, again in very general terms, will be: how can we make an awesome game that will sell a lot? And how can we make that game based on the time and resources we have?
).
Retour en haut
[Inappropriate comment removed.]
