184 réponses à ce sujet

[Podge 90]

jtav wrote...

I objected to them changing it for two reasons.

1. I believe once a work is out there, it's out there, barring patches/line edits.
2. Many of the complaints seemed like a fig leaf for the real problem: the ending was unhappy. Citadel has many of the same technical problems, but people loved it because it made them feel good. ME2 has bigger plotholes but you saw only mild derision.

A lot of people expecting/wanting Shepard to sacrifice himself also complained.  Don't be so ignorant.

[Steelcan]

Their opinion is bad and can be ignored

[Jarl Johnnie Walker]

Subjective.

/Thread.

[Br3admax]

Of course it's art. Someone made it didn't they? The definition of the word art is so lax that I stir my oatmeal a certain way it can be art.

[Ravensword]

It's art in the sense that there's no such thing as "bad" art.

[Iakus]

If this is art, I'll take entertainment

[JamesFaith]

Linkenski wrote...

Bioware and all gaming journalists used art as an excuse that Mass Effect 3's ending was fine.

Actually they never said that ME3 endings are good because of art. This is purely angry fans constructed lie.

They spoke about art just once and they said that its their right to decide how much to change ME3, they just used unfortunated words "artistic vision".

All this talks about "ME3 is good because it is art" or "ME3 can't be changed because it is art" came from fans by longtime twisting of this single quote.

[Podge 90]

JamesFaith wrote...

Linkenski wrote...

Bioware and all gaming journalists used art as an excuse that Mass Effect 3's ending was fine.

Actually they never said that ME3 endings are good because of art. This is purely angry fans constructed lie.

They spoke about art just once and they said that its their right to decide how much to change ME3, they just used unfortunated words "artistic vision".

All this talks about "ME3 is good because it is art" or "ME3 can't be changed because it is art" came from fans by longtime twisting of this single quote.

"Artistic integrity" was an attempt to try and persuade people the game concluded with their artistic vision and had nothing to do with meeting deadlines or being rushed to finish the game by a publisher.  It was, quite rightly, highlighted and ridiculed.

Modifié par Podge 90, 02 septembre 2013 - 02:27 .

[shepskisaac]

Well duh. Whether it's good art or bad art is entirely different subject of course.

[JamesFaith]

Podge 90 wrote...

"Artistic integrity" was an attempt to try and persuade people the game concluded with their artistic vision, and had nothing to do with meeting deadlines or being rushed to finish the game by a publisher.  It was, quite rightly, highlighted and ridiculed.

When some objections like absence of war assets in last missions or some animated epilog most probably were caused by this, I really doubt that deadlines are responsible for existence of Catalyst, small role of Harbinger, idea of Synthetis, lack of conventional victory or destruction of EDI and geth during Destroy.

Groups of fans loudly demands changes or implementations of these things too and this quote react on them as well. Or do you think impementation of this wouldn't be huge interference with BW vision of ME3?

[Stalker]

Of course it is. It's just that generic, crooked and lifeless kind.

[shepskisaac]

JamesFaith wrote...

Podge 90 wrote...

"Artistic integrity" was an attempt to try and persuade people the game concluded with their artistic vision, and had nothing to do with meeting deadlines or being rushed to finish the game by a publisher.  It was, quite rightly, highlighted and ridiculed.

When some objections like absence of war assets in last missions or some animated epilog most probably were caused by this, I really doubt that deadlines are responsible for existence of Catalyst, small role of Harbinger, idea of Synthetis, lack of conventional victory or destruction of EDI and geth during Destroy.

Groups of fans loudly demands changes or implementations of these things too and this quote react on them as well. Or do you think impementation of this wouldn't be huge interference with BW vision of ME3?

Not to mention that earlier vbersions of the Catalyst conversation for example were less vague than what was in the final game so yeah, some of the ending aspects were a result of a creative choice (good or bad is another thing again) rather than deadlines

[Podge 90]

JamesFaith wrote...

Podge 90 wrote...

"Artistic integrity" was an attempt to try and persuade people the game concluded with their artistic vision, and had nothing to do with meeting deadlines or being rushed to finish the game by a publisher.  It was, quite rightly, highlighted and ridiculed.

When some objections like absence of war assets in last missions or some animated epilog most probably were caused by this, I really doubt that deadlines are responsible for existence of Catalyst, small role of Harbinger, idea of Synthetis, lack of conventional victory or destruction of EDI and geth during Destroy.

Groups of fans loudly demands changes or implementations of these things too and this quote react on them as well. Or do you think impementation of this wouldn't be huge interference with BW vision of ME3?

If a story jars, it hasn't been crafted properly.  If it hasn't been crafted properly, it's likely that there wasn't time to smooth things out and fix it.  The opening jars, the ending jars.  The two most important parts of a story are the two most flawed parts of the ME3 journey.  To me, that says they had the meat of the idea, or the vision, but they didn't have the time to execute them properly.

The Catalyst was necessary for the unfortunate reason that Bioware left themselved cornered by having to explain the functions of the Crucible in the last 5 minutes.  The fact that there was possibly no other way says everything about the execution.  I'd hope that the writers would have the foresight to realise that, in which case they were rushed.  If they didn't then they are just poor writers and all the time in the world wouldn't have saved it.

I don't believe that after ME2, particularly Arrival (bleurgh) - even after Leviathan - Harbinger was intended to have a 10 second cameo made entirely of it missing Shepard with its laser, and then drifting away.

I don't believe Synthesis was shoehorned in at the last minute, but I do believe that it should have been thrown out as soon as it was placed on the table.  Leading from that, I do believe the destruction of the Geth and EDI was shoehorned in because why would anybody choose anything other than Destroy?

As soon as the Crucible is introduced, the notion of conventional victory has to be abandoned because you can't have the two storylines running parallel to each other.  In that case, I probably agree that the Crucible was necessary, but again it was the execution that dropped the ball.  I think the plans for it should have been discovered in ME2.  But that begs the question again; did the writers have the foresight but were rushed, or are they poor writers?

Modifié par Podge 90, 02 septembre 2013 - 03:11 .

[o Ventus]

Ravensword wrote...

It's art in the sense that there's no such thing as "bad" art.

Of course there is.

People who say otherwise are probably those same people who shout "it's just my opinion" when they lose an argument.

[o Ventus]

JamesFaith wrote...

Is ME art? Yes.
Are all videogames art? No.

I think that main difference is how much is added to pure games mechanics. FIFA or NFS are just game mechanics + graphic. But when story, creative graphic solutions and such are included, videogame become art.

It is same case like all new art-forms based on modern technologies like photography or movie. You can use this technology both "purely technical" or creative. Subjective quality of product has nothing to do with this because art can be great, non interesting or bad, but it is still art.

No, those games are art too. Quite literally anything that has ever been created by somebody can be considered art.

[JamesFaith]

@ Podge 90

But problem it that Muzyka didn't spoke about execution which was questionable. It was more reaction on some radical demands for changes of core elements of story (like erasing Catalyst or successful refuse) which would definitely interfere with BW vision of ME3.

[AlanC9]

Podge 90 wrote...
The Catalyst was necessary for the unfortunate reason that Bioware left themselved cornered by having to explain the functions of the Crucible in the last 5 minutes.  The fact that there was possibly no other way says everything about the execution.  I'd hope that the writers would have the foresight to realise that, in which case they were rushed.  If they didn't then they are just poor writers and all the time in the world wouldn't have saved it.

I don't think this gets the causality right. Bio seems to have always planned for a late reveal of the Reapers' origin and purpose. It's a common feature of the released game, the leaked script, and the Dark Energy plot. Unless the argument is that the late reveal would have been done by Harbinger instead of a new character?

Similarly, there's no reason to think that Bio ever had any intention of a conventional victory.

I don't believe Synthesis was shoehorned in at the last minute, but I do believe that it should have been thrown out as soon as it was placed on the table.  Leading from that, I do believe the destruction of the Geth and EDI was shoehorned in because why would anybody choose anything other than Destroy?

I imagine the bad consequences of Destroy came in right at the start, actually. Looks like the design intent was to have all the choices be morally compromised in some way, so the moment Destroy was put on the table the question would have been how to make something wrong about Destroy.

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 septembre 2013 - 03:52 .

[Usefull_idiot]

Considering there is no clear definition of "art", I would say this question is too subjective to discuss.

[General TSAR]

If you consider a train wreck to be art.

[BeastSaver]

Of course it's a form of art. The creativity that goes into such a complex game is almost overwhelming, so some things got dropped or forgotten and some people were angry because it didn't meet their expectations. I used AutoCAD to draft building and site plans and that's a form of art. It satisfied my creative desires but was sometimes exhausting because of the detail required.

BYW, I wouldn't pay $10 for a Picasso or an Andy Warhol sculpture made of old soup cans, but it's art.

[jtav]

@Alan

IIRC, the original leak tied Destroy to the destruction of the relays, which is a more intuitive consequence. But yeah, conventional victory was never in the cards.

[Podge 90]

AlanC9 wrote...

Podge 90 wrote...
The Catalyst was necessary for the unfortunate reason that Bioware left themselved cornered by having to explain the functions of the Crucible in the last 5 minutes.  The fact that there was possibly no other way says everything about the execution.  I'd hope that the writers would have the foresight to realise that, in which case they were rushed.  If they didn't then they are just poor writers and all the time in the world wouldn't have saved it.

I don't think this gets the causality right. Bio seems to have always planned for a late reveal of the Reapers' origin and purpose. It's a common feature of the released game, the leaked script, and the Dark Energy plot. Unless the argument is that the late reveal would have been done by Harbinger instead of a new character?

Similarly, there's no reason to think that Bio ever had any intention of a conventional victory.

If you were to begin the ME3 story again, I don't think the inclusion of the Catalyst is necessary at all as I think there are far 'cleaner' ways to achieve the same goals.  But like I say, if they did decide that they wanted the Catalyst in from the beginning, then they trapped themselves in having to have a last-minute reveal with an all new character about all-new information about the device that would somehow win the war but we have no idea how but we built it anyway.  In other words, they had to pack a whole lot of information into a very short amount of time, with a character that we had had no prior interaction or encounter with.  They had to have seen that coming, but I'm unsure as the only genuine foreshadowing we get is downloadable content.  So Bioware either didn't know how bad introducing the Catalyst in such a way was, or they messed the players around a little bit by making them pay extra for pretty vital info.  Or maybe a combination of the two.  Neither is very 'artistic' (trying to somehow get back on topic )

AlanC9 wrote...

Podge 90 wrote...
I don't believe Synthesis was shoehorned in at the last minute, but I do believe that it should have been thrown out as soon as it was placed on the table.  Leading from that, I do believe the destruction of the Geth and EDI was shoehorned in because why would anybody choose anything other than Destroy?

I imagine the bad consequences of Destroy came in right at the start, actually. Looks like the design intent was to have all the choices be morally compromised in some way, so the moment Destroy was put on the table the question would have been how to make something wrong about Destroy.

Yeah that's true.  I suppose I'd say, more than the others it's Destroy where the cons seem more contrived for the sake of having cons.  I don't like the other two options, and have never chosen them, but Destroy is like, you can kill the reapers - player goes 'yaaaaay' - but you have to kill some of your brobots too - player goes 'oh'.

Modifié par Podge 90, 02 septembre 2013 - 05:28 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Absolutely. And I should add...

... "artistic integrity" and all its variations are, by far, the worst buzzwords to come from the Hold The Line movement.

It's complete garbage and any idiot that says it is just making fun of themselves. Was not the Mass Effect you enjoyed previously just the artistic vision of its developers? Well, go mock that too, then. It's the same damn thing. 'Just goes to show what kind of person you're dealing with, though -- no legitimate complaints beyond "I don't like it." And guess what? That ("I don't like it") is actually a fair reason to complain. However, these people are too pretentious to admit their issues are anything so simple. They get on their high horse and mock the very thing they've happily accepted all the way up to now.

Kinda reminds me of that one episode from Scrubs (the very first, iirc) where J.D. meets this guy who is talking to him, but all he hears the guy say is: "I"m a tool; I'm a tool; I'm a tool-tool-tool, an unbelievably annoying tool." That's what I hear when someone mockingly says: artistic integrity, artistic vision, art, lol art, art lol, lol art lol. You're a tool-tool-tool.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 02 septembre 2013 - 05:53 .

[Cornughon]

Ofcourse it is.

[Podge 90]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 Absolutely. And I should add...

... "artistic integrity" and all its variations are, by far, the worst buzzwords to come from the Hold The Line movement.

You know that "artistic integrity" came from a co-founder of Bioware, right?