876 réponses à ce sujet

[LinksOcarina]

durasteel wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

durasteel wrote...

I still think dark energy becomes an elegant motivation if you change the Reaper's objective to surviving the death of the galaxy instead of preventing it.

I'm pretty sure you can't survive the death of the universe.

Death of the universe? Maybe not. Death of the galaxy, though... sure, why not? All you have to do is have an escape plan to get to another galaxy, and have some measure of when it is time to git on along with it.

If you are an immortal machine capable of generating power more-or-less eternally and with FTL capability built in, I imagine it's just a matter of pointing yourself in the right direction and going. 

If you have the power or energy to do it.

We really don't know what Dark Energy would do to the universe in the end to warrant the possability, you know. 

[Iakus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

There was a quote by Neil Gaiman that kind of resonates with this idea, it comes from a documentary called The People vs George Lucas.

"I don't have any problem at all with fan edits, fan remixes. It's an absolutely legitemate and really cool response to the art. But I also don't believe that any of those fans has the right to go and knock on my door and say 'I don't like this character I want you take him out of your book.' cause it's like 'no, I got to make this, this came out of my head. Leave me alone."

Back in the day, the criticism was destructive because the fans were demanding things that were, once again, not going to be changed. The constructive stuff would be pointing out the problems, not demanding their removal, there is a difference in the end. I frankly don't blame them for being dismissive towards fans because of this either, but that is something people are going to have to square with on their own. 

As I will state yet again, there is a difference between a book, a movie and a video game.  In particular a role playing game that touts player agency as a central charactaristic.

If the Star Wars franchise burns down, I'd be disappointed (heck I stopped reading the EU books after the Yuuzon Vong invasion) but hey, at least I'm only a passive observer of the franchise.

Bioware decided to make the player the active participant in wrecking the franchise and forcing us to burn our own avatar in the process.  And for incomprehenislbe reasons for a whole lot of us. 

So yeah, if they're going to tell us "Your choices brought about this outcome" we have every right to object.  My Shepard =/= Mac Walter's Shepard.

Or as I've taken to putting it "My Shepard is not Walter White"

As for the defninition of constructive vs destructive, I'm sorry but constructive criticism shouldn't be limited to "I liked it but..."  If it sucks, it sucks. And no amount of air freshener will get the smell out.

And in addition, I have not knocked on anyone's door.  I just come to this board where talking aobut the game (both good and bad) is allowed.  I keep in the rules, and thus have every right to voice my disontent.  At least until they start restricting these forums even further.

[JamesFaith]

iakus wrote...

As I will state yet again, there is a difference between a book, a movie and a video game.  In particular a role playing game that touts player agency as a central charactaristic.

There is difference but story is alway story and interactive part of videogames would be always restricted by story created by authors. They decide who will live, who can die or who can be save or who can be love interest, not you. Your character live inside their boundaries.

Want more? Play pen-and-paper RPG or create your fanfic.

iakus wrote...

As for the defninition of constructive vs destructive, I'm sorry but constructive criticism shouldn't be limited to "I liked it but..."  If it sucks, it sucks. And no amount of air freshener will get the smell out. 

He didn't say that criticism has to be positive, so don't twist his words. 

Criticism can be both positive and negative, but purpose of critisims isn't  demand for change of current work, but suggestions for new work from same author. When you demand such change, you become man from Gaiman's quote.

[durasteel]

iakus wrote...
As I will state yet again, there is a difference between a book, a movie and a video game.  In particular a role playing game that touts player agency as a central charactaristic.
...

While I agree with your point regarding video games, I think we should also keep in mind BioWare's position regarding the "artistic intergrity" of authors of Mass Effect novels.

Behold their defense of the artistic integrity of William C. Dietz:

The teams at Del Rey and BioWare would like to extend our sincerest apologies to the Mass Effect fans for any errors and oversights made in the recent novel Mass Effect: Deception.  We are currently working on a number of changes that will appear in future editions of the novel.  

So when Bill Dietz fornicates up the story in a novel, we're very sorry and we'll make it better. When we fornicate up the ending of a game, though, you need to keep that criticism constructive and respect our artistic integrity.

[Sion1138]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

I thought you meant in terms of being able to exist in a dead universe - which won't happen ebcause eventually it will create another Big Bang and end this universe in favour of a new one; you can't survive that.

There's no guarantee you can escape, though. Perhaps the Reapers know, but as far as I'm aware no one is sure of any way to escape the universe we exist in as we may only exist in it because of the laws of physics governing this universe.

Perhaps it wouldn't be much of a stretch to assume that something that is many billions of years old would know more about that than you or I.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

JamesFaith wrote...

He didn't say that criticism has to be positive, so don't twist his words. 

Criticism can be both positive and negative, but purpose of critisims isn't  demand for change of current work, but suggestions for new work from same author. When you demand such change, you become man from Gaiman's quote.

Which unfortunately still leaves the previous work a pile of crap.

I love Neil Gaiman. Sandman is probably my favorite graphic novel of all time, right behind Watchmen. But until artists start handing their work out for free, they rely on consumers in order to perform their craft. So long as that is the case, I don't see a problem with fans making demands regarding past or future projects. The artist always has the option to refuse, provided they are willing to risk that fan's potential decision to step away from the franchise.  

[JamesFaith]

durasteel wrote...

While I agree with your point regarding video games, I think we should also keep in mind BioWare's position regarding the "artistic intergrity" of authors of Mass Effect novels.

Behold their defense of the artistic integrity of William C. Dietz:

The teams at Del Rey and BioWare would like to extend our sincerest apologies to the Mass Effect fans for any errors and oversights made in the recent novel Mass Effect: Deception.  We are currently working on a number of changes that will appear in future editions of the novel.  

So when Bill Dietz fornicates up the story in a novel, we're very sorry and we'll make it better. When we fornicate up the ending of a game, though, you need to keep that criticism constructive and respect our artistic integrity.

Problem is, that W. Dietz willingly and deliberately restricted his "artistic integrity" by writting book from universe created by someone else. His was story, but not world and lore which he damaged. This apology was based on objective lore inconsistencies, not on subjective perpsective of fans about story itself.

You are mixing two different things here.

[LinksOcarina]

iakus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

There was a quote by Neil Gaiman that kind of resonates with this idea, it comes from a documentary called The People vs George Lucas.

"I don't have any problem at all with fan edits, fan remixes. It's an absolutely legitemate and really cool response to the art. But I also don't believe that any of those fans has the right to go and knock on my door and say 'I don't like this character I want you take him out of your book.' cause it's like 'no, I got to make this, this came out of my head. Leave me alone."

Back in the day, the criticism was destructive because the fans were demanding things that were, once again, not going to be changed. The constructive stuff would be pointing out the problems, not demanding their removal, there is a difference in the end. I frankly don't blame them for being dismissive towards fans because of this either, but that is something people are going to have to square with on their own. 

As I will state yet again, there is a difference between a book, a movie and a video game.  In particular a role playing game that touts player agency as a central charactaristic.

If the Star Wars franchise burns down, I'd be disappointed (heck I stopped reading the EU books after the Yuuzon Vong invasion) but hey, at least I'm only a passive observer of the franchise.

Bioware decided to make the player the active participant in wrecking the franchise and forcing us to burn our own avatar in the process.  And for incomprehenislbe reasons for a whole lot of us. 

So yeah, if they're going to tell us "Your choices brought about this outcome" we have every right to object.  My Shepard =/= Mac Walter's Shepard.

Or as I've taken to putting it "My Shepard is not Walter White"

As for the defninition of constructive vs destructive, I'm sorry but constructive criticism shouldn't be limited to "I liked it but..."  If it sucks, it sucks. And no amount of air freshener will get the smell out.

And in addition, I have not knocked on anyone's door.  I just come to this board where talking aobut the game (both good and bad) is allowed.  I keep in the rules, and thus have every right to voice my disontent.  At least until they start restricting these forums even further.

Voicing discontent is one thing, actively petitioning them to change aspects of the game is another. As JamesFaith said, don't twist my words around. Just because you are not demanding they change the ending, doesn't mean others did. And regardless of interactivity of the type of medium a game is in, the core essence of the story is something that is once again, not interactable. At least, as I said earlier in this thread, the plot of it isen't.

See how this all ties together? 

Also, can you name a  RPG video game where player agency is not shackled in any form? 

[durasteel]

Here's what I don't get: if I commission a "work of art," for example a biography of my grandfather, then we're all pretty clear that the author is working for me. If the product isn't satisfactory, then no one would have a problem with my demanding revisions.

If the author writes that biography on his own initiative and a lot of people buy a copy, why is it unacceptable for them to demand revisions if it isn't satisfactory? I mean, sure, one paying customer can't expect to get a major revision, but if most of the customers seem to be dissatisfied then it just seems like good business for the author to take their concerns seriously and not to be dismissive.

I mean, if you buy a biography of a real person, and in the last chapter you start reading about riding unicorns, time travel, and sex with mermaids, you might suggest to the publisher and author that they send you another copy with the real damn story at the end, right?

[Iakus]

LinksOcarina wrote...
Voicing discontent is one thing, actively petitioning them to change aspects of the game is another. As JamesFaith said, don't twist my words around. Just because you are not demanding they change the ending, doesn't mean others did. And regardless of interactivity of the type of medium a game is in, the core essence of the story is something that is once again, not interactable. At least, as I said earlier in this thread, the plot of it isen't.

See how this all ties together? 

Also, can you name a  RPG video game where player agency is not shackled in any form? 

Now don't you twist my words around.  Don't try to reducio this to ad absurdum levels.  I know very well that games have to be restricted to some degree.

But these endings created a backlash of well-nigh unprecedented levels.  Games that have recived less backlash have had more drastic ending changes done.  

People spent years playing Mass Effect, creating untold numbers of Shepards, and a lot of them felt they were...urinated on...by the endings.  It was not the endings they felt fit their Shepards and their Shepards' stories.  It is entirely understandable that they wanted something better for their conclusions.  Even is some went to extremes in expressing it.  And I daresay Bioware's handling of it at least in part intensified the vitriol

[LinksOcarina]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

He didn't say that criticism has to be positive, so don't twist his words. 

Criticism can be both positive and negative, but purpose of critisims isn't  demand for change of current work, but suggestions for new work from same author. When you demand such change, you become man from Gaiman's quote.

Which unfortunately still leaves the previous work a pile of crap.

I love Neil Gaiman. Sandman is probably my favorite graphic novel of all time, right behind Watchmen. But until artists start handing their work out for free, they rely on consumers in order to perform their craft. So long as that is the case, I don't see a problem with fans making demands regarding past or future projects. The artist always has the option to refuse, provided they are willing to risk that fan's potential decision to step away from the franchise.  

It is a slippery slope to make this comparison, but if you went up to Shakespeare and asked him to make sure Romeo and Juliet survive at the end of the tragedy, it diminishes the entire story because you personally felt it was a bad ending. I'm not comparing Mass Effect  to shakespeare, but the same sentiments exists if we are defining ownership of the story of Mass Effect to BioWare, which I have argued already it is through the primary plot over the narrative choices. 

Artists can refuse, ignore, and complain about it, and should be allowed to. Fans, however, need to be respectful, or at the very least, mindful, of that fact too. During the first two, three months after Mass Effect 3 was released I heard nothing but demands to change things, demands to remove this moment or that moment, demands to make Shepard Live, to take out the Catalyst, to add boss battles. 

I found that more offensive in the end, the insanity that the fans had in the backlash. I felt empathetic for the creators because they worked at pleasing people, failed at it yes, but were given nothing but hate for their troubles. If fan's feel burned by it, that is their choice in the end, but I guess I can empathize more with the artists, not the masses here because ive seen it first hand as a neutral party. 

[Iakus]

durasteel wrote...

Here's what I don't get: if I commission a "work of art," for example a biography of my grandfather, then we're all pretty clear that the author is working for me. If the product isn't satisfactory, then no one would have a problem with my demanding revisions.

If the author writes that biography on his own initiative and a lot of people buy a copy, why is it unacceptable for them to demand revisions if it isn't satisfactory? I mean, sure, one paying customer can't expect to get a major revision, but if most of the customers seem to be dissatisfied then it just seems like good business for the author to take their concerns seriously and not to be dismissive.

I mean, if you buy a biography of a real person, and in the last chapter you start reading about riding unicorns, time travel, and sex with mermaids, you might suggest to the publisher and author that they send you another copy with the real damn story at the end, right?

http://en.wikipedia....n_Little_Pieces

[durasteel]

JamesFaith wrote...
Problem is, that W. Dietz willingly and deliberately restricted his "artistic integrity" by writting book from universe created by someone else. His was story, but not world and lore which he damaged. This apology was based on objective lore inconsistencies, not on subjective perpsective of fans about story itself.

You are mixing two different things here.

There are dozens of threads offering hundreds of pages of detailed objetive lore inconsistencies from the ending of Mass Effect 3. Also, much of the criticism leveled at Deception involved characters acting inconsistently with their established personas, which is directly on point regarding the ME3 ending.

No, I'm pretty comfortable drawing these parallels. Dietz wrote the book because he was paid by the company that held the IP. BioWare Edmonton wrote the game because it was paid by the company that held the IP. In both cases, it was professional work that was, at least in part, sub-standard and non-conforming.

[LinksOcarina]

iakus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
Voicing discontent is one thing, actively petitioning them to change aspects of the game is another. As JamesFaith said, don't twist my words around. Just because you are not demanding they change the ending, doesn't mean others did. And regardless of interactivity of the type of medium a game is in, the core essence of the story is something that is once again, not interactable. At least, as I said earlier in this thread, the plot of it isen't.

See how this all ties together? 

Also, can you name a  RPG video game where player agency is not shackled in any form? 

Now don't you twist my words around.  Don't try to reducio this to ad absurdum levels.  I know very well that games have to be restricted to some degree.

But these endings created a backlash of well-nigh unprecedented levels.  Games that have recived less backlash have had more drastic ending changes done.  

People spent years playing Mass Effect, creating untold numbers of Shepards, and a lot of them felt they were...urinated on...by the endings.  It was not the endings they felt fit their Shepards and their Shepards' stories.  It is entirely understandable that they wanted something better for their conclusions.  Even is some went to extremes in expressing it.  And I daresay Bioware's handling of it at least in part intensified the vitriol

Not really twisting them, as pointing out the obvious.

If we are going to go down that route can we really say that Mass Effect gave us a ton of player agency since game one then? As one of the people spending all of those years playing the trilogy, there really is a lot less agency in the franchise than  we think.  

Tying this back to Drew K and Dark Energy, we can't say due to hindsight and never experiencing it, but is it really true it would be a better ending? I think the problem here is we all had ideas on how the game would end before we got there, all the way back to game one, that does color our perception. 

As for the backlash...well that I still feel was overblown for the wrong reasons anyway, especially coming from reporting it at the time. 

[LinksOcarina]

durasteel wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...
Problem is, that W. Dietz willingly and deliberately restricted his "artistic integrity" by writting book from universe created by someone else. His was story, but not world and lore which he damaged. This apology was based on objective lore inconsistencies, not on subjective perpsective of fans about story itself.

You are mixing two different things here.

There are dozens of threads offering hundreds of pages of detailed objetive lore inconsistencies from the ending of Mass Effect 3. Also, much of the criticism leveled at Deception involved characters acting inconsistently with their established personas, which is directly on point regarding the ME3 ending.

No, I'm pretty comfortable drawing these parallels. Dietz wrote the book because he was paid by the company that held the IP. BioWare Edmonton wrote the game because it was paid by the company that held the IP. In both cases, it was professional work that was, at least in part, sub-standard and non-conforming.

Can I see them? 

the objective lore inconsistencies from the Mass Effect 3 ending. I have heard people say this before but no one has ever given me actual proof. And after playing the game several times the endings only show subjective lore problems. 

As for established personas, the only character really involved was Shepard anyway, and he has a hybrid persona that is manipulative by the player. Unless the Dietz book is a choose your own adventure title, character inconsistancy is not really proof of anything. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 12 décembre 2013 - 10:00 .

[durasteel]

LinksOcarina wrote...

... but if you went up to Shakespeare and asked him to make sure Romeo and Juliet survive at the end of the tragedy, it diminishes the entire story because you personally felt it was a bad ending. ...

In all fairness, the actions of both Romeo and Juliette at the end of the play are perfectly in keeping with their behavior and personalities throughout, and the play itself, while it has some really funny moments, is pretty clearly a tragedy from early on--it doesn't suddenly change character and tone in the last scene of the last act.

If Shakespear were in the habit of ending plays like "Much Ado About Nothing" with everyone inexplicably dying at the very end, we would probably not know his name today, because that would suck.

[AlanC9]

durasteel wrote...

If the author writes that biography on his own initiative and a lot of people buy a copy, why is it unacceptable for them to demand revisions if it isn't satisfactory? I mean, sure, one paying customer can't expect to get a major revision, but if most of the customers seem to be dissatisfied then it just seems like good business for the author to take their concerns seriously and not to be dismissive.

It's acceptable for them to demand revisions, sure. It's also acceptable for the author to say no.

This depends on his business model. I can see Bio giving in to that wishy-washy mess you posted in the other thread. I can also see them rolling with straight-up Destroy. That would cause iakus to ragequit on the franchise, and maybe you, and a bunch of other people besides, of course. But Bio could reasonably think that's no loss since you guys fuss about stuff they like doing. (The moral aspects of the ME3 ending choice were worse in the Dark Energy plot, and the space magic level was just about as high; if you think Bio stumbled into this you weren't paying attention)

The customer's always right, but the businessman decides who he wants for a customer.

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 décembre 2013 - 10:16 .

[dreamgazer]

durasteel wrote...

Here's what I don't get: if I commission a "work of art," ...

Yeah, the fans didn't "commission" Mass Effect 3. 

[JamesFaith]

durasteel wrote...

There are dozens of threads offering hundreds of pages of detailed objetive lore inconsistencies from the ending of Mass Effect 3. Also, much of the criticism leveled at Deception involved characters acting inconsistently with their established personas, which is directly on point regarding the ME3 ending.

No, I'm pretty comfortable drawing these parallels. Dietz wrote the book because he was paid by the company that held the IP. BioWare Edmonton wrote the game because it was paid by the company that held the IP. In both cases, it was professional work that was, at least in part, sub-standard and non-conforming.

Well, there is big difference between "lore inconsistences" inside work created by original creator and work of freelancer. I'm both writer of my own stories and author of sixth volume of series from shared universe, so I'm speaking about it from first hand experience.

Original writer have right to alter his lore - it isn't too nice and welcome and can damage his work, but it is still his creative right.

Freelancer is obliged to write in accordance with original work and inconsistancies and alternations of lore without permition of original writer are considered as objective faults.

And that apology says "for any errors and oversights" there is no mention about different acting characters. By this there is no visible causal nexus between this type of critic and apology.

[durasteel]

LinksOcarina wrote...
the objective lore inconsistencies from the Mass Effect 3 ending. I have heard people say this before but no one has ever given me actual proof. And after playing the game several times the endings only show subjective lore problems. 

Hah, ok pal. If you have taken even a brief spin through the threads here about the endings and/or watched one or two of the youtube videos that break it down (a few of which go on for an hour or so) and you still feel there are no inconsistencies, well... nothing I could tell you would change your mind, I'm sure.

Besides, I feel the lore inconsistencies are a secondary issue. The biggest problem with the end is that it sucks. I'm used to lore inconsistencies in fantasy and sci-fi media, but after many hours of engaging storytelling across these three games, I was completely unprepared for the altogether half-assed slap-in-the-face that was the ending to ME3.

If you liked it, well... good on yer. It does call your judgement into question, but then we're all having a debate on the internet, so good judgment is already dubious.

[durasteel]

dreamgazer wrote...

durasteel wrote...

Here's what I don't get: if I commission a "work of art," ...

Yeah, the fans didn't "commission" Mass Effect 3. 

You stopped at the first line, didn't you? I confess, I get more than a little verbose at times, but if you're not going to bother reading the whole thing, at least refrain from assuming you know what it says.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

AlanC9 wrote...

durasteel wrote...

If the author writes that biography on his own initiative and a lot of people buy a copy, why is it unacceptable for them to demand revisions if it isn't satisfactory? I mean, sure, one paying customer can't expect to get a major revision, but if most of the customers seem to be dissatisfied then it just seems like good business for the author to take their concerns seriously and not to be dismissive.

It's acceptable for them to demand revisions, sure. It's also acceptable for the author to say no.

This depends on his business model. I can see Bio giving in to that wishy-washy mess you posted in the other thread. I can also see them rolling with straight-up Destroy. That would cause iakus to ragequit on the franchise, and maybe you, and a bunch of other people besides, of course. But Bio could reasonably think that's no loss since you guys fuss about stuff they like doing. (The moral aspects of the ME3 ending choice were worse in the Dark Energy plot, and the space magic level was just about as high; if you think Bio stumbled into this you weren't paying attention)

The customer's always right, but the businessman decides who he wants for a customer.

I think this is an excellent way to put it. I don't see anything wrong with fans making demands, since writers are (to some extent) at their mercy to keep producing their work. But then, it's also the writer's decision whether he's willing to endure those risks.

[dreamgazer]

durasteel wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

durasteel wrote...

Here's what I don't get: if I commission a "work of art," ...

Yeah, the fans didn't "commission" Mass Effect 3. 

You stopped at the first line, didn't you? I confess, I get more than a little verbose at times, but if you're not going to bother reading the whole thing, at least refrain from assuming you know what it says.

I actually read the entire thing!

You're drawing an inaccurate comparison with the rest of your post that can be very cleanly summarized with the quoted bit, though.  It was not commissioned, therefore demands to change the material are bogus.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

dreamgazer wrote...

durasteel wrote...

Here's what I don't get: if I commission a "work of art," ...

Yeah, the fans didn't "commission" Mass Effect 3. 

Technically, no. But let's try examining it from another perspective: would Bioware have been able to make Mass Effect (or any other video game) without consumer backing? If EA thought Mass Effect 3 wasn't going to sell a single copy, Mass Effect 3 wouldn't have been made.

As long as an artist is reliant on consumer funds, he is (to varying extents) at the mercy of consumer demands.

That's not to say I think Bioware won't be able to function in a post ME3 world, but it's something every artist needs to consider.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 12 décembre 2013 - 10:26 .

[durasteel]

JamesFaith wrote...
...
Original writer have right to alter his lore - it isn't too nice and welcome and can damage his work, but it is still his creative right.
...

Just speaking for myself here, but I've not at any point been talking about rights or obligations. When I criticise the ending of ME3, I do so to reinforce an assertion about what BioWare should do going forward, with an eye toward ME4. I have never suggested that BioWare wasn't well within their rights to do exactly what they did, or that they had to do anything at all.

I do think it would have been far better for them to release a "director's cut" with real changes as opposed to an "extended cut" that just polished the turd, but at no point did I suggest that they had to do any damn thing.

No, my position has been that they need to fix in the next game what they broke in the last one, not because they have to but because it is good business practice and it would make their customers happy.

You folks who get all worked up over this artistic integrity need to keep in mind that bad art merits no integrity. Art is in the eye of the beholder, and beholding the end of Mass Effect 3... it sucked.