Home ›
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Whether it was vision or not in reality is unimportant. While I can certainly buy that ME3 is just a cynical cash grab and the ending change might be okay in that case, I'd hate to see, say, Suda 51 be forced to change his work after the fact because fans didn't like the ending to Shadows of The Damned.
But what about director's cuts? What if Ridley Scott didn't change Blade Runner from a shitty movie with a horrible V.O and without the scene that pretty much makes the work tick into, well, the opposite of that?
I'm not saying that artists should forever and always be subyugated to the audience's needs. All I'm saying is that if the artist sees their work as a failure, then why should they not fix it, even and especially when the audience agrees?
ETA: Honestly, I wouldn't see the new hypothetical ending as anything but a director's cut, to be perfectly honest. If that's what you want, you can shell the money out and watch/play it, if you don't, just keep to the original version
What's this trial pass for?
> @Everest: May I borrow your spare time?
@Abyss_Worm: May I borrow your earpiece?
If you insist.
Imagine this as Scotland's national anthem.
Want more of a game? Drop five to ten bucks, and get extra missions/story/whatever. Didn't like the game, or like it as-is? Don't buy it.
And video games are the one medium where developers can look at the reaction to a game and fix it, without releasing a whole new product.
I mean, look at Fallout 3. When that came out, there was lots of uproar over the ending. Bethesda took notice of this, made the Broken Steel DLC to fix their mistake, and everyone was happy.
The people demanding a new ending instead of asking for a new ending are still obnoxious and wrong, though.
You sure about that?
Oh that's why it said "SWTOC". Which I mistook for "SWDTC". as in South Windsor Democratic Town Committee.
There's no way every single person will be happy about any given issue. But as I remember it, after Broken Steel, I saw a lot less bitching about the ending, and I don't think I've ever heard someone use the artistic integrity argument that I see all the time nowadays against Bioware changing the ending.
it doesn't say "SWTOC" either
or SWTOR
I saw the previous page several hours ago in passing
>But what about director's cuts? What if Ridley Scott didn't change Blade Runner from a shitty movie with a horrible V.O and without the scene that pretty much makes the work tick into, well, the opposite of that?
See, there's a key difference unless I have my history terribly wrong. In that case, it wasn't to please upset fans. It was because the creator wanted that change to make a superior film that satisfied him.
An artist has to make art for themselves first and foremost.
>Want more of a game? Drop five to ten bucks, and get extra missions/story/whatever. Didn't like the game, or like it as-is? Don't buy it.
See while I have no problem with DLC so long as it's some sort of crazy add on like RDR's zombie expansion or something that wouldn't have fit in the original game like some of the DA sequel add-ons I find this could potentially encourage laziness.
Ideally it could be what the Half-life episodes were supposed to be but I remain skeptical.
I'm still kind of burned on Nightwing and Robin DLC only being playable on challenge maps. They could have done way more with them.
CLEARLY IT IS STAR WARS: THE OLD CHIEFDOM
ME3's current ending, IMO, is a special case in that it...well, lacks any form of quality.
I do think its being changed will give fans an entitlement complex, but I don't think that means it shouldn't be changed.
That's true, but there's a term for artists who don't try to improve their work and won't take any sort of feedback. They're called bad artists.
But art is about communication. If you're not sending a clear message with what you're saying or at least sending the message you intend to send, then what is the point of doing so.
And again, there's the point that it seems that most of the writers involved are not even fond of the ending themselves.
>That's true, but there's a term for artists who don't try to improve their work and won't take any sort of feedback. They're called bad artists.
If you're going to make the case that the artists behind Mass Effect are bad artists, well then that's your own damn fault for getting it. If you really feel that that's the case then don't buy the next Bioware game or whatnot.
>But art is about communication. If you're not sending a clear message with what you're saying or at least sending the message you intend to send, then what is the point of doing so.
From what I've seen the bitching is more about what the ending is than how it was done.
I'm not claiming that they're bad artists. Quite the opposite. I'm stating that they'd be bad artists if they'd ignored all criticism of the rushed-out, plot-hole-filled, causality-defying ending they tacked onto the game.
"An artist has to make art for themselves first and foremost."
Does that justify the existence of Lady In The Water?
I don't exactly follow this. What's the point of making something that no one is going to be interested in apart from mental masturbation?
^^But acknowledging that criticism and completely changing a completed product are two completely different things.
I mean it'd be like if a group of comic fans, after hearing Hal Jordan died, started a not-for-profit organization specifically made to raising money to convince DCbring him ba- oh wait...
>Does that justify the existence of Lady In The Water?
Yes.
>I don't exactly follow this. What's the point of making something that no one is going to be interested in apart from mental masturbation?
Self-entertainment? Balm for one's soul? The alternative is not enjoying what you make and if the creator doesn't like it why should I?
I don't see how changing on bit from a work of art because that one bit was pretty crappy is some sort of artistic mortal sin.
Creators should absolutely like their own works of art. But if someone points out flaws, especially objective ones, they need to do something other than cover their ears and shut their eyes.
If I was convinced this was a true director's cut and not a caving into the fans it wouldn't be. However from what I've seen of Bioware doing so would basically mean they didn't really care that much about Mass Effect and that it's certainly not the epic work space opera art people have been making it out to be for the past half-decade.
^They should, but again I'm failing to see how that translates into changing their product. What if they've carefully considered the criticism and just disagree with it? I've heard a lot of mass complaints from fans about what should be changed and many times it's really stupid.
Art is made to be consumed. So, artists should cater to the consumers, not to themselves. That doesn't mean they should just do everything that fans demand, particularly since people don't always know what they actually want, but if a creator's artistic vision is that of a worse product than what the consumers want, they should probably be willing to compromise.
^^and DC owns Grant Morrison. So what? Bioware could still stick to their guns if they cared.
>Art is made to be consumed. So, artists should cater to the consumers, not to themselves.
lol no. That's how people like Bay work.
Why are you so certain that happened?
^^^So you're either Michael Bay or M. Night Shyamalan?
I'd agree that art is about communication, and thus a two-way street. You shouldn't compromise your message, but you have to consider your audience lest you become self-indulgent.
^Or you could be James Cameron or Sam Raimi or Ridley Scott or Joss Whedon or Hayao Miyazaki or Akira Kurosawa because guess what, art isn't binary.
That said, between sincere shit and shit that people made because they think I'll like it I'll always take the former.
Then why did you argue as if it were?