Dreylon In reply to ??? [2012-04-11 00:30:30 +0000 UTC]

Im in college for film but I have strong roots in gaming, comics and everything arts related but parallel to the film industry I feel that producers in general, whether for movies, stories or gaming, have the last say so that their interests are fed. Long story short the underlying interest of the producer is for his product to make money, so with that said they use many tactics to make the extra buck. The whole ninja turtles thing and M.Bay has me and all my peers talking- "explosions and machines, and oh a scene where they demolish a building and a bridge" simply because Mr. Bay has an expected style. Personally I believe that the personal style is important to creation and that no artist should ever give up their style, it is [more] important that producers and directors and artists are matched up with things more to their affinity, but there is always the exception due to human nature.
Hugo for example is produced/directed by Marty Scorsese- Now everyone 30 and older was like "soo.... who's getting whacked in this movie?" Poor suckers never saw it coming but I'm pretty sure all those Italians and wanna be mobsters loved the movie even though they may have been expecting something a little different from Marty.
With that little example being said I personally feel that "Shit Happens" and if something doesn't seem so peachy in preproduction, as an audience we should sit and wait a bit, and if we don't like it, stand up, be creative and make it your way. Some of the greatest renditions are from people who wanted to add their own style to some story that was already told.
Hunger Games vs Battle Royale =enjoy

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

experimentalDeity In reply to ??? [2012-04-11 00:07:13 +0000 UTC]

As a minor writer, I will accept any crticism. If someone tells me I did something wrong on say, my Homestuck script, I'll fix it. I rely on my critics.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Invasion-Ed In reply to ??? [2012-04-10 23:51:09 +0000 UTC]

I think that the creator can do whatever he/she wants to do, but dont expect a happy fanbase if you go ahead with something disappointing. If you're looking to make money, then please the fans. Mind you, Im not saying cater to their every whim, but if theres a big uprising over an issue, then its worth at least a good examination.

A lot of television is made or broken by the audience. The tv show "Jericho" was cancelled after one season, but an uprising of the fans pushed them into a second season. The show "Supernatural" took a huuge liking to the character Castiel, and he was killed off two or three times and came back every time. Castiel was not supposed to survive the 4th season, but they're in the 7th season now and he's still there.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Jazzpirate In reply to ??? [2012-04-10 23:38:20 +0000 UTC]

Think of the consumers and the producers as a couple of pals.
Producer says to Consumer "hey, I'm going to get a tattoo that says "Consumer is stupid" neat huh?"
and Consumer says "Hey man, that's not cool."
Producer can by all means get that tattoo. and Consumer can go ahead and dislike it.

But if they want to stay pals, Producer should probably listen to consumer.
especially when producer can't really exist without consumer.
deviantART muro drawing

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RKGrafixx In reply to ??? [2012-04-10 23:18:19 +0000 UTC]

In my opinion it is a kind of duty for entertaining/ gaming companies to care about their customers. It is not just making a product, but creating a brandmark which often contains several parts accumulating in a series supported by a huge fanbase which made it to a success. And therefor it is pretty important to be ready to hear what fans want and what critics they have. Ideally is to partially include them in the development process.

I mean, customers are what a product has become. Ignoring them to just make your own stuff will never result in anything satisfying. One good example is the new spin-off by Ninja Theory from the Devil May Cry-series. They totally transformed the character-look and behavior....not to a worse.....everything seems to be really high quality. But it isn´t anything fans expected and now nearly everybody is totally upset.

Those conditions can lead to totally cuctomer ignorance and failure.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

fatesfollower In reply to ??? [2012-04-10 22:57:06 +0000 UTC]

From experience, though I haven't played Mass Effect 3, I say the producers shouldn't change the ending because of the fans. Why? Its simple, the producer originally came up with the series and characters and all that, not the fans. Therefore since the producer made it, they have and are allowed to do as they please with the series because its their own creation not the fans. It may be a cheap ending as I'm hearing from my friends but still, I don't see you making the games, I don't see you coming up with the whole Mass effect idea, so if you don't like it stop trying to force the producer to change what they think is the right step for the series.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Makaishinsei-Shinki In reply to ??? [2012-04-10 21:48:17 +0000 UTC]

On the one hand, pandering too much to the fanbase is digging your own grave. Focusing too much on what they want and not on what you want to express will inevitably make the work soulless, because it will contain the heart of the fans, not your own. And people will never love something that is soulless.

On the other hand, ignoring them completely will only make them apathetic. They will abandon you, and sometimes they will even criticize you and despise you, specially if your vision is completely different to that of those the work is directed to. Making big changes because of the fans is a no-no, but listening to their voice and making sure they feel identified with the work will help you more than it could harm you.

And most importantly, whatever you do, whatever way you walk, you must never make a sudden, unnanounced turn and reference elements that were never foreshadowed nor mentioned. The ending of Mass Effect 3 is hated because it did that: Add new characters and concepts with no warning; Downplaying the Reapers as villains via a logic based on generalizations with no solid proof in fact, specially after a two game long buildup; Throwing the central themes of the game (capability of choice and power in diversity) out the window and giving them no importance; Derailing the player character into being unable to do anything but make three choices of which the consequences are never shown; And not offering closure of any kind, not explaining what was of the Player Character's friends, enemies, love interests, rivals, anyone who was close to him/her. The changes on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are hated because they, too, are unexpected and collide with the public's vision in a way that taints the product with no chance of redemption. Hell, out of the scope of these two cases, there's also the XCOM reboot. It was unwelcome and 2K Marin had to cede because it strayed too much from the vision of its intended consumers, which were not expecting an FPS, but an strategy game, and additionally had experienced a similar fiasco in the form of X-COM: Enforcer, a fiasco which they reminisced when XCOM was announced.

Of course, this does not mean that artists have to pander to every desire of the fanbase, because, once again, if they do so the work will become soulless. But straying so far from them to the point that they no longer feel that it 'connects' with them is not an option, either. Artist and consumer must reach a consensus, everybody must realize that not all people can be pleased by something.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

alexwarlorn In reply to ??? [2012-04-10 20:51:42 +0000 UTC]

There is such a thing as bad decisions, bad writing, bad music, bad art, etc. It's also true that there is a LOT hated by many that is loved by many as well.

But when the people who are buying your product are voicing dissatisfaction WITH that product, there is something wrong and it's not the people buying it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ilikedflaffybetter In reply to ??? [2012-04-10 20:31:16 +0000 UTC]

i've been pressured to make major changes to stories i've written in the past, and i gotta say, it sucks.

that said, it does give a new way of looking at things. you see the way you wanted it to go, and then you see what everyone else thinks should happen.

i believe in giving the people what they want, but im not going to change something that i think HAS to happen. if its vital to the entire story that it goes the way i wrote it, then i dont care what the people say.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MotIONlEssFlOw In reply to ??? [2012-04-10 19:49:30 +0000 UTC]

I do think that ME3 was "rushed" in a way if I can state it like that but I wil remain a fan of the series. I have looked at the cinematics folder of the game and watched all the endings after my crappy ending and noticed that there is a cutscene where shepard lies underneath some rubble and then suddenly takes a breath. All my friends and I have tried all three endgins yet we dont see that cinematic of shepard breathing even at the end of th credits. This secrete cutscene I read will lead to some DLC that will hopefully bring a little closure to the gaming community.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

metacog In reply to ??? [2012-04-10 19:18:00 +0000 UTC]

I have played ME3. The problem with it's ending has nothing to do with content. The problem is that the ending of ME3 is poorly *crafted*.

***SPOILERS***

As an audience member, I may not have a right to tell the author what their characters should or should not exist in their world, but I expect and deserve for a minimum threshold of storytelling craftsmanship to be met. To wit:
1. The Starchild character is not clearly foreshadowed, set up, or explained. This is a failure of craft, not of content, per se.
2. Shepard is very out of character in accepting without true objection the flawed premises of the Starchild. This is a failure in the crafting of Shepard's character via inappropriate content.
2. The fate of the Normandy and Shepard's squadmates is not clearly explained or shown. This again is a failure of craft, not of content.
3. The "3" endings differ almost entirely in the color of the explosion displayed and virtually no consequences of the final decision are shown, leaving them identical in the mind of much of the audience. This is a failure of craft by the omission of content.
4. The epilogue is poorly written and (unfortunately) poorly acted. Again, a failure of craft.

The fact that BioWare is willing to redress the crafting of their ending gives me high hopes that their vision will be delivered successfully in the Extended Cut to be released this summer. They are welcome to tell whatever story they wish so long as it is properly crafted to uphold necessary (unless your whole artistic point is to defy them) storytelling standards of internal consistency, character consistency, and show as much as is needed for the audience to connect with the story--no more and definitely no less.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

daChaosKitty In reply to OC-Alert [2012-04-12 09:26:46 +0000 UTC]

Or likely mutants, or ninjas...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

OC-Alert In reply to daChaosKitty [2012-04-14 09:23:45 +0000 UTC]

You know, I didn't think about it that way, but your right, if the rest of their kind look like they do than they aren't mutants, and ninjas come from Earth along with turtles.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

daChaosKitty In reply to S-Raptor [2012-04-12 09:18:17 +0000 UTC]

As far as 'Star Trek,' the movie, is concerned, I figured it was an alternate timeline, since the future Spock came from a different present/past than he ended up in, same with the Romulans who came through, I think they were Romulans, my brain's not wholly awake at 5AM.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

S-Raptor In reply to daChaosKitty [2012-04-23 07:10:40 +0000 UTC]

Short explanation: the Romulans altered the "past" before Spock got to the "present" of the movie, thus erasing the "future" that we all knew.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

daChaosKitty In reply to S-Raptor [2012-05-01 02:28:08 +0000 UTC]

Pretty much. Though, I view it as alternate, possibly parallel timeline. I mean, is there only one universe, or are there many created by the decisions made and actions taken?

A late response, but a response.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

S-Raptor In reply to daChaosKitty [2012-05-07 17:40:33 +0000 UTC]

Granted Star Trek has explored the "infinite universes created by every action" situation before, but the fact remains that if the filmmakers just wanted to do a reboot, why didn't they? They actually went out of their way to tell a story that purposely ran roughshod over pretty much every Star Trek series that had come before.

But, even excusing that, the movie was just badly written. A single exploding sun threatens the "entire universe" (in Spock's words)? Does that setup even sound the least bit similar to another Star Trek movie to anyone? And then a Romulan mining ship with advanced time travel capabilities? And I know Star Fleet has always been pretty lax when it comes to discipline, but turning over an entire ship to a bunch of recruits? Anyone who's ever been in the military knows that you could not run a star ship the way they did in that movie. And even if you manage to stop a really dangerous bad guy, you don't just skip over a bunch of ranks to be given command of a whole star ship. That would be like giving the grunt (no offense) who shot Osama Bin Laden command of an aircraft carrier.

And finally, if we are to believe that that future Spock is the same one from the other series, why is he so willing to just roll over and accept the changes that have been made to his past? Think about how many episodes of Star Trek were devoted to time travel and the need NOT to change the past, or at the very least to set things right before leaving. So, maybe from that stand point, this isn't the same Spock we know.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

historyofcool In reply to ??? [2012-04-10 18:16:20 +0000 UTC]

Traditionally, storys evolved by the re-telling of them. In olden days it was only in the re-teling that they survived, passed along generation to generation.

Writing and printing fixed the stories in time as did film and TV and now digital media. Authors could create something and have others all over the world share it as written or filmed. In fact anyone could write their own book or make their own movie. Gaming has gone beyond traditional storytelling to where the audience become the authors of their own experience. They not only interact with the characters and with the author's intent but also with other players.

I think in the future, some games will perhaps come without pre-defined characters and scenes. One will be able to buy a Call of Duty style game and populate it with who and what they want to. Until that time, we must accept both the economic and cultural decisions of the companies and authors of the material we like.

If you don't like a new choice made by a game company, raise hell - here and in other forums. They are far more interested in profits than in art. They will change whatever they think will maximize sales.

Meantime, if you create something unique and individual, you will find that you want to reserve the right to make the changes you choose. Feedback and input are great but no one creates a project hoping someone else will get to dictate how it should be done.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

kenco810 In reply to ??? [2012-04-10 18:09:07 +0000 UTC]

i feel yes and no producers should listen to consumers. in a medium like video games it could be helpful to know what the fans want like extras cool ideas, playable skins etc but nothing that relates to story should be allowed to be dictated by consumers. art is created by the artist whether it is video games, movies,books, tv shows.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Armageddon-9-11 In reply to ??? [2012-04-10 18:07:26 +0000 UTC]

The whole topic reminds me of what is going on with "My Little Pony - Friendship is Magic" right now.

The interaction between fanbase, authors, producers, ect. that arose since the show started is truly remarkable and very interesting to follow. All that came to be unintentional just by the massive reaction and effort on part of the fanbase. There are both hardships (such as the Derpy-issue) and amazing fruits (subtle winks to the community inside the show, voice actors directly interacting with the fans ect.). You can't please everyone so conflicts will happen one way or the other. No matter if the fans have a say in it or not.

I think that there will be more shows and games going that way, given the enormous potential and success. There will still be enough purely author driven stories but that newer way of storytelling will be recognized.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KarliTheLittleTree In reply to ??? [2012-04-10 17:07:19 +0000 UTC]

Working at a video game retailer for the past two years has really altered my view on topics like this. First I have at least one customer a day come in and tell me they were upset about the ending of Mass Effect 3. A knowledgeable co worker pointed out that there is a save point before the final decision and that he played from that point on the three different outcomes. He spoiler alerted me but then let me know that he still thoroughly enjoyed the game (his favorite being part being multiplayer!). EA isn't known for being the most fair player but Bioware is a great company that has produced great things. One also has to take in the fact that Microsoft Studios was no longer a part of this project and it's creation. ME 2 was released on the PS3 a year ago and ME 3 didn't have the support from this company. As the article pointed out many fans push for these different story endings (FF13-2, Skyrim, any rpg really..) and fans also push for multiplayer (Dead Space 2, Assassin's Creed Revelations + Brotherhood); in my opinion ME 3 pulled these off well.
As for forking out money for video games compare the price to blue ray or 3D movies. Pay $30 to have it the first week it comes out, enjoy it once for 2 hours and then add it to the collection. $60 for a disc is a lot, I understand the economy isn't in the greatest of shape right now and money to spend on fun is limited. With roughly 40-50 hours of gameplay plus multiplayer ME 3 is worth it! Video games ARE long movies that we interact with, develop a deeper connection with. The creators of ME3 aren't sitting at their home counting their money in front of a fireplace and laughing manically; they are deeply hurt by some comments made by their fans. There is nobody they think about more when they are creating the game then fans and how THEY would want the game to be. Unfortunately big bad EA burst that bubble like they do with many games they publish.
All in all I will still sell this game and hold it in the highest regards, it is quality. If they make a fourth one somehow, I will sell that too.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

madinthaweb In reply to ??? [2012-04-10 16:53:22 +0000 UTC]

Well, there's an old rule for newspapers which gets more important with authors, storyboard writers, game developers etc.: Keep in touch with your readers' / consumers' preferences! It's quite simple, yet decisive. Feedback is getting more and more important, e.g. even for the smallest online store aiming at the public masses.
So far for the general discussion.
Sadly, the specific problems - the major changes in the TMNT and MF storylines- weren't named in detail. What did exactly happen? What was changed and what are the results? (I'm sorry, but I'm not an English native speaker, so I could have missed something - so please don't hate me :-P ).
But I think that TMNT (I know the major storyline, but not the ending) was altered for the only one thing good, classy cartoons get messed up - just to "recycle" them in a cheap way to make plain bucks, money, cash, $$$, you name it. Lots of good cartoons were slaughtered this way - just compare the original and the remade "Biker Mice from Mars"-Cartoons.

I just hope that companies get the idea that original stories, good drawing / animation, and wit (good puns and situational humour, not those smutty body-jokes!) are the best ingredients for a good game / cartoon / anime series.

I am still kinda mourning after these good old 90's cartoons which were manufactured with the mentioned ingredients and especially - a passionate staff.

Holding a minute's silence.

madinthaweb

___________

Teeth! Claws! Muscles and Jaws! Extreme Dinosaurs FOREVER!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Kainchild In reply to ??? [2012-04-10 16:47:12 +0000 UTC]

As a writer, I have to agree with some of the other artists. Popular demand should NOT dictate how things are written. Especially with the way the internet works. You can have hacker groups like Anon come out and change the way something is for more nefarious intentions and ruin it for the rest of the fan base. Popular internet opinion isn't always what it seems also taking into account that people can make multiple accounts as well. An artists has to stick to their guns and change what THEY think is wrong.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

chillyche In reply to ??? [2012-04-10 16:03:12 +0000 UTC]

Really interesting article, here's my answers:
1) As an artist, I'm usually more of a work for hire guy, and we're always at the mercy of a higher-up who is at the mercy of somebody else. Often very creative or cool ideas are tossed or rejiggered for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it's for accessibility, other times it's something else. Most famously, I worked on a several-month long campaign for an award show a few years ago, where the director had his ideas undermined by the producers at every turn. Eventually when we had settled on something very cool and creative, a higher-up (there were multiple levels of producers) showed the piece to a VP who asked us to take it in a completely different direction that highlighted the talent more, and the graphics treatment -- the art of the piece -- was all but eliminated. It's the business. Because while we may be making artistic work, we're making work. We're working. We're getting paid. It sucks that art is commodity, but welcome to capitalism.

As a consumer of media, I absolutely believe I have the right to critique, and should I feel inclined criticize the various works I partake in. If I eat a nasty meal, I have every right to say so. However, demanding changes seems a different thing. I'm not the creator, I might have an idea how the thing could have been handled far better, but who the heck am I? I frequently see a film that has a good premise, but shoddy execution. In fact, the majority of the time. Should somebody have allowed me to meet with production before they got the thing underway? The film would have been better for it, but no, of course not. The work is not MY interpretation, it's theirs, for good or for bad. With videogames or interactive media, the lines are blurred more, but I still think it's not our place to demand they change their work. That's what mods and fanfic and fanfilms are for. For us to tell OUR stories in THEIR worlds. But I do think we are plenty allowed to voice our opinion of how something didn't work, and it's up to them to decide whether to release some sort of redux.

2) I don't feel I'm entitled to demand changes, so, I'm not sure how to answer this question. I think the entitlement to THINK up changes comes from simply having spent time with something. If I look at a poster, I'm allowed to critique its sense of form, space, motion, color theory. It's just my right to form an opinion of it. And my right to imagine my own version and think my version is better. I've become uber-invested in properties before. Like just about everybody my age, I lived and breathed Star Wars from birth until a couple years after Jedi. And like just about everybody my age I abhorred the prequel films. George Lucas had a right to make those films however he wanted, and we, as consumers of films, and as fans of his universe have the right to react to them and critique them, and even just plain sh*t-talk 'em. Part of the problem is that he made films that didn't live up to our expectations, or tackle subject matter we wanted, or grow and mature with us as audience members. But the other part of the problem, which doesn't require any more investment than just watching those films once, is that they're bad, bad films, where just about everything you can in storytelling is done clunkily. If storytelling is an art, these films are bad art. Are the visuals nice? Sure, but the storytelling sucks, so who cares? I'll look at concept art or demo reels and it'll be fine. Another example would be Chris Roberts' Wing Commander franchise. I LOVED those games with all my heart. I was literally SO excited about the third game that I made myself sick with stress (which also meant I got to stay home from school and play it all day). When Chris Roberts himself helmed a movie version, he made a real stinker. He tossed so much of the games that we all knew and loved in favor of new junk and derivative schlock. I would have never presumed to tell him he HAD to listen to me and take my advice for rewrites. It's his baby. But, if he had, he would have, objectively, made a better movie. See my point? I don't feel entitled to have people change stuff for me, but sometimes people blow it, and had they listened to me, they'd have a better project. But then, let's take something like Final Fantasy VII. A lot of fans were disappointed in the vague, open-ended conclusion to the game. They wanted to see what specifically happened to all the characters, etc. I happened to like the ending as it was. I thought it appropriately grand in sense, since the story was about much larger concepts than simply this particular band of adventurers. Also, I feel that the ending reflected cultural differences. People who are used to very typically American media of the time were irked by a vague ending, people who were familiar with other cultural works, particularly Japanese works were fine. Should the developers have listened to a very vocal group of fans demanding what they saw as a narratively satisfying ending? Or should they have left (as they did, at least until the slew of spin-offs and sequels) the broader, more open-ended conclusion that stimulated speculation on the meaning? Well, someday when I make a game, I can put whatever kind of ending I want into it, so, there's that. In the mean time, I'm playing their game.

3) Here's the deal. If somebody has a suggestion about the actual execution of my work, I'd like to hear that. If I've been told that a character is falling flat, doesn't have good motivations, is inconsistent, or something of the sort, yes, that's the kind of feedback that I would be likely to address. As a writer, feedback is an integral part of the development process. Sometimes outside readers see things that the author doesn't. If somebody is telling me that there is a glaring plot hole, then yeah, I want to address that. I want to make my work as good as it can be, and that means fixing problems. But if somebody just wants something different to happen, just because they would like it more, that's different. If they want something to happen because it makes them happy, well, to that I say, "I'm telling this story, not you." I desperately wanted a character in Wing Commander 3 to do something different from what they did. I was so upset by their action. But you know what? It was good drama. It was SUPPOSED to upset me. If I had gotten my wish, then the game would have been robbed of one of its most dramatic moments, and it would be far less memorable. If Final Fantasy VII HAD gotten it's neat, nice, wrapped up in a bow ending, then it wouldn't have been as profound a game. It wouldn't have actually done the game a disservice, since the stakes had raised far above "what will happen to these couple of folks," and all the way to "what is the fate of life on this planet?" I think that fans have reactions, and they might be great consumers, but they're not necessarily good storytellers so I'm not necessarily going to listen to their story suggestions. But I might. If their suggestions are defensible and improve the heart of the work.

Would I release an alternate cut or reboot or redone version after ten years with enough fan reactions? Maybe. Ten years is a long time to consider one's work and consider the reaction -- that is, how it worked for audiences. If they all wanted something different to happen, then I didn't tell my story properly, or we're on totally different planes. I might need to adjust the storytelling style in order to get my point across more which would maybe lead to them accepting the ideas a bit more. Or, maybe it would happen that I no longer felt the original heart of the story was as good as some other interpretations. Heaven knows, sometimes I've written a line and had it misinterpreted as something far more meaningful than I had intended. Maybe I'd go with that!

4) I love being able to talk to creators while they're in the process. And being able to affect their output while they're in a process bonds me to a work, but it isn't all positive. First of all, there are now spoilers. Which I can't abide. Imagine, for a second, that you had been having a back and forth with George Lucas during the writing of The Empire Strikes Back, and as a result, you KNEW the plot twist before it happened in the cinema. You might feel more ownership over the property, but you wouldn't have had the same emotional punch in the gut feeling as all of the people who were passively consuming the film. And I think that it's doing their type of consumption a disservice to call it passive. Remember, even if you're not actively contributing to the story, you can go home and play with the toys and play outside in the snow and pretend you're on Hoth and generally continue to LIVE the adventure, your own version of the adventure. You can do that without thinking that whatever cockeyed idea you and your buddy had that incorporated the swing set outside of your house should actually be included in the real movie. No, personally, on properties I really love, I sort of don't want to be included in the creative process because it spoils the magic of having it unfold...

Except in games. And here's really where the debate becomes interesting. The whole point of a game is that I am affecting the outcome of the game. My choices change the way the game behaves. Be it Mass Effect or Pac Man, my input changes the outcome. A lot of games are built on a tenuous marriage between cinema and sport. They attempt to tell you a story, at times a grandiose story, and they attempt to be a game where your actions are what drive the game forward. There is, of course, a problem here. The game's story drives the story forward, and your actions drive the gameplay forward. The two have to compromise each other from time to time. It can be fairly sensible: you lose a mission, and the story moves forward in that direction: losing. Or, it can become more complicated. I haven't played Mass Effect 3, so I don't know what everybody's complaining about. I'm still playing ME1 and I hope to eventually play ME3, so I hope nobody spoils it for me. But one think I haven't heard about is whether players are upset because they wanted a different ending, or if they're upset because the ending is poorly executed. Again, there's a difference. I WANTED to end the Kilrathi War without destroying an entire planet, but I didn't get my wish. And I was fine with that, because it was effective storytelling. The problem is, story-based games need to be wildly more interactive and variable in order to convince people that their actions are actually changing the world. Either that, or the story has to be broader, and more vague. To again use Wing Commander as an example (it's safe, it's a game that's 20 years old, now, you've had time to play it), the first game wasn't as story oriented, and your wingmen could die or live. It affected your experience, but it didn't affect the overall story which was much more simple. You felt like there was a deep story, but it wasn't really deep. There were not really antagonists or plot twists or much of a journey besides: start as a rookie, end as a vet. Wing Commander 2, on the other hand, had a much more developed story, but as a result, you were a little more pigeonholed into what happened. Pilots that were important to the story wouldn't die (until it was their time), so they'd eject. There was still a branching mission tree, so things you did would change the game, but things like medals and promotions and funerals were determined more by the script than by your actions. It was still a great game for the time, but it was more story, less game. I just don't think that most of our interactive fiction has gotten to the point where you can craft a rich narrative of betrayals and love interests and deaths and emotional ups and downs AND have everything based on your input as a gamer at the same time. I think it will be possible, but they haven't figured it out yet. It would require such a massive script.

I think my actions in the game should inform the game's progression. If it feels like the two are out of sync, then something has gone wrong in the game design. Or "I'm not playing it right." But the latter is dangerous. If there aren't specific rules for how to play (don't foul, don't double dribble, don't travel) then I can play however I want (maybe I'll use this matter disintegrator on my commander...) and the game should react accordingly. If I'm doing the wrong thing, in the eyes of the developer, then they need to create consequences and conditions that steer me to the right thing. If the game is open-ended, but the story is linear, then they need to direct me, and preferably with that direction being invisible. If I commit a crime, the cops come after me. That consequence ensures that I don't commit a crime. Or that if I do, I have a plan for dealing with the cops, and then the feds, and then the national guard, and then the army, and then the Justice League, etc....

I don't think fan fiction is part of the property. Fan fiction is just that. Just because I post it online doesn't mean that my picture of myself in an X-Wing is remotely part of the canon. It's no more or less a labor of love. Fan fiction has existed since fans have existed. Every day I used to play with my G1 transformers, back in the 80s. My stories were wild, outlandish, the stuff that kids think up to utilize their favorite toy, and make up for the fact that they only have four out of six Constructicons. It was joy. Those stories are no more or less a part of the Transformers universe than Randal Ng and Dr Smoov's CGI creations or fan dubs. Their work is far higher caliber than the work of an 8-year-old, but just because it's online I dont' see it as being more legitimately a part of the intellectual property. People can make really great stuff, they can make stuff that's BETTER than the actual work in question, but this has always been the case. It's just part of the world of art.

5) Okay, so TMNT versus Alien Turtles. This is a slightly different question, I think. But only slightly. One of the key issues here is that Michael Bay and Jonathan Liebesman are not the creators of TMNT, but rather people in charge of handling a property that we've all had almost 30 years of exposure to. They have really no more creative right to the property than we do. Their interpretation of the characters is, from an artistic standpoint, just as valid as ours. But they do have a legal right to the characters. That means that their work will be official, whatever that means. This takes us back to the idea of art as commodity. Do they have to listen to us whine and complain that they're changing the Turtles? They don't have to. They're not bound to us in any way. And they have no real responsibility to the intellectual property. They can mess it up however they want. But we as spectators have the right to think their interpretation is crap. Which, knowing these two, it will be. I'm saying that not as a purist, but as a storyteller. I've only seen two of Liebesman's films, but they both lacked heart and tried to make up for that with cliches and action that lacked any real drama (on account of the missing heart). I've seen tons of Michael Bay films, and the bigger the guy gets, the worse the scripts are on his films. If you watch something like, say, The Rock, the script, although certainly not Shakespeare is at least fairly internally consistent. There's foreshadowing, one thing leads to another, it seems like a neatly wrapped package. If you watch, say, Transformers: Dark of The Moon -- the film people seem to grant is the best in the franchise -- there are plot holes large enough to drive a Unicron through. Characters literally do things that make no sense internally or externally, but everybody just keeps watching, because you'd have to remember what happened TWO scenes ago to question a motivation, and film viewers are apparently super-lazy now. Anyway, I have no faith that these two jokers can tell a good story. Because of that, their change of the Turtles' origins seems more like they're idiots than because they have a really good idea. They have -- as of yet -- not evidenced any good ideas outside of how to stage a bunch of cars blowing up (which I must give credit where it's due, Michael Bay does absolutely know how to do). More than this, one has to question if this change is in the best interest of the HEART of the property. I'm not a purist, so I don't mind change. Is the Spider-Man spider radioactive? Genetically Modified? Whatever. I don't care. Frankly, I liked the organic webshooters because I felt like it made more of the idea that he is a freak, and he is an awkward teenager going through an awkward phase (the heart of the story is about being an outcast who suddenly has power to change the world, and yet...). But what is the heart of the characters? Well, the TMNT for one thing are also mutants, outcasts, they're the only ones of their kind. They're also essentially american teenagers, albeit trained in ninja arts, so they have all of the awkward growing pains of teenagers: rebelliousness, hardheadedness, lack of foresight, sibling rivalry, mad bo staff skillz, etc. They're the first and last of their kind. They are alone, but for Splinter. If the film recasts them as aliens, then they are likely not the first and potentially not the last of their kind. If they are not raised on earth, they ought not be subject to the same issues as American teens, and indeed, who is to say that their alien life cycle has the same awkward teenaged years as ours? Either these elements of the characters are now weirdly interjected, or those are changed. And when you're talking about adapting a beloved property, I think you're also talking about playing with people's expectations.

They might make a movie that all the kiddies love, but all the original fans hate. That's their prerogative. It's their legal right. It's their dick move. But they don't OWE us anything. George Lucas didn't OWE us a good Star Wars prequel. It's just really disappointing that he didn't give us one. It's unfortunate that the stuff we imagined was better. It would have been better for the intellectual property and the franchise if maybe somebody else had made those prequels. But we're not OWED that. No matter how much we love it. And likewise, if Bay and Liebesman make a crappy Turtles movie, that's their problem (and ours, because we want a good one). But if we want a good movie, we'll have to make it ourselves.

(Side point: studios and IP holders should never discourage fan productions. That's akin to crashing into a little kid's house and telling them that they're playing with the toys wrong. Once something is out there, we're free to play with it. Just not profit off of it)

So I guess I do think that fans that think their voices NEED to be heard are acting entitled. But I think fans are well within their rights to express themselves. And I think that artists need not listen to fans, but they might learn something if they did. Maybe if Bay had listened more to the fans, his Transformers movies might have some characters in them... that weren't puny flesh creatures, and they might be better. Or they might be just as bad. Whose to say? I think the real problem isn't that he didn't listen to fans, but that he made a bad movie and he and the writers and producers should have looked at that script and said, "hey, this isn't it yet."

Bam. That's my two cents. But, like 1800s cents that would have bought you an actual something. Not 2010s cents that cost you more money to bend down and pick up than are worth.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

phoenixfire110 In reply to ??? [2012-04-10 13:40:55 +0000 UTC]

I've written stories and now even a motion picture (Which I'm currently getting produced, so exciting! ), and when I write I try to write something that I would enjoy. Then I release it to the public, or give it to people that can review it. I take their comments and suggestions, and if I feel that they can really work with the current story, they yes, I would change my story. Sometimes it actually does work out better, and after coming back to it a short time later, and reading it again, I do notice how the suggestions really affect my story.

Even when it comes to my art. I get my art critiqued, and I take the suggestions of others, and I do believe it helps my art become better.

I think more than a problem in the industry of people not wanting to collaborate, I feel producers are more interested in making that quick buck. There is no saying how many of the actual creators that are in the hierarchy below the producers wanted a different outcome, but couldn't because of the fear of losing their check. It's a screwed up system. That's why a lot of creators now are seeking to fund projects with websites like kickstarter.com or indiegogo.com where they retain creative privileges and don't have to worry about pleasing their money backers.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

dunamisdave In reply to ??? [2012-04-10 10:54:18 +0000 UTC]

I will only comment as to my thoughts on Mass Effect 3 and the new TMNT.

1. ME3 - To start, Mass Effect 2 is my favorite game of all time. It is absolutely the most immersive roleplaying experience I have ever experienced. In my opinion, Mass Effect 2 gave you the opportunity to not only explore but engage with a deeply complex universe, and put a LOT on the line in how you conducted your personal interactions, and even reacted to certain situations. Endings were different, and there was a portion of the game after the suicide mission where you could still explore and engage as the character you created, but where you also felt the consequences of a lost character on the suicide mission. There were some annoying... elements (planet scanning pun intended)... but the gameplay and leveling systems were good. In Mass Effect 3, the actual gameplay elements I thought were better. They took away ALL of the annoying things from the first two games, and came up with interesting and innovative systems. I also think that they did a good job of making you feel somewhat rushed in the game - I really did feel like time was running out. They could have capitalized on that concept WAY more thought. Other than that, I felt like the role-play element of the game took a HUGE hit. The dialogue was often poor (where I found most of Mass Effect 2's without complaint), and of course the ending was... well, we all know about the ending. Mass Effect 3 did not at ALL engage me like Mass Effect 2 did, and I was rewarded with an ending I had to make excuses for to even sort of enjoy. The whole time I was watching that last sequence, I'm sitting here going [spoiler-ish] "Why can't I just explain to the Crucible that organics and synthetics can co-exist, as exhibited by the fact that we forged an alliance between the quarian and the geth?". Mass Effect 3 could have been SO MUCH MORE than it was, and that's why I was disappointed with it. I feel like I did NOT get what was promised to me. Not even an acceptable fraction.

TMNT - I cannot call myself a die hard turtles fan, given that I've never read any of the original comics. But I've seen almost every cartoon, and certainly watched every movie. I can understand deviating from an original comic book concept to reach a broader audience, or even re-boot your own canon for the series. I think it's forgivable, and I'll still go see the new one. Hell, the Ninja Turtles as most of us know them are distinctly different from the ones that existed in the original comics. But, there IS a well-established canon already in the movies, and a lot of ways to shake things up without making them Teenage Alien Ninja Turtles (seriously, are they really still considered mutants at this point?). I think the CGI film is a great example of this - they aren't fighting shredder. There's nothing in the Turtles universe that says they can't fight some otherworldly type enemies. At the end of the movie, it even hints that shredder is still alive and they'll have to face him again. Why not just build on that premise? Or send them back in Time (again)? Or invent a new bad guy, but leave the well-established and well-known story intact? That's a whole lot less explanation on screen and more time/budget for awesome ninja stuff. It makes me wonder if Michael Bay is at all familiar with the Ninja Turtles...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ZyseaEtpaq In reply to ??? [2012-04-10 09:41:41 +0000 UTC]

As a "consumer" I would say there is a need for our input/thoughts to be taken into account, Of course stick to the original idea of the story but in little things that dont effect the integral storyline they should take into account what is and isnt being liked by the public.

On the part of TMNT, they need to account for the fact that most of us have grown up (or at least seen) the original(s) --there is no NEED to change the entire story. When something has already been created, there isnt that freedom to create what you think sounds cool. If it was someone elses original idea you cannot change the basics of that story, there will always be that confusion as to why the change was necessary. I never once thought, pffft mutant turtles now THATS rediculous! If they were aliens I would believe this! ...why they thought it was a good idea to change such an important part of the story is beyond me.
Seems like it is creating more negative feedback than the idea is worth.

For the ME3 part I would say that it was a shit move on their part since they claim that "we" have the power to change the storyline, if there is going to be an unavoidable/unchangeable ending than they cannot claim to have a fully customizable game. It seems unfair to give us the idea that we can actually change the storyline when it doesnt matter in the end. That is not the same thing. We can in most games stray from the direct path (beginning to end) and they do not claim full customization.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

cjvic In reply to ??? [2012-04-10 07:04:26 +0000 UTC]

Thank u for addressing this issue! Im in the process of creating a story, and I feel like reading this article has helped me develop further as a writer and artist. It was a great read btw.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PhoenixGR In reply to cjvic [2012-04-10 14:18:05 +0000 UTC]

Thank u for addressing this issue! Im in the process of creating a story, and I feel like reading this article has helped me develop further as a writer and artist. It was a great read btw.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Flyschy In reply to ??? [2012-04-10 05:04:28 +0000 UTC]

Mass Effect is a terrible game and a terrible movie, it's "second-life" from a company that has no idea how to make good games (Hint: Games aren't about telling stories, they're about gameplay!).

Do you know why there hasn't been a single movie adaptation of a video game that's been well received? It's because games as a rule have abysmal story lines, no matter how hard they try to make it work gameplay and needing to make a "game" inevitably gets in the way (Here's an idea, want to tell a story with visual media?, don't want gameplay getting in the way?, then make a film!). Even the ones that win "awards" for their stories are horrid (Can you image the nonsense in Mass Effect winning an Oscar for best writing!).

You want to know what the future of storytelling is? It's not people who want money or status, pandering some meaningless crap for their hungry, hungry audiences to consume. It's people who want to express an idea, expressing that idea through a story. Sound familiar?, it's what good storytelling has been for thousands of years.

They're not going to change anything based off of feedback because they're not going to do unplanned sequels (as in not written or at least well planned before the original is published). Unplanned sequels are a disgrace to the art of storytelling. There's good reasons for us not having "Romeo and Juliet 2" or "To Kill a Mockingbird 2", they'd be godawful.

After all the purest art - art for arts sake - is completely anonymous.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Cyrgaan In reply to Flyschy [2012-04-10 07:32:21 +0000 UTC]

"Games aren't about telling stories, they're about gameplay!"

So, you are blind? Or just a kind of snobbish aesthete, who still thinks that good stories can only be told in films or books?

Just think it over: when films were new, some people said the same thing about them that you say now about games. Though, games are relatively not newcomers in media.

This is just like polite literature vs. fantasy and science-fiction. The same story about prestige and prejudice. Disappointing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Flyschy In reply to Cyrgaan [2012-04-12 08:46:41 +0000 UTC]

"Though, games are relatively not newcomers in media."

This is an understatement. Games go back at least 5000 years to this: [link] and almost certainly further. Senet (and whatever came before) was/were never intended to be about story, they had words and pictures for that. That hasn't changed in the 5000 years since, it's true today, and it won't be different 5000 years from now.

That's the point I'm trying to make, games have never been about story, they can have theme and back-story and so on (and if done properly it can work fine) but nobody would actually play a game for those things when you could, again, just watch a film or read a book whose focus is on storytelling.

Now that's not to say you can use digital media as a storytelling device and do away with any semblance of a game whatsoever. We have good examples of that (The Path, Dear Ester) but it's not a game anymore if you do that.

So yes, I actually don't think you can use games to tell better stories than the greatest films or the greatest books, you could try (and so many do!) but you shouldn't, you'll inevitably end up with a shitty game that gets interrupted by story too often and a shitty story that gets interrupted by gameplay too often (think what it'd be like if films forced godawful mini-games on viewers constantly).

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Cyrgaan In reply to Flyschy [2012-04-12 10:47:50 +0000 UTC]

Of course, most of the games have shitty story. Even in RPG genre. But I think thats the developer company's fault. Due to simplification (for players too young ... or too simple) or just they focus on gameplay and graphics ... either way, you get simply a game. I can agree with that. And also true, that not every type of stories could go with a videogame. The two you mentioned for example.

But there are games telling you fascinating stories. Just take Syberia or The Whispered World for example. And even Mass Effect as well.

As old RPG (tabletop ... or most likely "sitting-around-the-campfire-with-beer-and-just-talk" type of the game) storyteller
I've always made efforts to create full stories for the players, with interesting plot and good narrative parts. I nearly never allowed dice-rolling, rule-checking, or things like that put them out of the allurement.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

optimusdickface In reply to ??? [2012-04-10 04:43:41 +0000 UTC]

I personally think that ME3 caused all of this mess. I've played the game and I have to say the endings were alright. I personally am writing 3 (well 4) stories and piecing each and every part together of each. From my point of view, The "important" choices made by the player in ME3 and the system created by EA and Bioware gave the idea to the player that they can really change the shape and course of the game. I for one think that it's only half true since there are inevitable things that you really can't change. In life, if you're fat and you simply don't like it, can you just open up a console and type in the weight you want? in the Mass Effect universe, there are a lot of factors that you simply can't control. The point of a writer creating a story is he just wants to share his story, not to please people. If you are a true artist (in anyway whatsoever) you wouldn't care if their response is negative or positive. The only thing you're happy about is that you spoke and shared your ideas and you're glad that someone has finally listened to it. I want to type more but I hope you get the message. Just ask on what you don't understood on what I said

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BerkiePA88 In reply to optimusdickface [2012-04-10 06:19:24 +0000 UTC]

I think it is essential since fans write their own stories inspired by a franchise created by the professionals, that the pros allow for the fans stories to be accepted in the canon. Wouldn't you like to have ownership over the media that you create?

facebook.com/gregorysuniverse

Leland Gregory is a powerful and dictating astrophysicist destroying worlds, and teenage misfits travel for a solution on apprehending and removing Gregory while he builds a army.....

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

optimusdickface In reply to BerkiePA88 [2012-04-10 07:50:12 +0000 UTC]

Well one of my stories is heavily based on Assassins Creed Series, and the other 3 were made by myself. The newest story is inspired by Mass Effect, The Hunger games and a lot more. I think is is true that Fans should write their own stories about some media because it can create a wider and more colorful world for the franchises

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BerkiePA88 In reply to optimusdickface [2012-04-10 14:39:21 +0000 UTC]

Hey,

Thanks for re-posting. My particular interest and research has been how could fans receive more ownership over the media they create, and how could the media they create become authorized as official canon. For example, if you write a story online based or inspired by a media franchise a platform should be there for you and the professional media producer to consider using your creations, and if its good enough to use it.

Right now. There is a war going on between the voices of fans and the voices, and creativity of the pros. In my opinion, pros are winning because they have control over the mass media platforms.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1