Some of you are really misinterpreting what I said.
My analogy had nothing to do with the prequel trilogy. I was saying that the people asking BioWare to change their creation, are the same people who get angry at Lucas for changing his.
You don't get to make that call.
Just because you bought the game or movie, and like things this way or that way, doesn't actually give you the right to have it go the way you want.
The best explanation I've seen is that ME3 was the ending. The entire game was about dealing with the consequences of your choices. This whole "they sold me a lie" thing is bullshit.
I'm sorry but they don't get to completely hide behind the shield of "art", especially when they sold us on being a part of the story and getting to have an effect on the outcome. When you begin to sale something, you now have a product and as such are subject many of the criticisms and standards that other products are held to. You don't get to make a documentary about trees, advertise it as an action movie about giant robots, and then get to say it was an "artistic decision". Because it isn't, it's fraud.
ME3 was not the ending, it was the final game. The end of ME3 was the end, the culmination of all past events. It is at this point that all of your previous decisions and Bioware's promises are thrown right out of the window. It is there that most people have an issue, it is there that we learn quotes like this were lies. It is there that we learn that there actually aren't any consequences for our actions, that in the end none of it really mattered.
Some of you are really misinterpreting what I said.
My analogy had nothing to do with the prequel trilogy. I was saying that the people asking BioWare to change their creation, are the same people who get angry at Lucas for changing his.
You don't get to make that call.
Just because you bought the game or movie, and like things this way or that way, doesn't actually give you the right to have it go the way you want.
The best explanation I've seen is that ME3 was the ending. The entire game was about dealing with the consequences of your choices. This whole "they sold me a lie" thing is bullshit.
This has been Penny Arcade's stance in general, you are not the author and that means you can not feel entitled to a different ending. This I won't argue with, no one is entitled to a single thing with regards to a produced item. It also hasn't been surprising that PA jumped to the defense of Bioware, they've had a good working relationship for quite some time. Now your particular comments don't make sense to me, but perhaps I'm misreading them. I'll try and break it down as it appears to me.
Fans of product A, that they loved in the beginning are upset because it is changed for the worse. Because changing product A for the worse upset them, they can not be upset about product B being flawed, in their opinion to begin with, and then wish for it to be changed for the better.
I still have the original Trilogy on VHS, I don't have to have anything to do with Jabba the hut digitally added, changes in any other scene, etc. How do I demand that no more negative changes are made to Episodes 4-6? Simple, I don't support the changed material.
Now, Mass Effect is a totally different creature. I have already spent money on the product and was not totally satisfied with it. Not that I'm entitled to a different product, I'm not going to tell Bioware to give me my money back or anything else unreasonable. I will on the other hand speak up with many others in hopes it will change a future product. I will support a movement that seeks to gain the attention of a studio that claims to listen to fans of their product. Not because I feel entitled to anything, but in hopes that the voices of the consumers will be heard and may influence future decisions.
I will give Penny Arcade credit for taking the opposite stance of most media, tis a very bold move and not one I expected. I had hoped an email I sent last week would get a response, but obviously time and or desire was not there. Though I suppose it worked, after years of reading the articles and comics I wrote my first email and signed up for the forums thanks to the "piss off" attitude.
Are we the authors? No, of course not, but then if not being the author of any product makes you unable to comment on it, what is the next job the entire Penny Arcade crew has in mind? Have you not made a career out of commentary? Have you not provided a place for all of your sponsored material, most of which consists of comments about gaming, the gaming industry, and the people who work in it? Will all material on the site just read, "We are not the authors therefore we can not comment on it." Or is satire the only sacred form of commentary?
To go back a bit, I end it with a quote that reads well for both sides of the fence. If you loved the ending of the game, hated it, support the upset fans or hate the upset fans remember,
"Don't be a dick."
0
Options
FramlingFaceHeadGeebs has bad ideas.Registered Userregular
I am kinda curious about at what point I'm a petulant child, demanding the ending I insist I'm entitled to. If someone could just go down this list and let me know which stage goes from 'reasonable person with an opinion' to 'entitled, petulant child', it'd be much appreciated. (I expect I'm going to be told it's somewhere around 13 or 14, but in practice, it seems to happen more often between 3 and 4.)
Feeling confused by the ending.
Deciding one didn't like the ending.
Mentioning to someone else, in private, that one did not like the ending.
Mentioning, in public (e.g., on a message board), that one did not like the ending.
Explaining what one did not like about the ending.
Considering the possibility that the ending could have been improved in some way.
Upon reading comments from members of the creative team involved about their feelings on the ending, considering the possibility that the ending could be changed via DLC.
Deciding that one would be pleased at the idea of an improved ending, released as DLC.
Mentioning to someone else, in private, that one would be pleased at the eventuality of an improved ending, released as DLC.
Mentioning, in public (e.g., on a message board), that one would be pleased at the eventuality of an improved ending, released as DLC.
Actually wanting an improved ending, released as DLC.
Mentioning to someone else, in private, actually wanting an improved ending, released as DLC.
Mentioning, in public (e.g., on a message board), actually wanting an improved ending, released as DLC.
Seeing a group of people raising money for charity in order to draw attention to their desire to see an improved ending, released as DLC, and not immediately disagreeing with them.
Seeing a group of people raising money for charity in order to draw attention to their desire to see an improved ending, released as DLC, and agreeing with them.
Seeing a group of people raising money for charity in order to draw attention to their desire to see an improved ending, released as DLC, and donating money to support their cause.
And, if you have another spare moment, maybe let me know when one moves from wanting something to demanding it, and at what point one is presumed to feel entitled when expressing a desire for something.
you're = you are
your = belonging to you
their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
“Experience the beginning, middle, and end of an emotional story unlike any
other, where the decisions you make completely shape your experience
and outcome.”
“I’m always leery of saying there are 'optimal' endings, because I think
one of the things we do try to do is make different endings that are
optimal for different people “
“There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way. How
could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and
then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can’t
say any more than that…”
“Every decision you've made will impact how things go. The player's also the
architect of what happens."
“You'll get answers to everything. That was one of the key things. Regardless
of how we did everything, we had to say, yes, we're going to provide
some answers to these people.”
“Because a lot of these plot threads are concluding and because it's being
brought to a finale, since you were a part of architecting how they
got to how they were, you will definitely sense how they close was
because of the decisions you made and because of the decisions you
didn't make”
“For people who are invested in these characters and the back-story of the
universe and everything, all of these things come to a resolution in
Mass Effect 3. And they are resolved in a way that's very different
based on what you would do in those situations.”
“Fans want to make sure that they see things resolved, they want to get
some closure, a great ending. I think they’re going to get that.”
“Mass Effect 3 is all about answering all the biggest questions in the
lore, learning about the mysteries and the Protheans and the Reapers,
being able to decide for yourself how all of these things come to an
end.”
Interviewer: “So are you guys the creators or the stewards of the franchise?”
Hudson: “Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with
the fans. We use a lot of feedback.”
Interviewer: [Regarding the numerous possible endings of Mass Effect 2] “Is that
same type of complexity built into the ending of Mass Effect 3?”
Hudson: “Yeah, and I’d say much more so, because we have the ability to
build the endings out in a way that we don’t have to worry about
eventually tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is
coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot
more different. At this point we’re taking into account so many
decisions that you’ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that
stuff. It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings,
where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got
ending A, B, or C.....The endings have a lot more sophistication and
variety in them.”
“We have a rule in our franchise that there is no canon. You as a player
decide what your story is.”
Mass Effect 3 will shake up the player's moral choices more than ever
before, even going so far as allowing the Reapers to win the battle
for Earth, according to BioWare's community representative Mike
Gamble.
In an inteview with NowGamer at Gamescom, we asked if BioWare was taking risks with Mass Effect 3's
plot, including a negative ending in which the Reapers win. Gamble simply said, "Yes". We asked him again to confirm what he had just said and he said, "Yes".
"Of course you don’t have to play multiplayer, you can choose to play
all the side-quests in single-player and do all that stuff you’ll
still get all the same endings and same information, it’s just a
totally different way of playing"
“The whole idea of Mass Effect3 is resolving all of the biggest questions, about the Protheons and
the Reapers, and being in the driver's seat to end the galaxy and all
of these big plot lines, to decide what civilizations are going to
live or die: All of these things are answered in Mass Effect 3.”
“There is a huge set of consequences that start stacking up as you approach the end-game. And
even in terms of the ending itself, it continues to break down to
some very large decisions. So it's not like a classic game ending
where everything is linear and you make a choice between a few things
- it really does layer in many, many different choices, up to the
final moments, where it's going to be different for everyone who
plays it.”
First off, people are constantly asking for Lucas to stop changing Star Wars. Secondly, this isn't people getting angry at some supposed "artistic choice" or any other such nonsense. The driving message behind this movement is dissatisfaction with a product. We were promised and paid for a certain product. This product was not delivered and now we want a resolution to this issue.
At this point, I'm pretty certain that this sentiment right here is a huge reason for the disconnect between the people who demand a new ending, and the people who don't think that's an appropriate response. At least, this is what I'm picking up on.
I think people who tend to view games (or, in my case, single-player focused games like the ME series) as artistic statements will always be willing to accept what the author gives them. This doesn't mean they won't critique or criticize it, but the thought of making an author change their own piece to fit the criteria of what the audience perceives as "good" is nonsensical. It's not a rational response or a realistic expectation in the art world. Many people were pissed off about how the last Harry Potter book ended, but nobody realistically expected the ending to be revised because of this. Nobody said, "Shit, you promised me an amazing and climactic showdown with Voldemort over the course of these books, and you absolutely didn't deliver! Fix this!" And if they did, you would have thought they were insane. Or twelve years old.
Then there's the people who see games as a product. This is probably symptomatic of consumer culture in general, so this can't really be pinned on gamers exclusively. Things are pretty cut and dry here: The product pleases the consumer or it does not. "You said in an interview this game would have many peculiar endings and it did not. False advertising. Take it back and give me a functioning unit for free." No flexibility. Now, you can protest all you want about being called "entitled" or "childish", but this is a self-absorbed mentality (even outside the realm of games), make no mistake. Your demands for an ending that will please you, with no regard for the time it takes to develop a game (you want it soon, before people/you stop caring), book celebrity voice actors, re-write a story, etc., makes you incredibly self-centered. I'd also add irrational to that, personally, because you all want them to fulfill this "innumerable endings" idea. Think about how long that would take to accomplish, given the current state of the game.
If you want to view amazing cultural items like the Mass Effect series (along with their flaws) as something that needs to be "fixed" according to your standards, just so you get some short-term pleasure, then there's no real reasoning to be done. But it is sort of sad that people see things this way. Especially in regard to these games that had so much obvious love and work put into them. These things will probably still be played when you are all dead.
But nah, fuck all that, those last 10 minutes sucked.
First off, people are constantly asking for Lucas to stop changing Star Wars. Secondly, this isn't people getting angry at some supposed "artistic choice" or any other such nonsense. The driving message behind this movement is dissatisfaction with a product. We were promised and paid for a certain product. This product was not delivered and now we want a resolution to this issue.
At this point, I'm pretty certain that this sentiment right here is a huge reason for the disconnect between the people who demand a new ending, and the people who don't think that's an appropriate response. At least, this is what I'm picking up on.
I think people who tend to view games (or, in my case, single-player focused games like the ME series) as artistic statements will always be willing to accept what the author gives them. This doesn't mean they won't critique or criticize it, but the thought of making an author change their own piece to fit the criteria of what the audience perceives as "good" is nonsensical. It's not a rational response or a realistic expectation in the art world. Many people were pissed off about how the last Harry Potter book ended, but nobody realistically expected the ending to be revised because of this. Nobody said, "Shit, you promised me an amazing and climactic showdown with Voldemort over the course of these books, and you absolutely didn't deliver! Fix this!" And if they did, you would have thought they were insane. Or twelve years old.
Then there's the people who see games as a product. This is probably symptomatic of consumer culture in general, so this can't really be pinned on gamers exclusively. Things are pretty cut and dry here: The product pleases the consumer or it does not. "You said in an interview this game would have many peculiar endings and it did not. False advertising. Take it back and give me a functioning unit for free." No flexibility. Now, you can protest all you want about being called "entitled" or "childish", but this is a self-absorbed mentality (even outside the realm of games), make no mistake. Your demands for an ending that will please you, with no regard for the time it takes to develop a game (you want it soon, before people/you stop caring), book celebrity voice actors, re-write a story, etc., makes you incredibly self-centered. I'd also add irrational to that, personally, because you all want them to fulfill this "innumerable endings" idea. Think about how long that would take to accomplish, given the current state of the game.
If you want to view amazing cultural items like the Mass Effect series (along with their flaws) as something that needs to be "fixed" according to your standards, just so you get some short-term pleasure, then there's no real reasoning to be done. But it is sort of sad that people see things this way. Especially in regard to these games that had so much obvious love and work put into them.
But nah, fuck all that, those last 10 minutes sucked.
You make a lot of assumptions, make a lot of statements for people that they themselves have not made(Especially the short term or no regard to the work), and generally resorted to demean and insult the other side instead of properly responding to their claims. It's childish and for the sake of civility I'll let this slide by.
Art and product are not mutually exclusive terms. If you sell a painting it doesn't stop being art and it doesn't not become a product just because it is art. Mass Effect is not Harry Potter, Rowling did not make the same advertisements and promises that Bioware has made. She was selling a story to an audience, Bioware was selling a story that the audience could take a part in, could change, could actually effect. Read my post directly above yours to see some of the things that Bioware used to sell Mass Effect. Enjoy this quote in particular:
Interviewer: “So are you guys the creators or the stewards of the franchise?”
Hudson: “Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with
the fans. We use a lot of feedback.”
I hope you took a moment to look over those quotes. Now then, let's say I commission an artist to paint me a tree. This artist then paints me a horse and claims that this is her "artistic vision". Is this a legitimate defense of her actions? Let's say someone produces a documentary about trees and then advertises it as an action film about giant robots, would this not be a legitimate cause of complaint amongst audiences? Now let's say that someone advertises that a car has 43 MPG Highway which makes it highly popular. Unfortunately it turns out it only has 27 MPG Highway. Would consumers be in the wrong or "childish and entitled" if they demanded that the manufacturer rectify this situation? Would you think that any of these situations could be handwaved away because the people involved put in "a lot of love and work"?
I am kinda curious about at what point I'm a petulant child, demanding the ending I insist I'm entitled to. If someone could just go down this list and let me know which stage goes from 'reasonable person with an opinion' to 'entitled, petulant child', it'd be much appreciated. (I expect I'm going to be told it's somewhere around 13 or 14, but in practice, it seems to happen more often between 3 and 4.)
Feeling confused by the ending.
Deciding one didn't like the ending.
Mentioning to someone else, in private, that one did not like the ending.
Mentioning, in public (e.g., on a message board), that one did not like the ending.
Explaining what one did not like about the ending.
Considering the possibility that the ending could have been improved in some way.
Upon reading comments from members of the creative team involved about their feelings on the ending, considering the possibility that the ending could be changed via DLC.
Deciding that one would be pleased at the idea of an improved ending, released as DLC.
Mentioning to someone else, in private, that one would be pleased at the eventuality of an improved ending, released as DLC.
Mentioning, in public (e.g., on a message board), that one would be pleased at the eventuality of an improved ending, released as DLC.
Actually wanting an improved ending, released as DLC.
Mentioning to someone else, in private, actually wanting an improved ending, released as DLC.
Mentioning, in public (e.g., on a message board), actually wanting an improved ending, released as DLC.
Seeing a group of people raising money for charity in order to draw attention to their desire to see an improved ending, released as DLC, and not immediately disagreeing with them.
Seeing a group of people raising money for charity in order to draw attention to their desire to see an improved ending, released as DLC, and agreeing with them.
Seeing a group of people raising money for charity in order to draw attention to their desire to see an improved ending, released as DLC, and donating money to support their cause.
Reporting EA to the FTC
And, if you have another spare moment, maybe let me know when one moves from wanting something to demanding it, and at what point one is presumed to feel entitled when expressing a desire for something.
Before, 17 certainly.
In all seriousness, I don't agree with the idea behind the charity. I don't like turning "giving money to kids" into some sort of statement/guilt trip to get something I want. I don't think contributing to it makes you petulant or self entitled though. Most of that is coming from comments people make that might be getting read into more than was intended.
I don't agree with the cries for "change it, change it" in principle, and fully recognize that this bias affects the tone in which I might read someone's posts. That perceived tone has a great deal to do with those terms getting thrown about, and people (presumably like you) that think changing it is a good idea but aren't all harglbarglbiowareowesus are getting caught in the cross fire.
You know that only ONE person did that FTC thing, right? You can't paint an entire group with the same brush. Particularly when that brush is dipped in horribleness.
I don't think the charity thing is meant as a guilt trip.
It seems to me that it's like a petition, except instead of just signing your name you also put a little money behind it, so show you mean it. It's just a way to give a little weight to you backing a cause that also benefits a good charity. I would prefer that they did it this way than raise 60k to go do 25/7 protests at Bioware's offices or something.
a) I wasn't being serious
b) I didn't try to paint an entire group with anything
c) I'm pretty sure it was a troll anyway. I have a hard time believing anyone is that self absorbed.
It's a petition that drags in a completely separate charity, making it complicit in their demands whether the overseers of the charity agree or not. And then it's used, just as it was in this thread, as an example of "look how good we're being donating to charity and everything" to grant legitimacy to a movement that is well aware of how entitled and arrogant they're behaving.
It's a petition that drags in a completely separate charity, making it complicit in their demands whether the overseers of the charity agree or not. And then it's used, just as it was in this thread, as an example of "look how good we're being donating to charity and everything" to grant legitimacy to a movement that is well aware of how entitled and arrogant they're behaving.
Funny, most of the members of that movement would not agree to that sentiment. Tell me, have you ever sent back your food because it was cooked wrong? Say that your risotto didn't have peas in it. Eh screw it, let's say that you haven't. Let's say that I ordered the risotto and peas. It didn't come with peas. Now would I be acting arrogant and entitled if I sent it back so that my order could be corrected?
0
Options
EvilBadmanDO NOT TRUST THIS MANRegistered Userregular
It's a petition that drags in a completely separate charity, making it complicit in their demands whether the overseers of the charity agree or not. And then it's used, just as it was in this thread, as an example of "look how good we're being donating to charity and everything" to grant legitimacy to a movement that is well aware of how entitled and arrogant they're behaving.
Funny, most of the members of that movement would not agree to that sentiment. Tell me, have you ever sent back your food because it was cooked wrong? Say that your risotto didn't have peas in it. Eh screw it, let's say that you haven't. Let's say that I ordered the risotto and peas. It didn't come with peas. Now would I be acting arrogant and entitled if I sent it back so that my order could be corrected?
If you're going to draw an allegory here, a more accurate one is any interest group donating money to political causes. The arbitrary addition of money to an argument does not amplify the strength of your position, nor does it magically make a cause more noble. "Look at us, we're so correct we're donating money to a charity that has practically nothing to do with this! We're the good guys against this big evil corporate machine!" is not a way to win an argument.
I donate as much as I can to Child's Play through various events and marathons occurring throughout the year because I support Child's Play and what they stand for. I'm not going to donate to Child's Play to contest a game's ending. That's insulting to the cause.
I love it when people say I can't have the art that I want, when I have 3 hi def blu ray UN-special edition-ized original trilogy disks right here on my desk. Does George Lucas have to make hte movie I want? Nope. I also don't have to buy his bullshit.
It's a petition that drags in a completely separate charity, making it complicit in their demands whether the overseers of the charity agree or not. And then it's used, just as it was in this thread, as an example of "look how good we're being donating to charity and everything" to grant legitimacy to a movement that is well aware of how entitled and arrogant they're behaving.
Funny, most of the members of that movement would not agree to that sentiment. Tell me, have you ever sent back your food because it was cooked wrong? Say that your risotto didn't have peas in it. Eh screw it, let's say that you haven't. Let's say that I ordered the risotto and peas. It didn't come with peas. Now would I be acting arrogant and entitled if I sent it back so that my order could be corrected?
If you're going to draw an allegory here, a more accurate one is any interest group donating money to political causes. The arbitrary addition of money to an argument does not amplify the strength of your position, nor does it magically make a cause more noble. "Look at us, we're so correct we're donating money to a charity that has practically nothing to do with this! We're the good guys against this big evil corporate machine!" is not a way to win an argument.
Accurate? Hmm, yeah not really, but that is a nice and aggressive response to a stance that hasn't really been taken here. It was fairly clear that my comments were based on the matter of the ending and Thejakeman's stance on the movement. Do feel free to comment on that matter, though leave the aggression, veiled insults, and false assumptions about a movement at home. Just a reminder, the topic you commented on is whether or not consumers have a right to a product as advertised.
Art and product are not mutually exclusive terms. If you sell a painting it doesn't stop being art and it doesn't not become a product just because it is art.
Never argued that it was one way or the other. Was simply observing that people seem to view Mass Effect as either one or the other, and this dictates their arguments.
Mass Effect is not Harry Potter, Rowling did not make the same advertisements and promises that Bioware has made. She was selling a story to an audience, Bioware was selling a story that the audience could take a part in, could change, could actually effect.
...Could change within the author's constraints, which they have written for you. Pretty sure this was the point Mike was making in his post about this. You are still acting within a narrative framework provided by the author. At the end of a day, they're selling you a prepared story, however you spin it. These are not incomparable mediums. Publish any ME game in a choose-your-own-adventure novel, like he said. No difference.
Read my post directly above yours to see some of the things that Bioware used to sell Mass Effect. Enjoy this quote in particular:
Interviewer: “So are you guys the creators or the stewards of the franchise?”
Hudson: “Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with
the fans. We use a lot of feedback.”
I hope you took a moment to look over those quotes. Now then, let's say I commission an artist to paint me a tree. This artist then paints me a horse and claims that this is her "artistic vision". Is this a legitimate defense of her actions? Let's say someone produces a documentary about trees and then advertises it as an action film about giant robots, would this not be a legitimate cause of complaint amongst audiences? Now let's say that someone advertises that a car has 43 MPG Highway which makes it highly popular. Unfortunately it turns out it only has 27 MPG Highway. Would consumers be in the wrong or "childish and entitled" if they demanded that the manufacturer rectify this situation? Would you think that any of these situations could be handwaved away because the people involved put in "a lot of love and work"?
Here's what seems to be the meat of the argument, these "promises." These are not "advertisements," they're personal thoughts on the game from different people involved. It's arguably promotion, but it's not fucking gospel. Sometimes people are wrong (the producer quotes seem especially vague) or have false impressions. Maybe in their view, they thought they were being accurate. Were they mistaken? Maybe. When it comes down to it, they made good on those promises (perhaps they thought 4 was "many"). The majority of the audience (including me) seems to disagree with their perception of their game. Can people complain? Totally.
The problem is when you take all these things as some kind of proof that you're owed something, when you move beyond criticism, and start demanding your version of a "fix." As if art (which is what a written narrative is) ever needs to be fixed if you don't like it. The game was not commissioned by the audience (though you may really want to think so, in an indirect way), so that argument is irrelevant. Then there's the car analogy, which brings me back to people viewing games (really a narrative, in this case) simply as products. If you want to compare a $60 interactive entertainment narrative to a 5-figure utilitarian machine then alright. That's just how you see things. Sure, you're totally justified to complain if they lie to you about MPG, but that would also make it a legal issue. That's not what happened here. Nobody did anything illegal. This is nowhere near "false advertising." Some people just feel wronged enough by a few minutes of bad writing to think they're somehow owed a new, re-written narrative.
BioWare doesn't "owe" me anything, nor anyone else. We all need to stop being dishonest about this. The majority of the rational people criticizing the ending basically are saying:
"Based on interviews and many other statements throughout the development of Mass Effect 3, I was under the impression that there would be many endings (to the game, not to the series) that were influenced by our choices throughout all three games and that those endings would be more developed and have more explanation. As I based my purchase on both my investment in the previous 2 games and/or these interview statements and other marketing, I was disappointed by what was provided at the end.
I don't think I'm the author of Mass Effect, and I don't think I deserve an ending that pleases me personally. However, if you decide to make additional content that expands, explains, and further develops what happened to the galaxy during and after the final moments of the game (even to the point of essentially retconning if necessary), I would be very interested in that content. If it is available for free, then this would be a validation of my faith in BioWare and its collaboration with its fans, further encouraging me to buy BioWare products in the future. If it is available as paid content, I still would be very interested in it and would buy it (or not buy it, depending on my disappointment/apathy/wallet size)."
Seriously, that's all. I'm not entitled to anything. I'm just disappointed and interested in more. And I'm vocal about it because otherwise BioWare wouldn't make any such content. They may still not make any, but they definitely won't if I say nothing.
Personally, I would buy paid DLC that gave a more thorough ending/different endings because obviously making such content is a costly endeavor and I still think of BioWare as a "good" gaming company that just made a mistake here, and not some sinister corporation that thought up a dastardly plan to piss us all off enough so that we would need to buy additional content to satisfy our cravings.
I agree with pretty much all of that. My personal problems with the ending was that it lacked information about the circumstances of the event/the effects of the choice, rather than all my decisions leading up to that point, along with some continuity errors.
If they want to release more content, that would be amazing and welcome. I just feel that the people who aggressively push for this to be "resolved" are letting themselves get carried away with self-importance. It doesn't need to be this way. The harsh criticism alone is enough to push an author to action, if that's what they feel is right. However, if they don't want to change their work, if they feel it is complete, then so be it. That's their choice and it should be respected.
First off, people are constantly asking for Lucas to stop changing Star Wars. Secondly, this isn't people getting angry at some supposed "artistic choice" or any other such nonsense. The driving message behind this movement is dissatisfaction with a product. We were promised and paid for a certain product. This product was not delivered and now we want a resolution to this issue. To go back to the Star Wars analogy, Lucas promised a new Star Wars film with episode one. What he actually made was a documentary about, I dunno, trees. People would certainly demand their money back and/or more than likely demand for him to make the movie that he promised. People wouldn't be throwing around the word entitled[the internet's new favorite buzz word] quite so much. Nor do they if someone sends their food back because they were not satisfied with it.
Actually there's a strong current running throughout this entire "dissatisfied" movement that points out that the game was excellent right up until the last moments of the game.
It's not a complaint that the game or product didn't deliver, but that the game ended in a few dissatisfying moments. Even the guy who went to the FTC only brought the accusation that the ending didn't deliver on promises, not the entire game.
BioWare doesn't "owe" me anything, nor anyone else. We all need to stop being dishonest about this. The majority of the rational people criticizing the ending basically are saying:
"Based on interviews and many other statements throughout the development of Mass Effect 3, I was under the impression that there would be many endings (to the game, not to the series) that were influenced by our choices throughout all three games and that those endings would be more developed and have more explanation. As I based my purchase on both my investment in the previous 2 games and/or these interview statements and other marketing, I was disappointed by what was provided at the end.
I don't think I'm the author of Mass Effect, and I don't think I deserve an ending that pleases me personally. However, if you decide to make additional content that expands, explains, and further develops what happened to the galaxy during and after the final moments of the game (even to the point of essentially retconning if necessary), I would be very interested in that content. If it is available for free, then this would be a validation of my faith in BioWare and its collaboration with its fans, further encouraging me to buy BioWare products in the future. If it is available as paid content, I still would be very interested in it and would buy it (or not buy it, depending on my disappointment/apathy/wallet size)."
Seriously, that's all. I'm not entitled to anything. I'm just disappointed and interested in more. And I'm vocal about it because otherwise BioWare wouldn't make any such content. They may still not make any, but they definitely won't if I say nothing.
Personally, I would buy paid DLC that gave a more thorough ending/different endings because obviously making such content is a costly endeavor and I still think of BioWare as a "good" gaming company that just made a mistake here, and not some sinister corporation that thought up a dastardly plan to piss us all off enough so that we would need to buy additional content to satisfy our cravings.
This I can back.
Not the "Retake" movement
Not the FTC or BBB report
But this is a clearly well thought out reaction to dissatisfaction to the end moments and lacks the knee-jerk reactions that's common to this discussion. Also, it doesn't work in counter to people who still like the endings as they are.
I would pay good money to play as my companions in the final moments of the game after leaving the ground vehicle on the way to the beam, or as a member of one of the other council races fighting off the reaper invasion on their homeworld and ending with the effects of the main game rolling over the system.
It's a petition that drags in a completely separate charity, making it complicit in their demands whether the overseers of the charity agree or not. And then it's used, just as it was in this thread, as an example of "look how good we're being donating to charity and everything" to grant legitimacy to a movement that is well aware of how entitled and arrogant they're behaving.
Funny, most of the members of that movement would not agree to that sentiment. Tell me, have you ever sent back your food because it was cooked wrong? Say that your risotto didn't have peas in it. Eh screw it, let's say that you haven't. Let's say that I ordered the risotto and peas. It didn't come with peas. Now would I be acting arrogant and entitled if I sent it back so that my order could be corrected?
If you're going to draw an allegory here, a more accurate one is any interest group donating money to political causes. The arbitrary addition of money to an argument does not amplify the strength of your position, nor does it magically make a cause more noble. "Look at us, we're so correct we're donating money to a charity that has practically nothing to do with this! We're the good guys against this big evil corporate machine!" is not a way to win an argument.
I donate as much as I can to Child's Play through various events and marathons occurring throughout the year because I support Child's Play and what they stand for. I'm not going to donate to Child's Play to contest a game's ending. That's insulting to the cause.
I would like to point out that the people who run the charity, at least in name, have voiced their opinion on the subject already.
I do, also, think that the sentiment behind the charity drive is a bit...off. Not sinister or using "emotional blackmail" or attempting to subvert the charity, but...off all the same. The main sentiment behind it being a charity drive, and which is boldly stated
We would like to dispel the perception that we are angry or entitled. We simply wish to express our hope that there could be a different direction for a series we have all grown to love.
is not actually achieved by starting a charity drive. While they do actually achieve their goal of gaining more notice to their plea, it doesn't "dispel the perception that [they] are angry or entitled". I'm not making a judgement call on whether they are or not, but that their cause for making it a charity drive and not a monetary drive to try and fund DLC doesn't actually achieve the goal of proving, or even weighing in on, that particular point.
Again, 'Retake Mass Effect' is not a literal name, it just uses the terminology the game used in its adverts. In the end all it is, is a charity that allows us to show our dissatisfaction with the american dollar, and nothing else. Don't get so hung up on the name.
0
Options
EvilBadmanDO NOT TRUST THIS MANRegistered Userregular
Again, 'Retake Mass Effect' is not a literal name, it just uses the terminology the game used in its adverts. In the end all it is, is a charity that allows us to show our dissatisfaction with the american dollar, and nothing else. Don't get so hung up on the name.
I love it when people say I can't have the art that I want, when I have 3 hi def blu ray UN-special edition-ized original trilogy disks right here on my desk. Does George Lucas have to make hte movie I want? Nope. I also don't have to buy his bullshit.
Slight problem with that. You know what the original Star Wars was supposed to be and you knew he was going to tinker with it ahead of time. We, on the other hand, paid $60 to find out Mass Effect 3 was going to have that ending. And we can't unbuy the game.
There seems to be an odd sentiment here that you're not allowed to complain.
Bullshit.
Believe it or not we play computer games because we enjoy them. The ending to ME3 is a ruination. People left the end of Mass Effect 3 feeling disappointed, depressed, or feeling outright betrayed as everything they were promised was not delivered.
Angry Joe has got pretty much all of it covered here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M0Cf864P7E
Not the good kind of depressed either. After I played TIE Fighter years back I got into my Star Wars groove. Read the Thrawn trilogy while rooting for the Empire, was depressed when Thrawn was killed and actually felt sad for the next couple of days (Hey, I knew the bad guys were going to lose but Thrawn was awesome). Still look back on the series fondly because it was so well written. Now I look back at Mass Effect knowing that effectively everything you do there is meaningless.
It's as if you were enjoying painting a masterpiece only when it's finished for it to be burned before your eyes while you get beaten up by burley men. When you crawl from hospital to paint another, you see the same burley men standing outside the window pounding their fists in into their palms and grinning. You're not going to have the same enthusiasm for painting again.
It doesn't matter whether or not you are personally happy with the ending, or if you can get someone to agree with you on a forum somewhere. From all gathered sources I have the overwhelming majority of Mass Effect fans are unhappy with the ending or worse.
Got one person I follow on Twitter that has actually stopped playing video games since the ME3 ending was that bad:
The ending is bad. If it's a matter of personal taste, we have enough literary, logical and well though out reasons for why it's bad that we can conclude that your personal taste is bad.
Yes, Gabe's too. You're like the guys that thought Transformers 2 was an awesome movie. You are not special or enlightened if you liked the ending to ME3 and thought it was a good way to end the series. As painful as that might be to admit, it is also true. The ME3 ending has the same failures as sudden robot heaven, running meaninglessly through a warzone, forgetting about that railgun, the robot scrotum and it's being the same time of day on both sides of the planet... only in ME3 the parts before the ending were actually good.
Just because you don't find anything wrong with it, don't tell people they have to switch off their brains or dump all their expectations for a satisfying end (based upon the promises from the developers in the first place and the preceding high quality of the series). We're not going to conform. We may not be the authors of the story, but we know what we like and what hate. Personally I hate ending a story questioning not the motivations of the characters, the possible futures or the shape of the universe that's left behind after their struggles, but instead how this poorly written mess could have ever been made by someone that cared about the series.
People played Mass Effect 3 expecting a satisfying if bittersweet conclusion based on all their efforts and choices. It was promised to them and it wasn't delivered on any level. People have a right to complain about the shitty ending, and the shitty way it makes people feel after they spent their hard earned cash.
If you as a writer are unable to accept legitimate, well thought out and heartfelt criticism for your work no matter what you think the 'artistic merits' of it are, you're following George Lucas into the franchisicide creative disconnect. If you screw up and make something that the clear majority of your fans hate, you at the very least admit to that fact.
ME3s ending may not change. What that really means to a lot of gamers is that a great series will forever remembered for the terrible way that it ended.
What it means for Bioware is terrible PR. With games being returned to Amazon now, previously loyal fans now swearing off future Bioware games and vehemently refusing to buy any ME3 DLC or merch. This whole affair has been incredibly damaging to them if not for the initial retail income of ME3, for future revenue streams and their reputation at the very least. If you've put people off playing games entirely by your failure, people aren't going to be willing to trust that your next game is going to be worth buying.
Expectations for Dragon Age 3? Not high.
So the point of discussion from here really should not be whether or not the ME3 ending should be changed from an artistic viewpoint, or if people have a right to demand it to be changed as consumers of media. Instead what Bioware's response will be and what the legacy of that decision will be for the Mass Effect universe, Bioware and perhaps how the video game industry as a whole.
If Bioware release a completely new, free and actually satisfying conclusion to their game they would gain a lot of kudos from the player base and perhaps other developers would take note in being more accountable to their promises in the future. If they fail, they may be actually be signing their death warrant as a studio. This would be a damn shame.
Since the response so far has been 'we are listening' at best, I guess that in the closed boardrooms of Bioware and EA they're now actually discussing the cost of such a thing and whether or not it's viable, possibly putting this outcome down to a ruthless 'return on investment' figure which may coldly decide the ultimate fate of things from here.
We will just have to wait and see.
Fixer40000 on
Have left PA forums.
If this community believes that hating someone based soley upon their gender is acceptable and understandable, I have no interest in being a part of it.
0
Options
EvilBadmanDO NOT TRUST THIS MANRegistered Userregular
It doesn't matter whether or not you are personally happy with the ending, or if you can get someone to agree with you on a forum somewhere. From all gathered sources I have the overwhelming majority of Mass Effect fans are unhappy with the ending or worse.
Right or wrong, I find endless amusement in the fact that these two sentences not only appear in the same post, but they are consecutive. In the first sentnce, you present a thesis that regardless of finding people that agree with an opinion, you are incorrect. You then immediately contradict this statement by declaring how many people you've found to support your stance.
This amusement was lessened when I got to the part where you actually generalized people's tastes based on 5 minutes of a video game.
Whenever I see a gaming news outlet or a forum post talk about "gamer entitlement" in regards to ME3 and the complaints about the endings I'm reminded of the tactics Fox News would use when bashing the "liberal media" whenever a news story crops up that they don't like either.
This article from Forbes is a nice take on why making that comparison is a little bit of a fallacy.
Bylak on
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I think the biggest problems we're having with this argument are:
The people who disagree with one side assume that side is "making demands." They make this assumption based on games journalist's take on the whole scenario.
But guys, you can read every post in this thread, in the last thread on the hub, and in every single Mass Effect thread on this page: not a single person is demanding anything. Not a single person says that Bioware doesn't have the right to make any game that they want. Bioware does. Just as the consumer has the right to, at this point, not give any more money to Bioware. Both of those things are true.
Now, maybe you think that some other message board has whiny gamers demanding stuff; although I'd be really surprised if anyone here actually has examples of other people "demanding" anything, and instead aren't just assuming that's the case based on games journalism. We can certainly all agree that the FCC complaint is laughable - but that was just a single person, not an entire group. Please try not to judge the arguments of people you're discussing this with by anything other than what they have said. It makes you look like a goose.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
This amusement was lessened when I got to the part where you actually generalized people's tastes based on 5 minutes of a video game.
There's a difference. One one side a huge number of people giving legitimate, rational and intelligent criticism along with emotional human response. On the other you have a guy on a forum making a contradictory statement and believing he has the consensus of the enlightened because he has evidence that at least one other person agrees with him.
It's also quite easy to generalise about peoples taste in poorly written media when they make a statement about liking a piece of similarly poorly written media.
Have left PA forums.
If this community believes that hating someone based soley upon their gender is acceptable and understandable, I have no interest in being a part of it.
0
Options
EvilBadmanDO NOT TRUST THIS MANRegistered Userregular
This amusement was lessened when I got to the part where you actually generalized people's tastes based on 5 minutes of a video game.
There's a difference. One one side a huge number of people giving legitimate, rational and intelligent criticism along with emotional human response. On the other you have a guy on a forum making a contradictory statement and believing he has the consensus of the enlightened because he has evidence that at least one other person agrees with him.
Are we not, at this very moment, two people on a forum, having an argument because both of us have an opinion that at least one outside person agrees with? We could be arguing about the color of the sky and it would be the same situation. That is what I found amusing.
Whenever I see a gaming news outlet or a forum post talk about "gamer entitlement" in regards to ME3 and the complaints about the endings I'm reminded of the tactics Fox News would use when bashing the "liberal media" whenever a news story crops up that they don't like either.
This article from Forbes is a nice take on why making that comparison is a little bit of a fallacy.
I've actually seen a lot of well written, well thought out and heartfelt articles on Forbes regarding ME3. All from that Erik Kain fellow. Makes some good consumer focused points there I hadn't considered before.
Guess he's a big ME fan too.
Have left PA forums.
If this community believes that hating someone based soley upon their gender is acceptable and understandable, I have no interest in being a part of it.
Are we not, at this very moment, two people on a forum, having an argument because both of us have an opinion that at least one outside person agrees with? We could be arguing about the color of the sky and it would be the same situation. That is what I found amusing.
From a computer programming view where you're sorting statement = true by people that agree with me =>1 yes, that statement is factually correct.
It just breaks down a little when it comes to the sheer numbers and percentages. Even if you judge that the polls are biased by people dissatisfied by the ending actively seeking out a way to vent their frustrations, the polls suggest about a 20-1 ratio of 'people that hate the ending' to 'people that think it's fine' on a poll that includes more than 50,000 votes.
This is not equal or that's one hell of a statistical outlier there.
Of course just because a large number of people believe something doesn't make it true. There's plenty of things out there believed by the majority of people which are actually provably wrong (google common misconceptions). However if you're judging whether or not people like the ending at least, this is very strong evidence that suggests dislike.
Second, it's like one person saying the sky is green because he was always told the sky is green and the other person is saying the sky is blue because the sun's light is scattered into a blue wavelength by our atmosphere, and the colour blue is our name for our perception of that wavelength which can be shown by a direct comparison with other objects historically verified as the colour blue confirmed and a separate scientific double blind test on human eyesight reactions to the colour with a five sigma level of certainty.
Not saying that I'm not a hypocritical jerk that gains sadistic pleasure destroying people's hopes and dreams through deconstruction of their argument for ME3's ending while actually enjoying Terminator Salvation despite it's faults. Just that I like backing up my statements and opinions with reasoned logical facts, analogy and rational inquiry.
Have left PA forums.
If this community believes that hating someone based soley upon their gender is acceptable and understandable, I have no interest in being a part of it.
There is one thing I don't get about the "If you disappoint fans of a series, you will drive away customers from future purchases" argument - how big is the number of people that flat-out refuse to buy a game by a publisher or an installment of a series simply because the previous effort was in their opinion bad? To stick with BioWare, I for one thought that Dragon Age 2 may have been not as good as the first part was, and many people agree with me, which might or might not be coincidence, but it was still a good game. For a few hours, I did the same thing I did with part 1, I played it. Call me easily satisfied for not dissecting all the ways in which the previous installment was better, I just played a game and came out no worse for wear. I don't automatically assume that just because it wasn'ta s good as part 1 it HAS to go downhill from there and Dragon Age 3 will suck and I won't buy it. Same with Mass Effect 3 - after not having had anything to do in what I thought was a great universe, I was simply looking forward to playing again, because I like the core mechanics. I am not saying you should ignore the story, but in that respect I actually make a difference between games and movies, and having sat there for several hours, I can't honestly say that just because I didn't like the ending I feel cheated on the whole experience, and experience is the important word for me here.
I think feedback is important and I like it that BioWare is taking it seriously, but I also think there is a difference between voicing dissatisfaction and being petulant.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
@Rinna that idea - that not giving Bioware my money is petulant - is one that fascinates me in this conversation. Because it takes the standpoint that Bioware deserves my money, that they in fact are entitled to it, and I'm just being a 'baby' if I decide I don't want to buy anything else from them, or if I'm considerably more wary of their products because I don't like what they did in the past.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Maybe not petulant, but it certainly seems over the top. It would be like me boycotting Honda because I don't like the way they designed the dash of my Accord, even though I love everything else about it. A reason to not buy that specific car maybe, but to not purchase anything from that maker ever again regardless of the merit of those future vehicles? How does that make any sense?
Maybe not petulant, but it certainly seems over the top. It would be like me boycotting Honda because I don't like the way they designed the dash of my Accord, even though I love everything else about it. A reason to not buy that specific car maybe, but to not purchase anything from that maker ever again regardless of the merit of those future vehicles? How does that make any sense?
So now we're talking about a product, and not art?
If the artist who's work I'm viewing decided that a sharpie smilie on an otherwise beautiful portrait was "his vision" and he was unwilling to remove that smilie because he felt it important, then it would call in to question all his other artwork for me. I would say, "look, I can't buy your work sight-unseen anymore. I need to know if the sharpie additions are now an intregral part of your work or not."
But if you want to make it a product analogy, we can make it a product analogy. A game isn't anywhere near as expensive as a car, though. It's more like my attitude towards Samsung. On three separate occasions, I bought Samsung DVD players. All three of them died after 6 months. I will not buy Samsung products anymore. Is this really that unreasonable?
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Maybe not petulant, but it certainly seems over the top. It would be like me boycotting Honda because I don't like the way they designed the dash of my Accord, even though I love everything else about it. A reason to not buy that specific car maybe, but to not purchase anything from that maker ever again regardless of the merit of those future vehicles? How does that make any sense?
It's not quite like that. ME fans loved the game up until the end.
It's more like you enjoyed driving your Honda Accord, up until the point where the engine exploded leaving you a shaking wreck on the side of the motorway looking at it's burning wreckage.
Doesn't matter if the new model Accord fixes this problem, you're still not going to fully trust Honda to make a car that does not explode.
I should get the title of chief analogy adjuster at this rate
Have left PA forums.
If this community believes that hating someone based soley upon their gender is acceptable and understandable, I have no interest in being a part of it.
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Posts
I'm sorry but they don't get to completely hide behind the shield of "art", especially when they sold us on being a part of the story and getting to have an effect on the outcome. When you begin to sale something, you now have a product and as such are subject many of the criticisms and standards that other products are held to. You don't get to make a documentary about trees, advertise it as an action movie about giant robots, and then get to say it was an "artistic decision". Because it isn't, it's fraud.
ME3 was not the ending, it was the final game. The end of ME3 was the end, the culmination of all past events. It is at this point that all of your previous decisions and Bioware's promises are thrown right out of the window. It is there that most people have an issue, it is there that we learn quotes like this were lies. It is there that we learn that there actually aren't any consequences for our actions, that in the end none of it really mattered.
This has been Penny Arcade's stance in general, you are not the author and that means you can not feel entitled to a different ending. This I won't argue with, no one is entitled to a single thing with regards to a produced item. It also hasn't been surprising that PA jumped to the defense of Bioware, they've had a good working relationship for quite some time. Now your particular comments don't make sense to me, but perhaps I'm misreading them. I'll try and break it down as it appears to me.
Fans of product A, that they loved in the beginning are upset because it is changed for the worse. Because changing product A for the worse upset them, they can not be upset about product B being flawed, in their opinion to begin with, and then wish for it to be changed for the better.
I still have the original Trilogy on VHS, I don't have to have anything to do with Jabba the hut digitally added, changes in any other scene, etc. How do I demand that no more negative changes are made to Episodes 4-6? Simple, I don't support the changed material.
Now, Mass Effect is a totally different creature. I have already spent money on the product and was not totally satisfied with it. Not that I'm entitled to a different product, I'm not going to tell Bioware to give me my money back or anything else unreasonable. I will on the other hand speak up with many others in hopes it will change a future product. I will support a movement that seeks to gain the attention of a studio that claims to listen to fans of their product. Not because I feel entitled to anything, but in hopes that the voices of the consumers will be heard and may influence future decisions.
I will give Penny Arcade credit for taking the opposite stance of most media, tis a very bold move and not one I expected. I had hoped an email I sent last week would get a response, but obviously time and or desire was not there. Though I suppose it worked, after years of reading the articles and comics I wrote my first email and signed up for the forums thanks to the "piss off" attitude.
Are we the authors? No, of course not, but then if not being the author of any product makes you unable to comment on it, what is the next job the entire Penny Arcade crew has in mind? Have you not made a career out of commentary? Have you not provided a place for all of your sponsored material, most of which consists of comments about gaming, the gaming industry, and the people who work in it? Will all material on the site just read, "We are not the authors therefore we can not comment on it." Or is satire the only sacred form of commentary?
To go back a bit, I end it with a quote that reads well for both sides of the fence. If you loved the ending of the game, hated it, support the upset fans or hate the upset fans remember,
"Don't be a dick."
- Feeling confused by the ending.
- Deciding one didn't like the ending.
- Mentioning to someone else, in private, that one did not like the ending.
- Mentioning, in public (e.g., on a message board), that one did not like the ending.
- Explaining what one did not like about the ending.
- Considering the possibility that the ending could have been improved in some way.
- Upon reading comments from members of the creative team involved about their feelings on the ending, considering the possibility that the ending could be changed via DLC.
- Deciding that one would be pleased at the idea of an improved ending, released as DLC.
- Mentioning to someone else, in private, that one would be pleased at the eventuality of an improved ending, released as DLC.
- Mentioning, in public (e.g., on a message board), that one would be pleased at the eventuality of an improved ending, released as DLC.
- Actually wanting an improved ending, released as DLC.
- Mentioning to someone else, in private, actually wanting an improved ending, released as DLC.
- Mentioning, in public (e.g., on a message board), actually wanting an improved ending, released as DLC.
- Seeing a group of people raising money for charity in order to draw attention to their desire to see an improved ending, released as DLC, and not immediately disagreeing with them.
- Seeing a group of people raising money for charity in order to draw attention to their desire to see an improved ending, released as DLC, and agreeing with them.
- Seeing a group of people raising money for charity in order to draw attention to their desire to see an improved ending, released as DLC, and donating money to support their cause.
And, if you have another spare moment, maybe let me know when one moves from wanting something to demanding it, and at what point one is presumed to feel entitled when expressing a desire for something.your = belonging to you
their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
I am disappointed that this hasn't been posted in this thread.
Official Mass Effect Website
http://masseffect.com/about/story/
“Experience the beginning, middle, and end of an emotional story unlike any
other, where the decisions you make completely shape your experience
and outcome.”
Interview with Mac Walters (Lead Writer)
http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/02/28/mass-effect-3-mac-walters/
“[The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass
Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers.”
Interview with Mac Walters (Lead Writer)
http://business.financialpost.com/2012/03/05/qa-mass-effect-3s-mac-walters-on-how-the-game-tries-to-reach-all-audiences/
“I’m always leery of saying there are 'optimal' endings, because I think
one of the things we do try to do is make different endings that are
optimal for different people “
Interview with Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/334598/interviews/mass-effect-3-weve-brought-back-a-lot-of-what-was-missing-in-me2/
“And, to be honest, you [the fans] are crafting your Mass Effect story as
much as we are anyway.”
Interview with Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.360magazine.co.uk/interview/mass-effect-3-has-many-different-endings/
“There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way. How
could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and
then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can’t
say any more than that…”
Interview with Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-02-02-bioware-mass-effect-3-ending-will-make-some-people-angry
“Every decision you've made will impact how things go. The player's also the
architect of what happens."
“You'll get answers to everything. That was one of the key things. Regardless
of how we did everything, we had to say, yes, we're going to provide
some answers to these people.”
“Because a lot of these plot threads are concluding and because it's being
brought to a finale, since you were a part of architecting how they
got to how they were, you will definitely sense how they close was
because of the decisions you made and because of the decisions you
didn't make”
Interview with Casey Hudson (Director)
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2011/04/28/casey-hudson-interview-mass-effect-3.aspx
“For people who are invested in these characters and the back-story of the
universe and everything, all of these things come to a resolution in
Mass Effect 3. And they are resolved in a way that's very different
based on what you would do in those situations.”
Interview with Casey Hudson (Director)
http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/02/casey-hudson-bioware-co-created-mass-effect-3-with-the-sometimes-cranky-fans-interview/
“Fans want to make sure that they see things resolved, they want to get
some closure, a great ending. I think they’re going to get that.”
“Mass Effect 3 is all about answering all the biggest questions in the
lore, learning about the mysteries and the Protheans and the Reapers,
being able to decide for yourself how all of these things come to an
end.”
Interviewer: “So are you guys the creators or the stewards of the franchise?”
Hudson: “Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with
the fans. We use a lot of feedback.”
Interview with Casey Hudson (Director)
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/10/mass1525-effect-3-cas5ey-fdsafdhudson-interviewae.aspx?PostPageIndex=2
Interviewer: [Regarding the numerous possible endings of Mass Effect 2] “Is that
same type of complexity built into the ending of Mass Effect 3?”
Hudson: “Yeah, and I’d say much more so, because we have the ability to
build the endings out in a way that we don’t have to worry about
eventually tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is
coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot
more different. At this point we’re taking into account so many
decisions that you’ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that
stuff. It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings,
where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got
ending A, B, or C.....The endings have a lot more sophistication and
variety in them.”
“We have a rule in our franchise that there is no canon. You as a player
decide what your story is.”
Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1027650/mass_effect_3_reapers_can_win_bioware.html
Mass Effect 3 will shake up the player's moral choices more than ever
before, even going so far as allowing the Reapers to win the battle
for Earth, according to BioWare's community representative Mike
Gamble.
In an inteview with NowGamer at Gamescom, we asked if BioWare was taking risks with Mass Effect 3's
plot, including a negative ending in which the Reapers win. Gamble simply said, "Yes". We asked him again to confirm what he had just said and he said, "Yes".
Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.nowgamer.com/features/1229983/mass_effect_3_developer_interview_shepard_coop_story_details.html
"Of course you don’t have to play multiplayer, you can choose to play
all the side-quests in single-player and do all that stuff you’ll
still get all the same endings and same information, it’s just a
totally different way of playing"
Casey Hudson (Director)
http://gamescatalyst.com/2012/03/casey-hudson-kinect-the-future-of-interactive-stories/
“The whole idea of Mass Effect3 is resolving all of the biggest questions, about the Protheons and
the Reapers, and being in the driver's seat to end the galaxy and all
of these big plot lines, to decide what civilizations are going to
live or die: All of these things are answered in Mass Effect 3.”
Casey Hudson (Director)
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/336331/interviews/mass-effect-3-we-cant-go-on-holiday-our-dlc-is-really-good/?page=2
“There is a huge set of consequences that start stacking up as you approach the end-game. And
even in terms of the ending itself, it continues to break down to
some very large decisions. So it's not like a classic game ending
where everything is linear and you make a choice between a few things
- it really does layer in many, many different choices, up to the
final moments, where it's going to be different for everyone who
plays it.”
Source: Noctis22 on http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/category/355/index
At this point, I'm pretty certain that this sentiment right here is a huge reason for the disconnect between the people who demand a new ending, and the people who don't think that's an appropriate response. At least, this is what I'm picking up on.
I think people who tend to view games (or, in my case, single-player focused games like the ME series) as artistic statements will always be willing to accept what the author gives them. This doesn't mean they won't critique or criticize it, but the thought of making an author change their own piece to fit the criteria of what the audience perceives as "good" is nonsensical. It's not a rational response or a realistic expectation in the art world. Many people were pissed off about how the last Harry Potter book ended, but nobody realistically expected the ending to be revised because of this. Nobody said, "Shit, you promised me an amazing and climactic showdown with Voldemort over the course of these books, and you absolutely didn't deliver! Fix this!" And if they did, you would have thought they were insane. Or twelve years old.
Then there's the people who see games as a product. This is probably symptomatic of consumer culture in general, so this can't really be pinned on gamers exclusively. Things are pretty cut and dry here: The product pleases the consumer or it does not. "You said in an interview this game would have many peculiar endings and it did not. False advertising. Take it back and give me a functioning unit for free." No flexibility. Now, you can protest all you want about being called "entitled" or "childish", but this is a self-absorbed mentality (even outside the realm of games), make no mistake. Your demands for an ending that will please you, with no regard for the time it takes to develop a game (you want it soon, before people/you stop caring), book celebrity voice actors, re-write a story, etc., makes you incredibly self-centered. I'd also add irrational to that, personally, because you all want them to fulfill this "innumerable endings" idea. Think about how long that would take to accomplish, given the current state of the game.
If you want to view amazing cultural items like the Mass Effect series (along with their flaws) as something that needs to be "fixed" according to your standards, just so you get some short-term pleasure, then there's no real reasoning to be done. But it is sort of sad that people see things this way. Especially in regard to these games that had so much obvious love and work put into them. These things will probably still be played when you are all dead.
But nah, fuck all that, those last 10 minutes sucked.
You make a lot of assumptions, make a lot of statements for people that they themselves have not made(Especially the short term or no regard to the work), and generally resorted to demean and insult the other side instead of properly responding to their claims. It's childish and for the sake of civility I'll let this slide by.
Art and product are not mutually exclusive terms. If you sell a painting it doesn't stop being art and it doesn't not become a product just because it is art. Mass Effect is not Harry Potter, Rowling did not make the same advertisements and promises that Bioware has made. She was selling a story to an audience, Bioware was selling a story that the audience could take a part in, could change, could actually effect. Read my post directly above yours to see some of the things that Bioware used to sell Mass Effect. Enjoy this quote in particular:
Interviewer: “So are you guys the creators or the stewards of the franchise?”
Hudson: “Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with
the fans. We use a lot of feedback.”
Interview with Casey Hudson (Director)
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/10/mass1525-effect-3-cas5ey-fdsafdhudson-interviewae.aspx?PostPageIndex=2
I hope you took a moment to look over those quotes. Now then, let's say I commission an artist to paint me a tree. This artist then paints me a horse and claims that this is her "artistic vision". Is this a legitimate defense of her actions? Let's say someone produces a documentary about trees and then advertises it as an action film about giant robots, would this not be a legitimate cause of complaint amongst audiences? Now let's say that someone advertises that a car has 43 MPG Highway which makes it highly popular. Unfortunately it turns out it only has 27 MPG Highway. Would consumers be in the wrong or "childish and entitled" if they demanded that the manufacturer rectify this situation? Would you think that any of these situations could be handwaved away because the people involved put in "a lot of love and work"?
Before, 17 certainly.
In all seriousness, I don't agree with the idea behind the charity. I don't like turning "giving money to kids" into some sort of statement/guilt trip to get something I want. I don't think contributing to it makes you petulant or self entitled though. Most of that is coming from comments people make that might be getting read into more than was intended.
I don't agree with the cries for "change it, change it" in principle, and fully recognize that this bias affects the tone in which I might read someone's posts. That perceived tone has a great deal to do with those terms getting thrown about, and people (presumably like you) that think changing it is a good idea but aren't all harglbarglbiowareowesus are getting caught in the cross fire.
It seems to me that it's like a petition, except instead of just signing your name you also put a little money behind it, so show you mean it. It's just a way to give a little weight to you backing a cause that also benefits a good charity. I would prefer that they did it this way than raise 60k to go do 25/7 protests at Bioware's offices or something.
b) I didn't try to paint an entire group with anything
c) I'm pretty sure it was a troll anyway. I have a hard time believing anyone is that self absorbed.
Funny, most of the members of that movement would not agree to that sentiment. Tell me, have you ever sent back your food because it was cooked wrong? Say that your risotto didn't have peas in it. Eh screw it, let's say that you haven't. Let's say that I ordered the risotto and peas. It didn't come with peas. Now would I be acting arrogant and entitled if I sent it back so that my order could be corrected?
If you're going to draw an allegory here, a more accurate one is any interest group donating money to political causes. The arbitrary addition of money to an argument does not amplify the strength of your position, nor does it magically make a cause more noble. "Look at us, we're so correct we're donating money to a charity that has practically nothing to do with this! We're the good guys against this big evil corporate machine!" is not a way to win an argument.
I donate as much as I can to Child's Play through various events and marathons occurring throughout the year because I support Child's Play and what they stand for. I'm not going to donate to Child's Play to contest a game's ending. That's insulting to the cause.
Accurate? Hmm, yeah not really, but that is a nice and aggressive response to a stance that hasn't really been taken here. It was fairly clear that my comments were based on the matter of the ending and Thejakeman's stance on the movement. Do feel free to comment on that matter, though leave the aggression, veiled insults, and false assumptions about a movement at home. Just a reminder, the topic you commented on is whether or not consumers have a right to a product as advertised.
Never argued that it was one way or the other. Was simply observing that people seem to view Mass Effect as either one or the other, and this dictates their arguments.
...Could change within the author's constraints, which they have written for you. Pretty sure this was the point Mike was making in his post about this. You are still acting within a narrative framework provided by the author. At the end of a day, they're selling you a prepared story, however you spin it. These are not incomparable mediums. Publish any ME game in a choose-your-own-adventure novel, like he said. No difference.
Here's what seems to be the meat of the argument, these "promises." These are not "advertisements," they're personal thoughts on the game from different people involved. It's arguably promotion, but it's not fucking gospel. Sometimes people are wrong (the producer quotes seem especially vague) or have false impressions. Maybe in their view, they thought they were being accurate. Were they mistaken? Maybe. When it comes down to it, they made good on those promises (perhaps they thought 4 was "many"). The majority of the audience (including me) seems to disagree with their perception of their game. Can people complain? Totally.
The problem is when you take all these things as some kind of proof that you're owed something, when you move beyond criticism, and start demanding your version of a "fix." As if art (which is what a written narrative is) ever needs to be fixed if you don't like it. The game was not commissioned by the audience (though you may really want to think so, in an indirect way), so that argument is irrelevant. Then there's the car analogy, which brings me back to people viewing games (really a narrative, in this case) simply as products. If you want to compare a $60 interactive entertainment narrative to a 5-figure utilitarian machine then alright. That's just how you see things. Sure, you're totally justified to complain if they lie to you about MPG, but that would also make it a legal issue. That's not what happened here. Nobody did anything illegal. This is nowhere near "false advertising." Some people just feel wronged enough by a few minutes of bad writing to think they're somehow owed a new, re-written narrative.
"Based on interviews and many other statements throughout the development of Mass Effect 3, I was under the impression that there would be many endings (to the game, not to the series) that were influenced by our choices throughout all three games and that those endings would be more developed and have more explanation. As I based my purchase on both my investment in the previous 2 games and/or these interview statements and other marketing, I was disappointed by what was provided at the end.
I don't think I'm the author of Mass Effect, and I don't think I deserve an ending that pleases me personally. However, if you decide to make additional content that expands, explains, and further develops what happened to the galaxy during and after the final moments of the game (even to the point of essentially retconning if necessary), I would be very interested in that content. If it is available for free, then this would be a validation of my faith in BioWare and its collaboration with its fans, further encouraging me to buy BioWare products in the future. If it is available as paid content, I still would be very interested in it and would buy it (or not buy it, depending on my disappointment/apathy/wallet size)."
Seriously, that's all. I'm not entitled to anything. I'm just disappointed and interested in more. And I'm vocal about it because otherwise BioWare wouldn't make any such content. They may still not make any, but they definitely won't if I say nothing.
Personally, I would buy paid DLC that gave a more thorough ending/different endings because obviously making such content is a costly endeavor and I still think of BioWare as a "good" gaming company that just made a mistake here, and not some sinister corporation that thought up a dastardly plan to piss us all off enough so that we would need to buy additional content to satisfy our cravings.
If they want to release more content, that would be amazing and welcome. I just feel that the people who aggressively push for this to be "resolved" are letting themselves get carried away with self-importance. It doesn't need to be this way. The harsh criticism alone is enough to push an author to action, if that's what they feel is right. However, if they don't want to change their work, if they feel it is complete, then so be it. That's their choice and it should be respected.
Actually there's a strong current running throughout this entire "dissatisfied" movement that points out that the game was excellent right up until the last moments of the game.
It's not a complaint that the game or product didn't deliver, but that the game ended in a few dissatisfying moments. Even the guy who went to the FTC only brought the accusation that the ending didn't deliver on promises, not the entire game.
This I can back.
Not the "Retake" movement
Not the FTC or BBB report
But this is a clearly well thought out reaction to dissatisfaction to the end moments and lacks the knee-jerk reactions that's common to this discussion. Also, it doesn't work in counter to people who still like the endings as they are.
I do, also, think that the sentiment behind the charity drive is a bit...off. Not sinister or using "emotional blackmail" or attempting to subvert the charity, but...off all the same. The main sentiment behind it being a charity drive, and which is boldly stated is not actually achieved by starting a charity drive. While they do actually achieve their goal of gaining more notice to their plea, it doesn't "dispel the perception that [they] are angry or entitled". I'm not making a judgement call on whether they are or not, but that their cause for making it a charity drive and not a monetary drive to try and fund DLC doesn't actually achieve the goal of proving, or even weighing in on, that particular point.
They probably shouldn't have named it that then.
Slight problem with that. You know what the original Star Wars was supposed to be and you knew he was going to tinker with it ahead of time. We, on the other hand, paid $60 to find out Mass Effect 3 was going to have that ending. And we can't unbuy the game.
I doubt the guy who started the charity realized it was going to make it onto major media outlets.
Bullshit.
Believe it or not we play computer games because we enjoy them. The ending to ME3 is a ruination. People left the end of Mass Effect 3 feeling disappointed, depressed, or feeling outright betrayed as everything they were promised was not delivered.
Angry Joe has got pretty much all of it covered here:
Not the good kind of depressed either. After I played TIE Fighter years back I got into my Star Wars groove. Read the Thrawn trilogy while rooting for the Empire, was depressed when Thrawn was killed and actually felt sad for the next couple of days (Hey, I knew the bad guys were going to lose but Thrawn was awesome). Still look back on the series fondly because it was so well written. Now I look back at Mass Effect knowing that effectively everything you do there is meaningless.
It's as if you were enjoying painting a masterpiece only when it's finished for it to be burned before your eyes while you get beaten up by burley men. When you crawl from hospital to paint another, you see the same burley men standing outside the window pounding their fists in into their palms and grinning. You're not going to have the same enthusiasm for painting again.
It doesn't matter whether or not you are personally happy with the ending, or if you can get someone to agree with you on a forum somewhere. From all gathered sources I have the overwhelming majority of Mass Effect fans are unhappy with the ending or worse.
Got one person I follow on Twitter that has actually stopped playing video games since the ME3 ending was that bad:
The ending is bad. If it's a matter of personal taste, we have enough literary, logical and well though out reasons for why it's bad that we can conclude that your personal taste is bad.
Yes, Gabe's too. You're like the guys that thought Transformers 2 was an awesome movie. You are not special or enlightened if you liked the ending to ME3 and thought it was a good way to end the series. As painful as that might be to admit, it is also true. The ME3 ending has the same failures as sudden robot heaven, running meaninglessly through a warzone, forgetting about that railgun, the robot scrotum and it's being the same time of day on both sides of the planet... only in ME3 the parts before the ending were actually good.
Just because you don't find anything wrong with it, don't tell people they have to switch off their brains or dump all their expectations for a satisfying end (based upon the promises from the developers in the first place and the preceding high quality of the series). We're not going to conform. We may not be the authors of the story, but we know what we like and what hate. Personally I hate ending a story questioning not the motivations of the characters, the possible futures or the shape of the universe that's left behind after their struggles, but instead how this poorly written mess could have ever been made by someone that cared about the series.
People played Mass Effect 3 expecting a satisfying if bittersweet conclusion based on all their efforts and choices. It was promised to them and it wasn't delivered on any level. People have a right to complain about the shitty ending, and the shitty way it makes people feel after they spent their hard earned cash.
If you as a writer are unable to accept legitimate, well thought out and heartfelt criticism for your work no matter what you think the 'artistic merits' of it are, you're following George Lucas into the franchisicide creative disconnect. If you screw up and make something that the clear majority of your fans hate, you at the very least admit to that fact.
ME3s ending may not change. What that really means to a lot of gamers is that a great series will forever remembered for the terrible way that it ended.
What it means for Bioware is terrible PR. With games being returned to Amazon now, previously loyal fans now swearing off future Bioware games and vehemently refusing to buy any ME3 DLC or merch. This whole affair has been incredibly damaging to them if not for the initial retail income of ME3, for future revenue streams and their reputation at the very least. If you've put people off playing games entirely by your failure, people aren't going to be willing to trust that your next game is going to be worth buying.
Expectations for Dragon Age 3? Not high.
So the point of discussion from here really should not be whether or not the ME3 ending should be changed from an artistic viewpoint, or if people have a right to demand it to be changed as consumers of media. Instead what Bioware's response will be and what the legacy of that decision will be for the Mass Effect universe, Bioware and perhaps how the video game industry as a whole.
If Bioware release a completely new, free and actually satisfying conclusion to their game they would gain a lot of kudos from the player base and perhaps other developers would take note in being more accountable to their promises in the future. If they fail, they may be actually be signing their death warrant as a studio. This would be a damn shame.
Since the response so far has been 'we are listening' at best, I guess that in the closed boardrooms of Bioware and EA they're now actually discussing the cost of such a thing and whether or not it's viable, possibly putting this outcome down to a ruthless 'return on investment' figure which may coldly decide the ultimate fate of things from here.
We will just have to wait and see.
If this community believes that hating someone based soley upon their gender is acceptable and understandable, I have no interest in being a part of it.
Right or wrong, I find endless amusement in the fact that these two sentences not only appear in the same post, but they are consecutive. In the first sentnce, you present a thesis that regardless of finding people that agree with an opinion, you are incorrect. You then immediately contradict this statement by declaring how many people you've found to support your stance.
This amusement was lessened when I got to the part where you actually generalized people's tastes based on 5 minutes of a video game.
This article from Forbes is a nice take on why making that comparison is a little bit of a fallacy.
The people who disagree with one side assume that side is "making demands." They make this assumption based on games journalist's take on the whole scenario.
But guys, you can read every post in this thread, in the last thread on the hub, and in every single Mass Effect thread on this page: not a single person is demanding anything. Not a single person says that Bioware doesn't have the right to make any game that they want. Bioware does. Just as the consumer has the right to, at this point, not give any more money to Bioware. Both of those things are true.
Now, maybe you think that some other message board has whiny gamers demanding stuff; although I'd be really surprised if anyone here actually has examples of other people "demanding" anything, and instead aren't just assuming that's the case based on games journalism. We can certainly all agree that the FCC complaint is laughable - but that was just a single person, not an entire group. Please try not to judge the arguments of people you're discussing this with by anything other than what they have said. It makes you look like a goose.
There's a difference. One one side a huge number of people giving legitimate, rational and intelligent criticism along with emotional human response. On the other you have a guy on a forum making a contradictory statement and believing he has the consensus of the enlightened because he has evidence that at least one other person agrees with him.
It's also quite easy to generalise about peoples taste in poorly written media when they make a statement about liking a piece of similarly poorly written media.
If this community believes that hating someone based soley upon their gender is acceptable and understandable, I have no interest in being a part of it.
Are we not, at this very moment, two people on a forum, having an argument because both of us have an opinion that at least one outside person agrees with? We could be arguing about the color of the sky and it would be the same situation. That is what I found amusing.
I've actually seen a lot of well written, well thought out and heartfelt articles on Forbes regarding ME3. All from that Erik Kain fellow. Makes some good consumer focused points there I hadn't considered before.
Guess he's a big ME fan too.
If this community believes that hating someone based soley upon their gender is acceptable and understandable, I have no interest in being a part of it.
From a computer programming view where you're sorting statement = true by people that agree with me =>1 yes, that statement is factually correct.
It just breaks down a little when it comes to the sheer numbers and percentages. Even if you judge that the polls are biased by people dissatisfied by the ending actively seeking out a way to vent their frustrations, the polls suggest about a 20-1 ratio of 'people that hate the ending' to 'people that think it's fine' on a poll that includes more than 50,000 votes.
This is not equal or that's one hell of a statistical outlier there.
Of course just because a large number of people believe something doesn't make it true. There's plenty of things out there believed by the majority of people which are actually provably wrong (google common misconceptions). However if you're judging whether or not people like the ending at least, this is very strong evidence that suggests dislike.
Second, it's like one person saying the sky is green because he was always told the sky is green and the other person is saying the sky is blue because the sun's light is scattered into a blue wavelength by our atmosphere, and the colour blue is our name for our perception of that wavelength which can be shown by a direct comparison with other objects historically verified as the colour blue confirmed and a separate scientific double blind test on human eyesight reactions to the colour with a five sigma level of certainty.
Not saying that I'm not a hypocritical jerk that gains sadistic pleasure destroying people's hopes and dreams through deconstruction of their argument for ME3's ending while actually enjoying Terminator Salvation despite it's faults. Just that I like backing up my statements and opinions with reasoned logical facts, analogy and rational inquiry.
If this community believes that hating someone based soley upon their gender is acceptable and understandable, I have no interest in being a part of it.
I think feedback is important and I like it that BioWare is taking it seriously, but I also think there is a difference between voicing dissatisfaction and being petulant.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17444719
So now we're talking about a product, and not art?
If the artist who's work I'm viewing decided that a sharpie smilie on an otherwise beautiful portrait was "his vision" and he was unwilling to remove that smilie because he felt it important, then it would call in to question all his other artwork for me. I would say, "look, I can't buy your work sight-unseen anymore. I need to know if the sharpie additions are now an intregral part of your work or not."
But if you want to make it a product analogy, we can make it a product analogy. A game isn't anywhere near as expensive as a car, though. It's more like my attitude towards Samsung. On three separate occasions, I bought Samsung DVD players. All three of them died after 6 months. I will not buy Samsung products anymore. Is this really that unreasonable?
It's not quite like that. ME fans loved the game up until the end.
It's more like you enjoyed driving your Honda Accord, up until the point where the engine exploded leaving you a shaking wreck on the side of the motorway looking at it's burning wreckage.
Doesn't matter if the new model Accord fixes this problem, you're still not going to fully trust Honda to make a car that does not explode.
I should get the title of chief analogy adjuster at this rate
If this community believes that hating someone based soley upon their gender is acceptable and understandable, I have no interest in being a part of it.
I love how they (the "Support the Games Ending" group) have around 200 members to the 45,000 of the other lot (Those who dislike the ending).
Most amusing, but seems to reflect the overall trend I've seen on messageboards and elsewhere.