BioShock Creator "Sad" Over ME3's Ending Scandal
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
So do you think she should not be allowed to have done that? Because there would be "the same outrage"? Don't you think she was within their rights to end it however she well pleases (pending publisher approval, of course)?pepitko said:
The FO3 ending was changed because(like ME3) it contained a massive plothole that rendered the ending meaningless.I was fine with my character in FO3 dying and the game ending there.However if I,like a minority of players did,make it to the room full of deadly radiation with the big radiation proof sidekick,I should be able to send him in.You know like I did 3 or 4 missions back?
ME3,regardless of which ending you pick,ends with every system with a Mass Relay in it destroyed,and the crew that stuck by your side turning chicken and abandoning you,and don't say that the energy from the Relays exploding was different and the planets were spared.If you have to pull back to a view that encompasses the WHOLE galaxy to take in the explosion,everything in that radius is toast.
ME3,regardless of which ending you pick,ends with every system with a Mass Relay in it destroyed,and the crew that stuck by your side turning chicken and abandoning you,and don't say that the energy from the Relays exploding was different and the planets were spared.If you have to pull back to a view that encompasses the WHOLE galaxy to take in the explosion,everything in that radius is toast.
Okay, so focussing on 'artistic integrity' and the sacredness of 'the creative vision' as was originally put forward, why is it okay for a publisher to pressure an artist to change up their shit but not the consumer?Monsterfurby said:
Should we go around calling publishers self-entitled, whiny bitches when they force a change on an artist's work?
Meany people have talked about the false advertising, the plot holes ect. However I'd like to bring up the art side of the issue.
Everyone seems to be forgetting one of the authors. That is, the player! In a completely linear game the story is set and the player is just going through the action in the game. But in a game that has a lot of player choice like Mass Effect, the developers have to leave space for the player to make there decisions and finish the games story.
Games are not paintings, they are a collaborative art form and one of those collaborators is the player of the game. Where is there respect? Obliviously not everyone is going to get there version of a "perfect" ending, but I think the developers should still consider the opinions of the community.
There is another aspect to this also, people are not perfect and everyone has there missteps, maybe they honestly thought the ending was good. Gorge Lucas seems to think the Star Wars prequels were good.
Everyone seems to be forgetting one of the authors. That is, the player! In a completely linear game the story is set and the player is just going through the action in the game. But in a game that has a lot of player choice like Mass Effect, the developers have to leave space for the player to make there decisions and finish the games story.
Games are not paintings, they are a collaborative art form and one of those collaborators is the player of the game. Where is there respect? Obliviously not everyone is going to get there version of a "perfect" ending, but I think the developers should still consider the opinions of the community.
There is another aspect to this also, people are not perfect and everyone has there missteps, maybe they honestly thought the ending was good. Gorge Lucas seems to think the Star Wars prequels were good.
Entitled, not self-entitled.RhombusHatesYou said:
Firstly, I do not think that the Publisher (EA)-Creator (BioWare) relationship is very relevant to the discussion.
I put the parenthetical about publisher approval in because I am naturally talking about the state of the published work. So yeah, the publisher has much higher bargaining power than the individual consumer.
Trying to unpack this a bit... I wouldn't say that games, by default, are about "co-creation of content". Certainly, they are only as good as you, the player, find the game experience (co-creation of value), but that does not mean that you, the player, should hold authority over the content. I would see it differently: Although endings and story points are predetermined, the players attach different value to them depending on their gaming experience.Disthron said:
For some players, the ending may be the confirmation of "a job well done", others want to see "what happens to character x". Paintings and movies are not that different - everyone has their own take on their meaning.
That is what I mean by co-creating value (very much in a Marketing sense), not content. Publishers & Developers should consider the opinions of the community as a whole, that means the vocal online part and the customer, i.e. buyer. I think many of those now complaining neglect the latter part.
Of course, she and Bioware is allowed to end the series any way they see fit. Rowling indeed contemplated killing Harry or Ron at the end. But my point still stands, had she choosen to kill everyone at the end, fans wouldn't be happy. She chose an ending, which explained a lot of stuff, tied things together, and gave the readers a closure, that IMO unfortunately cannot be said about ME3.Monsterfurby said:
CAPTCHA: tighty whitey
I think there's a certain responsibility that Bioware had to its fans, not because it was a trilogy or because the fans somehow 'own' it (which seems to be the viewpoint of most of ME's fans), but because they failed to deliver what they advertised - impacts for your choices. But not just that, they've pushed players through 3 games, giving small payoffs like a few credits here and an extra line there, increasing the anticipation of some kind of large payoff. But it doesn't happen. No matter who your Shepard is, you get one of three endings that any Shepard could've gotten. Now this way a little disappointing in Deus Ex: Human Revolution, but that was a single game, not three, and didn't constantly remind players there's be payoffs and consequences somewhere along the line. What they've done is basically allow players to branch out and develop their characters, before discarding all of that as circumstantial. I think you should not have a choice of ending. You should be given an ending, perhaps made of smaller cutscenes reflecting some of your more significant choices, based on your actions. Otherwise it undermines the whole premise of the trilogy.
But then there are the players who went through every game making sure they got nothing wrong, nobody died, they 'did everything right', and now they're sad because there's no ending where the Reapers are defeated forever and all the people who died are resurrected and you get to play in a field of dandelions for the rest of your days, or if you're Renegade, finally shoot that reporter in the head. They want a picture-perfect ending to go with their flawless, spotless, calculated story, and I don't think that's at all what Mass Effect is (sorry was) about. So yes, I think they should change the endings to reflect your choices. There's no reason these current endings couldn't be adapted, just TAKE AWAY THE CHOICE.
And if they wanted to cater to new players, they should've thought of that before leading on such a fanatic fanbase to believe their decisions counted.
But then there are the players who went through every game making sure they got nothing wrong, nobody died, they 'did everything right', and now they're sad because there's no ending where the Reapers are defeated forever and all the people who died are resurrected and you get to play in a field of dandelions for the rest of your days, or if you're Renegade, finally shoot that reporter in the head. They want a picture-perfect ending to go with their flawless, spotless, calculated story, and I don't think that's at all what Mass Effect is (sorry was) about. So yes, I think they should change the endings to reflect your choices. There's no reason these current endings couldn't be adapted, just TAKE AWAY THE CHOICE.
And if they wanted to cater to new players, they should've thought of that before leading on such a fanatic fanbase to believe their decisions counted.
This is a typical argument by a wannabe artist that does not actually understand art. Art is NEVER beyond criticism, and NEVER can an artist just do what they want IF and only IF they make art to sell it to people.
Novel writers cannot just write a terrible novel and expect no criticism or backlash. In fact, novel writers can and do get pressured to fix bad endings. A good example is Sherlock Holmes. Doyle was, in fact, pressured by fans to change the ending. After ten years, he did.
And then he continued to add more classics. Without fan protests, we would not have had several important pieces of literary art.
Game writers are no special snowflake.
I'm really sad that these authors don't understand anything about how art works on a basic level. It's a fundamental disconnect we are observing here.
Actually, it's a good thing. The embarassing bit are people like you, stomping their feet like five year olds about other people using their rights as customers.
Guess what happens during many bad movies in cinemas. People leave in the middle, demand a refund...and get it.
Guess what happens when you go to a restaurant, and you get a half cooked meal. You...get a refund.
It's proper customer behavior. In fact, it is behavior customers should utilize, because this is how capitalism WORKS.
A company that disrespects the wishes of its customers needs to be punished monetarily. It's simply the basis of the entire way our economic system is supposed to play out.
This entire brouhaha really brings out people not getting basic things about art and/or capitalism. It's really sad and makes me fear for the education system of the western world in general.
*sigh*Monsterfurby said:
Just because game media can't use the terms correctly don't expect me to follow their piss poor standards.
Or are you saying that in the case of publishers they're actually entitled to do so because that works.
Yeah, 'bargaining power'... but that just means they have the power to make their wishes happen, it doesn't address whether, from an artistic/creative standpoint, they should force or pressure for changes and that everyone should be fine and dandy with it.
I won't argue that from a business POV Publishers have every right to demand results to spec (within reason - fuck clients who constantly want to change spec)... although there's the whole issue of the differences between commissioning and purchasing a work mixed in at places as well (and is the crucial difference between the 'power' of publishers and consumers).
However, if people are going to defend things on a 'pure art' basis (as was present in the OP) then those things can be criticised on the exact same basis, which is to say, if someone is going to spout off about how sacrosanct the creative talent's vision is then no one should have any right to bring pressure to bear for changes to be made. It's a draw back to almost all commercial creative endeavours where someone else is footing the bill and has, whether they use it or not, the final say on the work, meaning the 'creative talent's vision' is always subordinate to someone else's approval... which is just a long way of saying that under the logic of the 'respect the artist's vision' line of defence the work is already thoroughly compromised.
Of course a 'pure art' defence only shows that you're (generic 'you') either a) an Art For Art's Sake knobber who probably shouldn't be commenting on commercial art or b) grasping at straws.
xXxJessicaxXx said:
No, the relays explosion is clearly contained to only the relay itself. It's nothing like in Arrival where it is barreled by an outside force (the asteroid).
The species' militaries are in the Sol system. That's not everyone. The civilians are still mostly on their home planets or systems near to that.
I don't know why people keep forgetting this basic stuff.
The only thing that you're right about is the Normandy, that sequence made the least sense of all.
The species' militaries are in the Sol system. That's not everyone. The civilians are still mostly on their home planets or systems near to that.
I don't know why people keep forgetting this basic stuff.
The only thing that you're right about is the Normandy, that sequence made the least sense of all.
But, Hudson is right. The story of my Shepard is in all likelyhood completely different from yours. And that's only one of my Shepards. A 'canon' story consists of more than just an ending. For example you might have punched the reporter three times while my Shep just tried to convince her to play for the right team. Does that make even a tiny bit of difference to the galaxy as a whole? No. But it's still part of the story. That's what a 'canon' is.SpiderJerusalem said:
63,000 people is more than enough of a sample to demonstrate a trend. Most people won't take the time to join facebook groups, donate to protests, or answer polls (I haven't done either of the first two), but that doesn't mean the only people who feel that way are the ones who have done so. Of 63,000 people, 2% thought the endings were 'fine as is'. One person in fifty. That is a problem for Bioware.Muphin_Mann said:
To assert that with a sample size that large the people who dislike the ending are just a vocal minority is absolutely ridiculous.
Well, thanks for not replying to any of my points at all and instead just reiterating what you said before. Especially that line about 'forcing the players to pick one of something Bioware has written'. Just think about that for a little while. What have you been doing for the past three games?SpiderJerusalem said: