BioShock Creator "Sad" Over ME3's Ending Scandal

[webkilla]

I would be the first to argue that the mass effect series is a good example of art

but the ending to mass effect 3 would be a bit like spending several years making the mona lisa - then finishing by making a trollface smile on her.

sure, its still art - but it also distorts the entirety of the art piece into something else.

again, that's still art - but if an artist is supposed to live off his work, he needs to make something that people will want to buy.

games are tricky in this sense. They're art - yes - but they're interactive art. This means that the art has to harmonize with the players, the consumers, the paying art-lovers.

plus, in a museum or art house - people pay to come in and see the art, but they'll often see advertisements and know fairly well what they're getting in to see

with a game there's never the same certainty. A trailer is one thing, but with games you buy the whole package first - then play through it without really knowing its artistic value. Only in the end can you evaluate it.

this was how bioware snuck the shit ending in. you thought you were getting a good product - but got... less.

 

[Kanatatsu]

GAMES ARE NOT ART.

They are a consumer entertainment product.

The goal being, y'know, to PLEASE THE CONSUMER.

 

[insanity00]

So, I have yet to see this brought up, I figured it would be worth pointing out.

Has anyone read Great Expectations? If not, it is widely considered one of Charles Dickens' greatest novels. Whether or not you have read it, I bring it up because it was in many ways similar to modern video games, DLC, and fan participation. Each chapter in the book was published singularly and by the time Dickens got around to this one he had a huge following that eagerly awaited each addition to the story. Including Queen Victoria.

Most modern copies of the book have two endings. The story goes that Dickens friend and editor Edward Bulwer-Lytton told him that his ending was too sad and that everyone wanted to see the main character get together with the girl. So he changed it, in my mind for the worse. After reading the two endings, the original fits with the story far better than the "happier" ending that feels contrived and like useless fans service.

Which brings me to my point. If the writers and developers at Bioware feel like the ending that exists conforms to their artistic and desired visions for the game (whether or not the gamer feels that their choices contributed) then they should leave it. Period.
If however Bioware feel's like they were rushed, that they were not allowed to provide the closure or ending they had originally intended, or that the entire ending was contrived in an attempt to meet a deadline, then take to time to create an ending that fits with your vision.

However I urge you Bioware...Please DO NOT change the ending MERELY because some people feel robbed. Ken is right, to do so is unfair to yourselves, to the fans, and to the medium we enjoy. This decision must be based on YOUR story, not OUR inability to accept something we don't like. Otherwise you create a precedent that ruins the legitimacy of story telling in games for the near future.

 

[SanguineSymphony]

GAMES ARE NOT ART.

They are a consumer entertainment product.

The goal being, y'know, to PLEASE THE CONSUMER.

Most art is at some level commercial. Its the threshold of mass appeal and returns that's important. That threshold is generally decided by the benefactors of the art itself (in this case EA). Also in this case that threshold is quite high and if Bioware wishes to keep their lucrative financing they have to appease and appeal to the numbers EA has set forth.

Or else if they continue a trend of not meeting consumer expectations and sales dwindle significantly their budget will be cut and they may have a hard time finding a publisher. That's more than likely quite a ways into the future if ever but it only takes a single large misstep to push them into that direction.

So, I have yet to see this brought up, I figured it would be worth pointing out.

Has anyone read Great Expectations? If not, it is widely considered one of Charles Dickens' greatest novels. Whether or not you have read it, I bring it up because it was in many ways similar to modern video games, DLC, and fan participation. Each chapter in the book was published singularly and by the time Dickens got around to this one he had a huge following that eagerly awaited each addition to the story. Including Queen Victoria.

Most modern copies of the book have two endings. The story goes that Dickens friend and editor Edward Bulwer-Lytton told him that his ending was too sad and that everyone wanted to see the main character get together with the girl. So he changed it, in my mind for the worse. After reading the two endings, the original fits with the story far better than the "happier" ending that feels contrived and like useless fans service.

Which brings me to my point. If the writers and developers at Bioware feel like the ending that exists conforms to their artistic and desired visions for the game (whether or not the gamer feels that their choices contributed) then they should leave it. Period.
If however Bioware feel's like they were rushed, that they were not allowed to provide the closure or ending they had originally intended, or that the entire ending was contrived in an attempt to meet a deadline, then take to time to create an ending that fits with your vision.

However I urge you Bioware...Please DO NOT change the ending MERELY because some people feel robbed. Ken is right, to do so is unfair to yourselves, to the fans, and to the medium we enjoy. This decision must be based on YOUR story, not OUR inability to accept something we don't like. Otherwise you create a precedent that ruins the legitimacy of story telling in games for the near future.

but with both examples you have provided both endings are theoretically available... If I were watching a film (let's take Terry Gilliam's Brazil as an example) and I had the hack fanservice version or the true artistic version chances are quite good I would at least start with the true version of the production and look at the producer's/fan's cut as what it is. Bonus material.

It only really matters when you sever the thread of the original intent with no way of accessing it (within the material itself I don't want to have to pay extra to get the originally intended version of a product/work of art)

 

[DANEgerous]

GAMES ARE NOT ART.

They are a consumer entertainment product.

And art is not a consumer entertainment product? I would beg to differ art is just entrainment with meaning and it's sum value is it's message and entertainment value.

Mass Effect 3's message? Nothing matters... all your choice means nothing whatsoever. No a good message when you promise is "what you do matters" and it's entertainment is 100 hours you though built a story when the end is just fad to black, fun while it lasted but in the end a waste.

 

[Kanatatsu]

GAMES ARE NOT ART.

They are a consumer entertainment product.

And art is not a consumer entertainment product? I would beg to differ art is just entrainment with meaning and it's sum value is it's message and entertainment value.

You're missing the point. Entirely.

 

[wintercoat]

GAMES ARE NOT ART.

They are a consumer entertainment product.

The goal being, y'know, to PLEASE THE CONSUMER.

Correct. Games, at their core, are not art. A game can be artistic, if that is it's primary aim. Mass Effect's aim was never to be artistic. It's at the same level of an action flick with above-average dialog and character development. For them to stick in an "artistic" ending is like ending Rambo with a philosophic discussion on the condition of man. Ludicrous and against what it was building up to.

 

[Sansha]

The majority of people aren't mad about the "sad" or "downer" nature of the endings, god damnit. People are mad that they spent 100+ hours on a series, only for every single choice they made to be thrown out the window and not make a single damn difference in the end.

This, of course, is after we were told that our choices actually would matter.

I agree with this - however, I also believe Bioware should be allowed to have total creative control over their franchise and write it however they please, without such a flood of criticism.

It's disappointing that there isn't an ending that's a little... happier, or more based around one's choices from ME1 and ME2, mind, but I don't think Bioware should be criticized for their decision.

 

[insanity00]

but with both examples you have provided both endings are theoretically available... If I were watching a film (let's take Terry Gilliam's Brazil as an example) and I had the hack fanservice version or the true artistic version chances are quite good I would at least start with the true version of the production and look at the producer's/fan's cut as what it is. Bonus material.

It only really matters when you sever the thread of the original intent with no way of accessing it (within the material itself I don't want to have to pay extra to get the originally intended version of a product/work of art)

Unfortunately, the original version did not provide both endings. Only the hackneyed ending went out, and even in modern copies that ending is in the book while the original is tacked onto the end. Though I'm not sure many people (including Dickens) were worried about the artistic vision of Dickens works.

What you suggest is likely what we will see happen. You want to see a different ending, buy the DLC. I would very much like to know if the devs and writers truly feel that the ending that exists is what they wanted it to be.

 

[bimon_1234567]

'"I think if those people got what they wanted and (BioWare) wrote their ending they would be very disappointed in the emotional feeling they got because ... they didn't really create it," Levine said.'

Lol wut?!?

Okay Mr Levine I get it, you are feeling defensive because you want games to be considered the same way as books or movies. I really get it, I sympathize.

To some extent I want the same thing, but you are forgetting some tiny fact: Games provide the consumer with agency in regard to the story. Books and movies almost never do.

ME3 provides that same agency as well up until the last ten minutes when it turns into a giant middle finger. That is quite a rude thing to do and people are simply reacting to that.

 

[LadyTL]

There are times that I think Bioware's biggest mistake was in giving an ounce of credit to its fans...

RED BLUE OR GREEN BLARHGALELGH!

Seriously people. Destroy all synthetic life, assume control of the Reapers, or fuse all synthetic and organic life into a new paradigm. The implications for each ending are vastly different, and people are instead preferring to harp on the fact that the cutscenes were pretty much the same, albeit with different colors.

They are the same since if you never know the effects of the choice all you have is the same cuscene to find out what happened.

 

[Raesvelg]

They are the same since if you never know the effects of the choice all you have is the same cuscene to find out what happened.

No. Sorry, but that's still ridiculous.

That's akin to saying that War & Peace has the same ending as whatever the last book in the Twilight saga is, simply because we don't get to see every ramification of every event that took place in the preceding text.

Now, I wholeheartedly agree that the ending would have been improved, and probably vastly more palatable to the people who are currently sharpening their pitchforks, if they'd included a little denouement wherein we got to see the ramifications of our choice. But to simply declare the endings identical because we didn't is intellectual laziness.

 

[Raesvelg]

GAMES ARE NOT ART.

They are a consumer entertainment product.

The goal being, y'know, to PLEASE THE CONSUMER.

MOVIES ARE NOT ART.

They are a consumer entertainment product.

The goal being, y'know, to PLEASE THE CONSUMER.

Or, oh wait...

BOOKS ARE NOT ART.

They are a consumer entertainment product.

The goal being, y'know, to PLEASE THE CONSUMER.

Or how about...

ART IS NOT ART.

It is a consumer entertainment product.

The goal being, y'know, to PLEASE THE CONSUMER.

Art is where you find it, in the form you find it, and can mean different things to different people. Not all games are art, no, but as a medium it deserves the same consideration as less interactive forms of media.

Hell, by my standards, not all art is art. Including almost the entirety of "modern" art...

 

[LadyTL]

They are the same since if you never know the effects of the choice all you have is the same cuscene to find out what happened.

No. Sorry, but that's still ridiculous.

That's akin to saying that War & Peace has the same ending as whatever the last book in the Twilight saga is, simply because we don't get to see every ramification of every event that took place in the preceding text.

Now, I wholeheartedly agree that the ending would have been improved, and probably vastly more palatable to the people who are currently sharpening their pitchforks, if they'd included a little denouement wherein we got to see the ramifications of our choice. But to simply declare the endings identical because we didn't is intellectual laziness.

A Little text and dialogue doesn't make them different either. The endings after the choice are almost exactly the same. Shepard dies the same way, the Normandy ends up in the same cutscene the same way, the battle on earth is shown the same way, the crucible explodes the same way, the mass relays end up the same way. How does adding a different color give you a different ending?

 

[Raesvelg]

A Little text and dialogue doesn't make them different either. The endings after the choice are almost exactly the same. Shepard dies the same way, the Normandy ends up in the same cutscene the same way, the battle on earth is shown the same way, the crucible explodes the same way, the mass relays end up the same way. How does adding a different color give you a different ending?

/twitch

Did you not stop to think about the ramifications of the different endings, or did you just buy into the whole self-righteous ragefest surrounding the BLARHGHLEL RED BLUE GREEN nonsense?

Seriously, if you can't figure out why a.) destroying all synthetic life forms, thus clearing the current slate while leaving the table open for the sort of synthetic revolt that would destroy all organic life (and the fear of which led to the creation of the Reapers in the first place), b.) Shepard becoming the new god-king of the Reapers apparently, which seems all peachy-keen except that one doubts it's as simple as the Reapers just doing whatever Shep wants without protest, and what happens if Shep gets tired, or dies, or w/e, and c.) combining all forms of life into a new hybrid technorganic paradigm, whether they like it or not, are different endings, then maybe you should stop playing video games and focus on material more at your level.

Like "See Spot Run".

 

[Apollo45]

It's their product to leave as is or change, just as it was their project to develop. Unfortunately, he used J.K. Rowling as an example, and in that case he's incorrect. An author has to go through multiple revisions, months of them, in order to get a book published. It's easier for an established author writing a series, but even then it's not completely up to that author how the book ends. If the author tries to pull something ridiculous (for example, Rowling having Harry wake up at the end of the series in his cupboard to it all having been a dream), they'll be laughed at and told to change the damned ending.

Same thing should have happened here. The ending did almost exactly what you're informed never, ever to do when writing a story. By doing what it did, nothing that the protagonist (in this case, you) had accomplished earlier in the story mattered. You could have gotten all the resources and bulked up the military to full strength or you could have walked in there nekkid flying a derelict transport and the ending would have been the same. It introduced a major new character, pulled some shit out of its ass, and wrapped up the story in a way that had never been hinted at, or shown, or thought about up until it was happening. It changed the main character in a major way at the end, it decided to let every other character drop off the face of the Earth (or, in this case, the Galaxy), and in general it made a mockery of the two games before it, the fanbase, and every good twist ending ever made.

What Bioware doesn't seem to realize, which surprises me, is that good twists follow lots of build up. They're planned, little hints are dropped throughout the story, and after you find out what happened you can go back, look through the story, and see where that ending was being developed. In this? It's almost laughable how pulled-out-of-the-ass it was.

Maybe, instead of thinking of us as whining fans (which we are, I won't deny that... But we're whiny for a reason), he should relate us to a book's publisher. Bioware/EA showed us a rough draft of the ending, and we laughed at it and told them to go back and change the damned thing. Now, hopefully, they're doing just that.

 

[lowkey_jotunn]

Ken Levine and other videogame auteurs respect the finished product.

I don't mean to assault a horse -especially a dead one- but the product plainly wasn't complete. The "ending" wasn't really an ending at all.

Bingo, and not just the ending ... the whole Day 1 DLC thing.

Even if you, for some reason, loved the ending. Thought it wrapped things up in a tidy little bow and you are completely satisfied... this game is NOT a finished product.


The worst part about he advent of DLC: sell now, finish it later.

Here's what I want: DLC that explored other non-Shep stuff. Anderson's resistance on earth, Hackett's fights, hell building the crucible could be a fun little DLC. Play the Citadel II mission from Ashley/Kaiden's perspective. Those are DLCs I can get behind. But to add a squadmate, arguable the MOST storyline-vital squadmate, as DLC is complete garbage. To call this game "complete" is disingenuous at best, an outright lie at most-likely

Edit: Also disingenuous is the line about "dividing the player base." To divide, imo, implies that both sides are somewhat evenly balanced. Maybe not perfectly, but something resembling a 50/50 split. The mass effect ending did not divide anyone I know. There is firmly one camp: The ending is bad. Opinions range from "eh, could be worse, but certainly not good" all the way up to rage induced rants, video game returns and other silly behavior... but despite the varying degrees of unhappy, everyone I know or talk to about video games has stood clearly on the "not good" side of this alleged divide.

 

[AcacianLeaves]

They're so right, I mean can you imagine if Michelangelo constantly changed and revised his art after being criticized by his patrons? Wouldn't it be crazy if Mozart changed his music in order to please his clientele? Or if Ridley Scott had decided that he wasn't happy with Blade Runner, and released some sort of insane "Director's Cut" that was WAY better? Games are art, and should never be altered after the fact - just like Fallout 3.

It feels like half the gaming industry forgot that there is such a thing as BAD ART, and that artists have (until recently) ALWAYS had to appeal to their patronage.

Mass Effect 3's ending is BAD. Art is not beyond criticism, and artists are not divine. Customers are their patrons, and we have every right to say to them "If you don't change this, you'll lose me as a customer".

They don't HAVE to change anything, we don't HAVE to buy their products, and we don't HAVE to like something for it to still be considered "art".

And if Video Games as an art form are so immutable - why do we allow publishers like EA to alter them? Why do we allow editorial mandate to exist? What's worse, customers complaining because your art was bad after you finish it - or publishers demanding you change your art in order to appeal to their target demographic and sell more DLC?

 

[AcacianLeaves]

May I also point out that the strangest thing about this whole situation has been people complaining about being "attacked" by people who didn't like the ending. Everything I've seen has been 99% constructive criticism from those unhappy with the end.

On the other hand people who are fine with the ending seem to always resort to insults. Some form of "You're too stupid to get it" is the most popular. I could probably find a dozen insults along those lines in this thread without even trying.

If you find yourself attacking the messenger, not the message - you may need to rethink your position or just agree to disagree.