BioWare Co-Founder Promises Closure For Mass Effect 3

[klaynexas3]

i just thought of something. what if the endings were supposed to all be the same to convey a message about that? what if it was there to say that, no matter what you do, some things are inevitable? even if certain things happened before hand, and some conditions were different in a situation, what if the out come couldn't change? maybe that was the message, and people were filled with so much nerd rage that they couldn't see the big picture of it all. it's a somber ending, not meant to make you feel accomplished or happy, but to remind you that some things you simply can't change. i suppose, if that was what it meant, bioware won't change the endings themselves. they may build off of it to continue a story, but what happened at the end is what happened, nothing will change that. at least, that will be their response if that was the message of the ending. that's how i'm perceiving it, and hopefully when i start playing mass effect, i'll get to experience the ending myself, and understand the anger more and be able to tell for myself if the ending was either strong with a built in message, or lazy writing.

 

[Don quixote's mule]

Don't suppose you watched Jim Sterlings video regarding art games did you?

I ask because your posts strikes me as the kind of post I'd expect to hear from the same kind of people that Jim mentions at the end of said video.

You should give it a look if you haven't already.

I don't typically watch him, unless given very good provocation. I gave him a shot when he first showed up here but fond that his work, specifically his older stuff panders to a certain "arrogant through insistence" demographic.

While yes I did like the ending, and want to debate the game's merits. The real issue here is the future of the medium. Bioware caved, therefore setting the precedence that Video games have no value above being toys. If a game can be changed by fan outcry then it quickly becomes a stagnant medium. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, share it debate and discuss. I would even suggest taking what you learned from the game and those discussions and go tell your own story, but unless you worked on the piece in question that opinion is not entitled to rewrite someone else's work.

 

[anthony87]

Don't suppose you watched Jim Sterlings video regarding art games did you?

I ask because your posts strikes me as the kind of post I'd expect to hear from the same kind of people that Jim mentions at the end of said video.

You should give it a look if you haven't already.

I don't typically watch him, unless given very good provocation. I gave him a shot when he first showed up here but fond that his work, specifically his older stuff panders to a certain "arrogant through insistence" demographic.

While yes I did like the ending, and want to debate the game's merits. The real issue here is the future of the medium. Bioware caved, therefore setting the precedence that Video games have no value above being toys. If a game can be changed by fan outcry then it quickly becomes a stagnant medium. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, share it debate and discuss. I would even suggest taking what you learned from the game and those discussions and go tell your own story, but unless you worked on the piece in question that opinion is not entitled to rewrite someone else's work.

People didn't like how Fallout 3 ended. Broken Steel was released, thereby changing the ending. People didn't like how Cole looked for Infamous 2. Sucker Punch redesigned him. This isn't the first time a developer has "caved" because of fans reactions to something.

 

[Don quixote's mule]

People didn't like how Fallout 3 ended. Broken Steel was released, thereby changing the ending. People didn't like how Cole looked for Infamous 2. Sucker Punch redesigned him. This isn't the first time a developer has "caved" because of fans reactions to something.

"Broken Steel" was a continuation of Fallout 3, they did not go back and rewrite the ending. ME2 had arrival which was a different ending point for that game. For that matter WoW's wrath of the Litch king is technically a new ending for Warcraft 3. As for Cole, I have never played Infamous or Infamous 2, but I would ask you how much does the new appearance change the story of the game? Most modern games allow some variable amount of customization in the character creation, but it barely effects game play.

The difference here is that they are talking about changing the existing story. Not Bioware releasing an epilogue mission that continues the story or making another game that explores what happened, while Shepard was doing his/her thing, No this is saying that undoing a completed story because a bunch of their louder fans are too stupid or single minded to interrupt a complex metaphor. If there's any hope of video games becoming a respected medium, this action goes a long ways towards squashing that hope. You do not fuck with a completed piece!

 

[anthony87]

No this is saying that undoing a completed story because a bunch of their louder fans are too stupid or single minded to interrupt a complex metaphor. If there's any hope of video games becoming a respected medium, this action goes a long ways towards squashing that hope.

So what? The ending was great it's just that the majority(seemingly anyway) of people who played it are too stupid to understand it? Sorry dude but between that and the first post of yours I quoted you're just coming off and more and more stuck up and pretentious.

You do not fuck with a completed piece!

Completed piece? How completed is something when at the end you're given a message saying "Oh and be sure to buy our DLC!"

I'll admit that the kind of people who go about starting lawsuits and whatnot are idiots but people like you who are all "Games are art! Games must be recognised and respected! Anyone who doesn't think this is an idiot!" are just bad for the medium as you claim everyone else is.

 

[croc3629]

What I'm wondering is if they're going to release a patch that adds in extra endings for the game, or if it will be DLC that a player must pay for to experience. Because if Bioware believes that they messed up enough that they need to add in additional scenes to have the endings be more satisfying to their fans, and they charge for that as DLC anyway, than I certainly can't see myself ever getting the game.

Edit: It might be a bit more tolerable if they add in some extra content besides the ending change that expanded gameplay and added more to do in the galaxy, but I still can't say I'd be willing to purchase it. This whole business has kind of soured me on the experience anyway, which may be too bad since the game itself doesn't look all that terrible.

 

[egrutt]

Maybe the "new happy ending" will only be a $10 DLC.

 

[Warachia]

Don't suppose you watched Jim Sterlings video regarding art games did you?

I ask because your posts strikes me as the kind of post I'd expect to hear from the same kind of people that Jim mentions at the end of said video.

You should give it a look if you haven't already.

I don't typically watch him, unless given very good provocation. I gave him a shot when he first showed up here but fond that his work, specifically his older stuff panders to a certain "arrogant through insistence" demographic.

While yes I did like the ending, and want to debate the game's merits. The real issue here is the future of the medium. Bioware caved, therefore setting the precedence that Video games have no value above being toys. If a game can be changed by fan outcry then it quickly becomes a stagnant medium. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, share it debate and discuss. I would even suggest taking what you learned from the game and those discussions and go tell your own story, but unless you worked on the piece in question that opinion is not entitled to rewrite someone else's work.

Then according to you films are not anything more than flashy pictures and books are nothing more than text, several times an ending is changed due to negative audience feedback, and this isn't even the first time an ending change like this has happened, MGS4, snake was supposed to kill himself, but due to negative feedback ended up living, fallout 3, you end up dying in the good route in a bullshit ending that was about as bad as this one (in my opinion as I'm not going to debate it), but due to negative feedback, that was changed, even books have been changed due to a negative audience, and theatre plays were also changed, changing something in a medium doesn't mean it stops being art.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

"Broken Steel" was a continuation of Fallout 3, they did not go back and rewrite the ending.

Yeah they did, they went and rewrote Fawkes' dialogue, chopping out all the 'it's your destiny' shite, and put in the option to have his radiation loving arse go punch the buttons.

 

[Don quixote's mule]

No this is saying that undoing a completed story because a bunch of their louder fans are too stupid or single minded to interrupt a complex metaphor. If there's any hope of video games becoming a respected medium, this action goes a long ways towards squashing that hope.

So what? The ending was great it's just that the majority(seemingly anyway) of people who played it are too stupid to understand it? Sorry dude but between that and the first post of yours I quoted you're just coming off and more and more stuck up and pretentious.

You do not fuck with a completed piece!

Completed piece? How completed is something when at the end you're given a message saying "Oh and be sure to buy our DLC!"

I'll admit that the kind of people who go about starting lawsuits and whatnot are idiots but people like you who are all "Games are art! Games must be recognised and respected! Anyone who doesn't think this is an idiot!" are just bad for the medium as you claim everyone else is.

In this case I am pretentious and stuck. What I/we am witnessing is a horde of morons strangling a medium in its crib. Frankly, I don't care if people think the ending was good, I don't care if other people think games are/can be art. What I do care about is that people are actively destroying the possibility that games will ever be considered art, and it is because the game doesn't make obvious sense to them. The damage that is being done here is far more extensive than what happens to ME3's ending. Artistic integrity is something that is hard earned and to so publicly forsake it like this is tragic.

 

[Don quixote's mule]

Then according to you films are not anything more than flashy pictures and books are nothing more than text, several times an ending is changed due to negative audience feedback, and this isn't even the first time an ending change like this has happened, MGS4, snake was supposed to kill himself, but due to negative feedback ended up living, fallout 3, you end up dying in the good route in a bullshit ending that was about as bad as this one (in my opinion as I'm not going to debate it), but due to negative feedback, that was changed, even books have been changed due to a negative audience, and theatre plays were also changed, changing something in a medium doesn't mean it stops being art.

First of all, please site specific examples in regards to the film, play, and book claims. I am well aware that movies go through a test screening process, however that is a part of the movie's production. Director's cuts are not evidence of rewriting either. They are director driven and not public influenced. books have a similar process where the editor reads over the piece and sends back notes. There are a few cases where authors do rewrites because they are not happy with the story. Dickens revised "A Christmas Carol" almost annually, but that was of his own volition and had nothing to do with public outcry. A lot of test screening is done especially in modern entertainment because this shit is expensive to make, and yes there is feed back given at that time, but that is still part of the production process. I actually am having a hard time finding examples of this public opinion changing works of art literature or film after it has been released, outside of religious influence, decency laws, or other forms of government intervention.

Letting the world see Gamers throw a giant public temper-tantrum, then be indulged by EA/Bioware damages the credibility of the medium and lifestyle.

 

[AngryBritishAce]

I really hope they don't change it. I haven't played it yet, but I don't think it's possible to maintain artistic integrity if they go back and rework their work just because a bunch of people don't like it.

Well if you don't like it, don't download the DLC. That simple. And if a majority of the people don't like it why shouldn't they do what they want? People often say "it's their game" but since when did they make Mass Effect 3 for themselves? If they are taking our money then we should all have a say in it. We need to show people like EA that we aren't all mindless sheep who will buy any title with a number on the end of and except any of the sloppy writing they throw at us. Arhtur Conan Doyle changed the ending of the last Sherlock Holmes story to please his fans, why should it be different for video games?

 

[Warachia]

Then according to you films are not anything more than flashy pictures and books are nothing more than text, several times an ending is changed due to negative audience feedback, and this isn't even the first time an ending change like this has happened, MGS4, snake was supposed to kill himself, but due to negative feedback ended up living, fallout 3, you end up dying in the good route in a bullshit ending that was about as bad as this one (in my opinion as I'm not going to debate it), but due to negative feedback, that was changed, even books have been changed due to a negative audience, and theatre plays were also changed, changing something in a medium doesn't mean it stops being art.

First of all, please site specific examples in regards to the film, play, and book claims. I am well aware that movies go through a test screening process, however that is a part of the movie's production. Director's cuts are not evidence of rewriting either. They are director driven and not public influenced. books have a similar process where the editor reads over the piece and sends back notes. There are a few cases where authors do rewrites because they are not happy with the story. Dickens revised "A Christmas Carol" almost annually, but that was of his own volition and had nothing to do with public outcry. A lot of test screening is done especially in modern entertainment because this shit is expensive to make, and yes there is feed back given at that time, but that is still part of the production process. I actually am having a hard time finding examples of this public opinion changing works of art literature or film after it has been released, outside of religious influence, decency laws, or other forms of government intervention.

Letting the world see Gamers throw a giant public temper-tantrum, then be indulged by EA/Bioware damages the credibility of the medium and lifestyle.

A major one for films was Highlander 2: the Quickening, after its release, they went back and reshot scenes to change a major part of the movie, whoops, guess we regressed on that one didn't we?
For theatre plays, this was more when a person was paid to write a play, and if the person paying him didn't like it, he would change it any way he wanted, I can't think of any examples off the top of my head though, for books being rewritten,
this is more like the movies where a test audience was used, but its different because books aren't nearly as much a collaborative effort as games or film, which is why I hold that up as changing it, although I can't think of specific examples I know you can find plenty with google.

But when you think about it, does it damage the credibility as much as people making entire re cuts of films they didn't like specifically to suite their taste? If that isn't indulgent than I don't know what is.
Captcha: know your rights

EDIT: for books you only need to look as far as that one terrible error filled mass effect novel, and if you include retcons, the sherlock holmes books, I guess we sent the medium way back with those.

 

[sir.rutthed]

I really hope they don't change it. I haven't played it yet, but I don't think it's possible to maintain artistic integrity if they go back and rework their work just because a bunch of people don't like it.

Well if you don't like it, don't download the DLC. That simple. And if a majority of the people don't like it why shouldn't they do what they want? People often say "it's their game" but since when did they make Mass Effect 3 for themselves? If they are taking our money then we should all have a say in it. We need to show people like EA that we aren't all mindless sheep who will buy any title with a number on the end of and except any of the sloppy writing they throw at us. Arhtur Conan Doyle changed the ending of the last Sherlock Holmes story to please his fans, why should it be different for video games?

An artistic product should NEVER be changed because of popular outcry. Never. If you view some medium as an artistic achievement you are paying for the artist's work and his interpretation of the subject matter. The creators made what they made with something very specific in mind, but the only thing anyone seems to care about is how little their choices mattered in the end. Well you know what? Life's a lot like that. Sometimes no matter what you do shit happens and there's nothing you can do to stop or change it. Maybe that's what they're trying to say here.

 

[Don quixote's mule]

A major one for films was Highlander 2: the Quickening, after its release, they went back and reshot scenes to change a major part of the movie, whoops, guess we regressed on that one didn't we?
For theatre plays, this was more when a person was paid to write a play, and if the person paying him didn't like it, he would change it any way he wanted, I can't think of any examples off the top of my head though, for books being rewritten,
this is more like the movies where a test audience was used, but its different because books aren't nearly as much a collaborative effort as games or film, which is why I hold that up as changing it, although I can't think of specific examples I know you can find plenty with google.

But when you think about it, does it damage the credibility as much as people making entire re cuts of films they didn't like specifically to suite their taste? If that isn't indulgent than I don't know what is.
Captcha: know your rights

EDIT: for books you only need to look as far as that one terrible error filled mass effect novel, and if you include retcons, the Sherlock Holmes books, I guess we sent the medium way back with those.

So Highlander 2 is your go to movie example? The movie was already a joke. It would never be called up as an example of cinematic achievement, the way The God Father or Citizen Cane are. A video game comparison would be Duke Nukem Forever. Not all works are created equal. Mass Effect has an amazing spotlight put on it that extends beyond the video game industry, what happens to it carries more weight than other niche games.

But when you think about it, does it damage the credibility as much as people making entire re cuts of films they didn't like specifically to suite their taste? If that isn't indulgent than I don't know what is.

Ok This point is a little strange. If you are referring to things like Cleanflix or fan made re-cuts. They fall under a different category of use. They are technically re-imaginings of the work, done by a third party. The studio does not have a hand in this. Typically studios don't even really condone it. They rarely do anything about it because there is protection under the fair use part of free speech. Of course if the new work infringes on the original's profitability or reputation the studio or publisher then has ground to seek legal action, and often does. That is what happened to Cleanflix, they were presenting their versions of the movies as the actual movies.

As for your stage theatre example "patrons" as they were called had that right, they fulfilled the role of publisher. They funded the production that gave them the privilege to make editorial remarks.

I will admit that I know very little about the Sherlock Holmes series, and would be ill-equipped to comment on the subject, however one of my friends is doing his thesis on Doyle. I'll have to ask him about the example before addressing that point.

 

[Warachia]

A major one for films was Highlander 2: the Quickening, after its release, they went back and reshot scenes to change a major part of the movie, whoops, guess we regressed on that one didn't we?
For theatre plays, this was more when a person was paid to write a play, and if the person paying him didn't like it, he would change it any way he wanted, I can't think of any examples off the top of my head though, for books being rewritten,
this is more like the movies where a test audience was used, but its different because books aren't nearly as much a collaborative effort as games or film, which is why I hold that up as changing it, although I can't think of specific examples I know you can find plenty with google.

But when you think about it, does it damage the credibility as much as people making entire re cuts of films they didn't like specifically to suite their taste? If that isn't indulgent than I don't know what is.
Captcha: know your rights

EDIT: for books you only need to look as far as that one terrible error filled mass effect novel, and if you include retcons, the Sherlock Holmes books, I guess we sent the medium way back with those.

So Highlander 2 is your go to movie example? The movie was already a joke. It would never be called up as an example of cinematic achievement, the way The God Father or Citizen Cane are. A video game comparison would be Duke Nukem Forever. Not all works are created equal. Mass Effect has an amazing spotlight put on it that extends beyond the video game industry, what happens to it carries more weight than other niche games.

Oh bullshit, you can't ask for an example, than berate the person for giving you exactly what you asked for, regardless of how bad the thing in question was, besides, when it came out, there was a spotlight on it, it was widely anticipated because of how great the first film was and how much of an impact it left, which was why the second was such a massive disappointment, how is that not similar?

As for your stage theatre example "patrons" as they were called had that right, they fulfilled the role of publisher. They funded the production that gave them the privilege to make editorial remarks.

And now we call a lot of those pieces art, the main reason I brought that up is because of all the people in the comments claiming that art is not a product, that art is created for its own sake, when almost all great works of art that we know today, are products, although I'll drop it because, like that recut video argument, I agree with you.

I will admit that I know very little about the Sherlock Holmes series, and would be ill-equipped to comment on the subject, however one of my friends is doing his thesis on Doyle. I'll have to ask him about the example before addressing that point.

I think there is an interesting argument that somebody could make about properties and the use of retconning in them, if an author goes back to change something that already happened, would you say it diminishes everything as a whole?

 

[AngryBritishAce]

I really hope they don't change it. I haven't played it yet, but I don't think it's possible to maintain artistic integrity if they go back and rework their work just because a bunch of people don't like it.

Well if you don't like it, don't download the DLC. That simple. And if a majority of the people don't like it why shouldn't they do what they want? People often say "it's their game" but since when did they make Mass Effect 3 for themselves? If they are taking our money then we should all have a say in it. We need to show people like EA that we aren't all mindless sheep who will buy any title with a number on the end of and except any of the sloppy writing they throw at us. Arhtur Conan Doyle changed the ending of the last Sherlock Holmes story to please his fans, why should it be different for video games?

An artistic product should NEVER be changed because of popular outcry. Never. If you view some medium as an artistic achievement you are paying for the artist's work and his interpretation of the subject matter. The creators made what they made with something very specific in mind, but the only thing anyone seems to care about is how little their choices mattered in the end. Well you know what? Life's a lot like that. Sometimes no matter what you do shit happens and there's nothing you can do to stop or change it. Maybe that's what they're trying to say here.

I notice you refer to the game as "art." I am not one of those people who believe that video games are not an art form and will never be, but I also don't like how EVERY game has to have deep philosophical meaning spewing out of every orifice or it's not a good game. Now yes, I would admit under most circumstances nothing should be changed because people don't like it. However, when something is badly written and poorly exucuted, I would find it hard to side with the artist in question. You know what else is considered art? Building a shed, taking it apart, rebuild it as a boat, take it apart again and rebuilding it back as a shed. The piece of art is literally called "Shed-Boat-Shed." If a group of people started bashing that, asking the artist to create a better piece of art, I would agree with the audience. Why? Because it's not good and took very little skill to put it together.

And another thing, gamers, suprisingly, don't always buy a game to view it as art. Most gamers buy games to feel better about themselves, to escape from the tedious shackles of life. We don't depression and death seeping into the one place we can escape into. We bought an epic sci-fi game where you are the hero to save the galaxy, if we wanted art we'd buy Limbo, or Dear Esther. Now I'm not saying that the ending should be "WOW SHEPARD! YOU KILLED ALL THE REAPERS AND BROUGHT BACK EVERYONE WHO DIED! LET'S ALL GO AND GET SOME ICECREAM!" In fact I'd be disapointed if the ending was super happy and didn't give over SOME sort of message (any message in any form... as long as it's relevant). But we should have that choice, even if it requires 100+ hours of sidequests and minigames. Even an ending where everyone EXCEPT Shepard, earth and the Normandy lives and rebuilds the galaxy would be better than what we got already (everyone dies, the end). What we want is closure, we want to feel that what we did had an impact on this fictional world, as if we actually did something to make a difference. And why can't we have a happy ending anyway? What in earth wrote the law that says "All art must be extremely depressing and must bring people down no matter what!" Art, like games, is about escaping from life. To get away from the tedious shackles... huh... well I guess Games really ARE art. But as I said, art does not equal "sad." You can still have an "artistic" ending where Shepard lives and reunites with his/ her love interest or the rest of your squad. A tender moment where Shepard stands in the ruins of earth, embracing the LI of your choice, that is artiscally POWERFUL. It adds closure and isn't super depressing, but it still fills the player with emotions they might even not known they had.

This is a RPG where we can decide the fate of an entire galaxy. We want to fight alongside fellow aliens and destroy all those who will do us harm. Gamers want this because, yes, you are right, life is hard and nothing always goes the way we planned. Why should we feel crappy in game as well as out of game? Yes, BioWare have every right to end this (amazing) series as they see fit. And we don't WANT some snotty nerd who knows little about constructing a story rewrite the ending so he gets to f*** all the Asari in the universe. We just want what we were promised, a choice in how our games end, which not only BioWare failed to deliver, but also failed to deliver the ending that they actually used rather than what they promised. I hate this entire affair. The raging fanboys rating this game AS LOW AS A 1 because of 5 minutes at the end of the game. I hate all the would-be art critics who seem to think inconsistant ramblings and plotholes with some sad music and a debatable conclusion make the ending acceptable.

Most of us just want BioWare to look back at it's failings and quietly change, no, not even change, just UPDATE the ending so it has some sort of consistancy and closure. It may smear BioWare's reputation and it may go against everything that the team worked for, but at the end of the day it's for the best. Not changing it may kill BioWare, people already hate it for DA2, let alone this. If they do change it, however, BioWare knows what it can do to please it's fans in the future, and the fans can sit quietly in the knowledge that their views are important to developers.

 

[Kelethor]

i just thought of something. what if the endings were supposed to all be the same to convey a message about that? what if it was there to say that, no matter what you do, some things are inevitable? even if certain things happened before hand, and some conditions were different in a situation, what if the out come couldn't change? maybe that was the message, and people were filled with so much nerd rage that they couldn't see the big picture of it all. it's a somber ending, not meant to make you feel accomplished or happy, but to remind you that some things you simply can't change. i suppose, if that was what it meant, bioware won't change the endings themselves. they may build off of it to continue a story, but what happened at the end is what happened, nothing will change that. at least, that will be their response if that was the message of the ending. that's how i'm perceiving it, and hopefully when i start playing mass effect, i'll get to experience the ending myself, and understand the anger more and be able to tell for myself if the ending was either strong with a built in message, or lazy writing.

That's not what the past two mass effect games have told us. Shepard and his crew have defied the odds time and time again. WE have showed that no matter what happens, Shepard's iron-will and determination will see him through. the ending of ME 3 goes against what the writers have told us, what WE the players have done.

Im all for life sometimes being shit and unavoidable, but that wasn't the point mass effect 1, and especially ME 2. in ME 2 you were told that diversity and hard work can defy the odds, no matter how much they may be stacked against you. in ME 3 we are told that were locked in a vicious cycle of synthetics (or just species in general) killing one another, DESPITE having resolved the fighting between Quarian and Geth, Krogan and Salarian, And so on. such a dramatic theme change in the last...10 minutes of the game is...well, bullshit.