BioWare Knows It Can't Please Everyone

[chadachada123]

What Bioware doesn't seem to understand is that it is NOT the 'lack of clarity' that pissed off so many fans.

It was the massive plotholes that can't simply be handwaved like Bioware would like to.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Yeah... releasing it on the same day as Dawnguard. Who decided that would be a good idea?
I'm having to choose between my massively, massively-anticipated Dawnguard and fucking shit up Van Helsing-esque vampire style, or some extra cutscenes for a game I'm trying to forget about.
Not a particularly tough decision.

Releasing it on the same day as Dawnguard is releasing on 1/3rd of the platforms.

I'd say that's a minority of the platforms, but my math is somewhat sketchy.

 

[RJ 17]

When was the last time an audience demanded that a book be rewritten because the ending was bad? When was the last time an audience demanded that a movie be remade because they didn't like the ending? When was the last time a book or movie actually WAS remade because of demands from the audience? I submit: never. They go down in history as "A movie with a crap ending" or "A book with a crap ending".

Two words: test screenings. They don't always work, mind you, but it happens more often than you'd think. "I Am Legend", "Little Shop of Horrors", "Blade Runner", "28 Days Later"... granted, these were all situations where studios intentionally sought out audience feedback before officially releasing the product, but that feedback resulted in significant changes every single time.

And yet many movies come out with crap endings. It's the finished product we're talking about here, not the process of making it.

 

[Eleima]

Thank you, Mr. Hudson. All I want to know is how my FemShep's beloved Kaidan, and best bud Garrus, who were with her in the final push to the Beacon, ended up fleeing on the Normandy. All I need is a rational explanation for that.
Also, thank you for making an awesome game, because aside from the last confusing 5 minutes, ME3 kicked ass. And... dare I say it?... yes, I think I will. I actually enjoy the multiplayer. GASP!
Like some people said, I can deal with Shepard being gone, it makes sense that you couldn't survive all she's been through, but I need to know what happened to the rest of the galaxy.

 

[Amnestic]

Two pages and only one indoctrination theory mention? Has it fallen from grace as swiftly as it rose?

Regardless:

And if they aren't going to go by or tweak the popular Indoctrination theory, I don't know if they can explain it all. Hell...

The Indoctrination Theory is a cute little thing for the ending sequence...but a horrible thing for the Epilogue.

Spoiler

See, what you have is three settings.
1- (Control/Synthesis) Shepard is indoctrinated, she dies, Reapers are dominating Earth since the Crucible never fired.
2- (Destroy) Shepard is NOT indoctrinated, she dies, Reapers are dominating Earth since the Crucible never fired.
3- (Destroy with enough EMS) Shepard is NOT indoctrinated, she lives...barely, Reapers are dominating Earth since the Crucible never fired.

See the problem? Whatever you do, whatever efforts you made, however many EMS you gathered and allies you befriended...it doesn't matter. The galaxy put all its hope into the Crucible and no one was there to open the Citadel arms for it.

With both Crucible and Shepard disabled...there wasn't really any hope for the Galaxy, was there? It was hammered into us throughout the game: They can't be beaten by conventional means. Even Shepard, the woman who defied all odds on numerous occasions, agreed to that.

So yeah. Indoctrination Theory is nice and all (if not without its own share of plotholes - I'm looking at you "Indoctrination Eyes"), but it doesn't fix the epilogue, it just adds a fun twist on the last gameplay sequence.

As for me, get rid of the Mass Relay destruction and it'd fix most of the problems with the ending. There, book it, ending fixed.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

DENIAL!

That's what this is! They are so fucked up in their heads that they literally have no idea what they're doing or talking about!

Don't make an orbital laser shoot down on us and make Shepard ten times more retarded than he already was throughout the game, then make horrible decision after horrible decision, only to railroad us into an ending with three colors and 5% difference, completely throwing all consistency and logic out the window with that insufferable starchild and RRRAAAAAHHHH!!

Edit: It's not about pleasing everyone. Red herring.

 

[tensorproduct]

"There are some people who just outright rejected the whole concept of the endings, and wanted us to start from scratch and redo everything. And we can't do that because that's not our story;

'Your' story sucks ass. Get it? Stop pretending it doesn't suck or that it's bold and expressive and open to interpretation. The entire internet can see the emperor has no clothes. The entire internet.

Except that this is obviously not true. Plenty of people have no problem with the endings. I've seen no evidence that those who dislike them are anything more than a vocal minority... far from the entire internet.

Why can't they stop being condescending jerks? If I bought any other product and was dissatisfied, anybody I talked to about it would apologize and do everything they could to make me happy. Why do game devs get away with this? You think I insult customers at my job and make bullshit excuses? I wish.

This is a perfect example of what I dislike about the "retake Mass Effect" movement/meme. If they change the ending to satisfy you, Rooster, then they are changing a story that I and plenty of others liked. If we were mount a campaign to have it changed back, we could use identical "the customer is always right" reasoning to justify the position.

What makes your desire to be a satisfied customer more important than mine?

 

[Megalodon]

This is a perfect example of what I dislike about the "retake Mass Effect" movement/meme. If they change the ending to satisfy you, Rooster, then they are changing a story that I and plenty of others liked. If we were mount a campaign to have it changed back, we could use identical "the customer is always right" reasoning to justify the position.

What makes your desire to be a satisfied customer more important than mine?

I'd assume numbers, people like you were simply in the minority. If Bioware see that drastically more people hate the ending than don't, then it's in their best interest to at least attempt a fix to mollify this majority of fans. I remember seeing a marketing statistic that only 10% or so of consumers will actually complain about a product, so Bioware realised that either there is a massive body of unhappy silent fans, or the ME3 ending was sufficently hated to cause more than the standard proportion of unhappy customers to speak up. Either way, they had a problem on their hands.

You do have a point about it not being fair for Bioware to screw you over by out and out changing the ending, which is why the sensible side of those of us who hated the ending did not expect a complete rewrite, as much as we wanted it. I wanted additional endings, so the failure of an ending that shipped was not the only option. I do not want someone else to stop being a satisifed customer, but I do want to be a satisfied customer myself.

As far as the EC goes, I'm resigned to probably not being particularly happy with it. I hope it will be able to recover enough, give some closure and hope to the end of the story, so that I can stomach playing the games again.

 

[tensorproduct]

This is a perfect example of what I dislike about the "retake Mass Effect" movement/meme. If they change the ending to satisfy you, Rooster, then they are changing a story that I and plenty of others liked. If we were mount a campaign to have it changed back, we could use identical "the customer is always right" reasoning to justify the position.

What makes your desire to be a satisfied customer more important than mine?

I'd assume numbers, people like you were simply in the minority. If Bioware see that drastically more people hate the ending than don't, then it's in their best interest to at least attempt a fix to mollify this majority of fans. I remember seeing a marketing statistic that only 10% or so of consumers will actually complain about a product, so Bioware realised that either there is a massive body of unhappy silent fans, or the ME3 ending was sufficently hated to cause more than the standard proportion of unhappy customers to speak up. Either way, they had a problem on their hands.

I would simply assume different numbers. Another marketing anecdote (I'm loathe to use marketing and statistic in the same sentence) is that happy customers rarely say anything, whereas unhappy customers will do their best to be heard. From this, a small proportion of dissatisfied gamers can drown out any number of people who are content with the status quo.

It's interesting to think how we might generate better statistics. Some form of anonymous on-line survey? Very susceptible to ballot stuffing, but it's marginally better than "I've seen more people complaining than I have happy".

You do have a point about it not being fair for Bioware to screw you over by out and out changing the ending, which is why the sensible side of those of us who hated the ending did not expect a complete rewrite, as much as we wanted it. I wanted additional endings, so the failure of an ending that shipped was not the only option. I do not want someone else to stop being a satisifed customer, but I do want to be a satisfied customer myself.

Actually, I think you kind of missed my point. What I was trying to say was that we, as consumers of entertainment, have absolutely no inherent right to expect to be satisfied by what we consume.

To argue that Bioware should change the ME3 ending to satisfy disgruntled customers exposes the flaw in assuming that we do have such a right, as it would lead to other disgruntled customers who can then expect the same consideration.

Where does it end? When nobody cares enough to complain anymore, or when they can prove beyond a doubt that a majority of their customers are satisfied enough, or simply when Megalodon gets an ending that is palatable?

What will you do if you're on the wrong side of one of these controversies? Is the customer always right if you're not the customer who feels hard done by?

 

[Megalodon]

I would simply assume different numbers. Another marketing anecdote (I'm loathe to use marketing and statistic in the same sentence) is that happy customers rarely say anything, whereas unhappy customers will do their best to be heard. From this, a small proportion of dissatisfied gamers can drown out any number of people who are content with the status quo.

I can't say I disagree with this, but where's the tipping point? The company only knows about people that speak up, why should they assume that more people disagree with the complainers than agree. If a company assumes that the majority are always happy with the product produced, then there's no reason to change anything, which is not how things are. To use another ME example, Bioware apparently listened to complaints about the Mako in ME1, so it was removed (for better or worse) for ME2.

It's interesting to think how we might generate better statistics. Some form of anonymous on-line survey? Very susceptible to ballot stuffing, but it's marginally better than "I've seen more people complaining than I have happy".

I was thinking about ballots that were run on BSN coming back with figures showing the vast majority disliked the ending and wanted a change, the biggest score I saw was around 90% in favour of revised endings.

Actually, I think you kind of missed my point. What I was trying to say was that we, as consumers of entertainment, have absolutely no inherent right to expect to be satisfied by what we consume.

To argue that Bioware should change the ME3 ending to satisfy disgruntled customers exposes the flaw in assuming that we do have such a right, as it would lead to other disgruntled customers who can then expect the same consideration.

Obviously I can't speak for everyone who hated the endings here, but I have never seen it claimed we have a right to an altered ending, except by people thinking the ending shouldn't be changed using it in "entited crybaby" arguments. It has always been the case that we were extremely unhappy with the ending and would be unwilling to pay more for DLC/future games. Bioware had the choice, stick to thier guns or try to fix the ending to regain the faith of the fans they alienated.

Quote from the facebook group "Bioware is a business if we can make them understand that by using the current endings they alienate (no pun) their customers, and destroy the replay ability of the trilogy they are hurting their profits we CAN bring about a change for the better."

This has never been about the "right" to get an altered ending, simply trying to get Bioware to choose to implement a change that will result in people like myself continuing to give Bioware business. Again, this is my viewpoint, shared by the people I have talked about this issue with.

Where does it end? When nobody cares enough to complain anymore, or when they can prove beyond a doubt that a majority of their customers are satisfied enough, or simply when Megalodon gets an ending that is palatable?

What will you do if you're on the wrong side of one of these controversies? Is the customer always right if you're not the customer who feels hard done by?

Firstly even before the ending controversy I was half expecting to be disappointed by the ending. I wanted a Shepard lives happy ending. I would not have found a decent ending where Shepard dies to be worth the shitstorm that errupted over what we got, but I would not have found it particularly palatable. But the ending we got was such a sucker punch it was worth complaining over in my opinion, and I was far from alone in this.

It ends when the company in question decides it ends, when they think the complaints are too minor,the amount of complainers too small to be worth the resources to fix. If Bioware had decided that trying to salvage potential income from pissed off ME fans wasn't worth the effort, that would have been the end (I would not have been happy about it, but it would have been the end), but it wasn't. Bioware thought the outcry was sufficient to be worth addressing, just as Bethesda did before them with Broken Steel, so they have attempted to address it, how well they have done, I don't know.

 

[tensorproduct]

Obviously I can't speak for everyone who hated the endings here, but I have never seen it claimed we have a right to an altered ending, except by people thinking the ending shouldn't be changed using it in "entited crybaby" arguments. It has always been the case that we were extremely unhappy with the ending and would be unwilling to pay more for DLC/future games. Bioware had the choice, stick to thier guns or try to fix the ending to regain the faith of the fans they alienated.

Quote from the facebook group "Bioware is a business if we can make them understand that by using the current endings they alienate (no pun) their customers, and destroy the replay ability of the trilogy they are hurting their profits we CAN bring about a change for the better."

This has never been about the "right" to get an altered ending, simply trying to get Bioware to choose to implement a change that will result in people like myself continuing to give Bioware business. Again, this is my viewpoint, shared by the people I have talked about this issue with.

I can only say that you have given a very selective reading to a lot of the controversy if you do not think that at least some people have claimed that they have a right to a new ending, or that they deserve a better ending, or that they are "entitled" to what they want.

This may not be what you have been arguing, but it is very definitely exactly what a large number of gamers have argued. From the same mission statement that you quoted:

"Fans of the Mass Effect trilogy have put far too much time, effort, and money into the game to be abandoned with such a fate.
Bioware desperately needs to resolve this issue. New DLC (something long) to add a new, more satisfactory ending to the game, or even a full expansion based as an epilogue to the trilogy."

Not "We want Bioware to resolve this issue", but Bioware needs to resolve this issue. What is that, if not expressing an expectation that a non-existent right be met?

It's right there in the name: Retake Mass Effect. We own this, but the writers took it from us, so we are in the right to take it back.
(which, by the way, is an awful name: why not "Take Back Mass Effect", like the game's tag-line "Take Back Earth").

 

[itsthesheppy]

Based on the feedback this DLC gets, I might even buy the game. I'm so happy I waited to hear the feedback from ME3 and didn't waste the money. And didn't throw in with Origin. No thanks.

 

[Metalrocks]

well, one thing he got right, and thats not pleasing every one.
but in the forum alone people said whats wrong with the ending and most of all, this retarded space kid.
amazing how they can stick with this excuse. its a poorly written ending. the end. this DLC better deliver. i guess i have to wait before i can play it. or i just watch it on youtube and see if its worth it to download it or just delete the game...forever.

 

[Megalodon]

I can only say that you have given a very selective reading to a lot of the controversy if you do not think that at least some people have claimed that they have a right to a new ending, or that they deserve a better ending, or that they are "entitled" to what they want.

There has been undeniable overeaction to the shitness of the ending (FTC complaints and the like). The word entitled was thrown around too much, chiefly by opponents of the movement claiming we thought we were entitled to a new ending, whereas we saw it as simply complaining about what was to us a substandard product.

This may not be what you have been arguing, but it is very definitely exactly what a large number of gamers have argued. From the same mission statement that you quoted:

"Fans of the Mass Effect trilogy have put far too much time, effort, and money into the game to be abandoned with such a fate.
Bioware desperately needs to resolve this issue. New DLC (something long) to add a new, more satisfactory ending to the game, or even a full expansion based as an epilogue to the trilogy."

Not "We want Bioware to resolve this issue", but Bioware needs to resolve this issue. What is that, if not expressing an expectation that a non-existent right be met?

It's right there in the name: Retake Mass Effect. We own this, but the writers took it from us, so we are in the right to take it back.
(which, by the way, is an awful name: why not "Take Back Mass Effect", like the game's tag-line "Take Back Earth").

A lot of this boils down to semantics, I'd say the the use of "needs" serves to demonstrate the action Bioware needs to take to address the complaints of the retake movement and maintain thier custom, not that they need to address the complaints because we have a right to a new ending.

You're right about the name, it could have been better. But it was chosen right at the start, tempers were running high and the sense of betrayal was at its height, and it was not expected to balloon into the movement it did, not having the best name does not detract from the message of "we hate this and think you should change it, otherwise we won't want to keep giving you our business". Overall the use of a few confrontational words does not mean that we believed Bioware had to alter the ending.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

"There are some people who just outright rejected the whole concept of the endings, and wanted us to start from scratch and redo everything. And we can't do that because that's not our story;

'Your' story sucks ass. Get it? Stop pretending it doesn't suck or that it's bold and expressive and open to interpretation. The entire internet can see the emperor has no clothes. The entire internet.

Except that this is obviously not true. Plenty of people have no problem with the endings. I've seen no evidence that those who dislike them are anything more than a vocal minority... far from the entire internet.

Your guess is as good as mine. What we do know is the scale of the fan reaction was out of this world. Putting a silly exaggeration in italics was my attempt at humor, obviously I did it wrong.

Why can't they stop being condescending jerks? If I bought any other product and was dissatisfied, anybody I talked to about it would apologize and do everything they could to make me happy. Why do game devs get away with this? You think I insult customers at my job and make bullshit excuses? I wish.

This is a perfect example of what I dislike about the "retake Mass Effect" movement/meme. If they change the ending to satisfy you, Rooster, then they are changing a story that I and plenty of others liked.

Granted. But that has nothing to do with the part you quoted.

If we were mount a campaign to have it changed back, we could use identical "the customer is always right" reasoning to justify the position.

I wasn't saying they should change it because the customer is always right, I was saying they shouldn't be dicks to their customers. They should change it because it sucks.

What makes your desire to be a satisfied customer more important than mine?

For one thing, you are not me, so I hardly feel compelled to defend your interests on your behalf. Beside that, nothing. We have conflicting goals, but it doesn't mean you're some kind of victim here.

 

[irishda]

Cue the shitstorm of people basically saying "But they could at least please ME!"

It's better than writing an ending just to please themselves.

As a writer though, it's a terrible idea to give an ending that other people want. For one, people hate ambiguity in their endings, or even cliff-hangers. They feel resolution means resolution for everything and are rather upset when it's not delivered. And, if you're a good storyteller, people become emotionally invested in characters, so THEIR endings would involve things going good for said favorite characters. It might make a satisfying ending, but there's risk to it and is kind of a cop out.

On the other hand, good storytellers will have fleshed out characters that can interact and play off each other, which means the ending is more of a logical conclusion with varying circumstances the writer injects influencing it to varying degrees. Now, whether or not Bioware did that with Mass Effect, that's fair game. But pandering to others for whatever reason is just lazy.

 

[irishda]

Why can't they stop being condescending jerks? If I bought any other product and was dissatisfied, anybody I talked to about it would apologize and do everything they could to make me happy. Why do game devs get away with this? You think I insult customers at my job and make bullshit excuses? I wish.

This is a perfect example of what I dislike about the "retake Mass Effect" movement/meme. If they change the ending to satisfy you, Rooster, then they are changing a story that I and plenty of others liked.

Granted. But that has nothing to do with the part you quoted.

I believe it's relevant because if it was changed, then they'd be the dissatisfied customers who would need the apology and "everything [Bioware] can do to make them happy". Game devs get away with this because, as the article says, you can't please everyone.

If we were mount a campaign to have it changed back, we could use identical "the customer is always right" reasoning to justify the position.

I wasn't saying they should change it because the customer is always right, I was saying they shouldn't be dicks to their customers. They should change it because it sucks.

This is just too perfect: Let me re-edit somethings in there so you can see how ridiculous this is.

I wasn't saying they should change it because the customer is always right, I was saying they shouldn't be dicks to their customers. They should change it because it sucks (READ: They should change it because I (the customer) AM RIGHT when I say it sucks)

What makes your desire to be a satisfied customer more important than mine?

For one thing, you are not me, so I hardly feel compelled to defend your interests on your behalf. Beside that, nothing. We have conflicting goals, but it doesn't mean you're some kind of victim here.

Unless you succeeded and Bioware had changed the endings, then he'd be the victim of your wants because he lost something he liked. It's like if he really loved Snickers, but you hated peanuts. So you got the candy company to remove all peanuts in all Snickers. He loses the product he liked because you couldn't be bothered to enjoy another product.

 

[tensorproduct]

There has been undeniable overeaction to the shitness of the ending (FTC complaints and the like). The word entitled was thrown around too much, chiefly by opponents of the movement claiming we thought we were entitled to a new ending, whereas we saw it as simply complaining about what was to us a substandard product.

A lot of this boils down to semantics, I'd say the the use of "needs" serves to demonstrate the action Bioware needs to take to address the complaints of the retake movement and maintain thier custom, not that they need to address the complaints because we have a right to a new ending.

You're right about the name, it could have been better. But it was chosen right at the start, tempers were running high and the sense of betrayal was at its height, and it was not expected to balloon into the movement it did, not having the best name does not detract from the message of "we hate this and think you should change it, otherwise we won't want to keep giving you our business". Overall the use of a few confrontational words does not mean that we believed Bioware had to alter the ending.

You're right that this might boil down to an argument about semantics, and I'm sure we both want to avoid that. As the old joke goes, anybody who says "let's not argue semantics" really means "you need to accept my semantics".

If I go along with your assertion that people were never claiming an absolute right to a new ending (hypothetically speaking; I still think that is far too generous an appraisal of a lot of the comments here and elsewhere), then maybe the rest of the culture was too quick to brand RTM as "whiny, entitlement-complex-having, spoiled, idiot children". But if that's what is on the front page of the Tumblr and on the Facebook group, should we not take you at face value? The internet never having been the best place for subtlety or ambiguity.

Particularly when we hear about insane things like complaints to FTC/BBB/etc the movement as a whole doesn't seem to have much credibility, and I saw precious little to lend it any. For every one person doing an awesome stunt like the thing with the cupcakes (that really was great), or donating money to Child's Play, there seemed to be dozens throwing about abuse on forums/Twitter or accusing gaming journalists of taking bribes from EA for not publicly hating the ending enough.

I'm all for voting with your wallet, and for letting the company know why you would never do business with them again. That's the other side of us not really having any right to be satisfied: publishers don't have any right to our money (though they don't seem to understand that). And if Bioware/EA decide that the loss of business is significant enough that they'll address the issue, then that's their call. If you're confident that you can speak for the majority of the movement when you say that that's all they ever wanted to say, then I have to tell you that you all did a poor job of getting that across. I think it's much more likely that you're simply wrong about what most people who wanted it changed really thought.

 

[tensorproduct]

Why can't they stop being condescending jerks? If I bought any other product and was dissatisfied, anybody I talked to about it would apologize and do everything they could to make me happy. Why do game devs get away with this? You think I insult customers at my job and make bullshit excuses? I wish.

This is a perfect example of what I dislike about the "retake Mass Effect" movement/meme. If they change the ending to satisfy you, Rooster, then they are changing a story that I and plenty of others liked.

Granted. But that has nothing to do with the part you quoted.

I believe it's relevant because if it was changed, then they'd be the dissatisfied customers who would need the apology and "everything [Bioware] can do to make them happy". Game devs get away with this because, as the article says, you can't please everyone.

If we were mount a campaign to have it changed back, we could use identical "the customer is always right" reasoning to justify the position.

I wasn't saying they should change it because the customer is always right, I was saying they shouldn't be dicks to their customers. They should change it because it sucks.

This is just too perfect: Let me re-edit somethings in there so you can see how ridiculous this is.

I wasn't saying they should change it because the customer is always right, I was saying they shouldn't be dicks to their customers. They should change it because it sucks (READ: They should change it because I (the customer) AM RIGHT when I say it sucks)

What makes your desire to be a satisfied customer more important than mine?

For one thing, you are not me, so I hardly feel compelled to defend your interests on your behalf. Beside that, nothing. We have conflicting goals, but it doesn't mean you're some kind of victim here.

Unless you succeeded and Bioware had changed the endings, then he'd be the victim of your wants because he lost something he liked. It's like if he really loved Snickers, but you hated peanuts. So you got the candy company to remove all peanuts in all Snickers. He loses the product he liked because you couldn't be bothered to enjoy another product.

Thanks Irish Da, you saved me some typing.

 

[Frankster]

I'll be honest, all this talk about how "this is their story" got me thinking of Casey Hudson as Tidus from ffx going "this is my story and it will end the way I want it to!".