mew4ever23 said:
Honestly, I have been opposed to the Retake Mass Effect thing from the beginning. The premise is inherently flawed - Donating to Child's Play is nice, yes. But how exactly is that going to get Bioware to release a new ending? The whole demanding a new ending thing, by the way, pisses me off, and I'll get to that in a minute, but first:
Tycho said:
[Child's Play] has been asked what the goal is, and how much they need to raise in order to get the ending produced. We've also been contacted by PayPal due to a high number of people asking for their donations back. This is in addition to readers who simply couldn't understand how this was connected to Child's Play's mission. We were dealing with a lot of very confused people, more every day, and that told us we had a problem.
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING! We're trying to get away from the hopeless violent loser gamer stigma, but it seems the community trips us up every fucking time! Child's Play has been the best thing gaming as a whole has EVER done, and here some people use it to ***** about ONE AAA game's supposedly sub-par ending.
Where does this sense of entitlement come from? WHERE!? People, you do not get to demand a new ending to a story because you didn't like it. This is the story that the storyteller has chosen to tell, and even as interactive as the story was, it is still their story.
Anyone remember this happening with a book? No.
How about film? Nope.
What about a TV series? Nope again.
Every other creative medium has thrown its share of bad endings, and gaming is the only one where campaigns and petitions crop up to change the ending. We need to show the world that we are bigger than this. That we can accept an ending and move on. Otherwise we are gonna show the world that we are immature losers addicted to mindless murder simulators.
Actually it has happened with films on a number of occasions, which is in part why some DVDs have "alternate endings" included which were what was cut or changed due to complaints during initial screenings. People have also referanced how books like say "Great Expectations" had their endings changed, and so on. TV series have reconned themselves in the past to change things, the most infamous example being the whole "Who shot JR" thing, where despite all of the discussions it generated it was complained about and seen to be a bad thing, not to mention the complaints by the fams of the actor, so they more or less decided it never happened and the guy just stepped out of the shower (literally) at the beginning of the next season and the series went on like it never happened. A lot has been written about it and how that infamous TV moment went down, and why it turned out like it did, but that's the bottom line as I understood it.
That said, this isn't really just about the ending, and that's why people that are trying to be "reasonable" are ignored, because they are usually out of context to the entire situation.
Let's be honest, the ending is crap, even as someone who doesn't think it's as bad as some of the more extreme elements have implied, it can't be defined as anything else. Even those who are against "Hold The Line" tend to agree that it is a nightmarish piece of filth. But really, that wouldn't be much of an issue because there have been other games and products that have ended just as badly, or worse, than have not received this level of outrage, and certainly not many cases where you have seen fans throwing around money to spam Bioware with cupcakes, or raise donations as a banner to get attention, or even actually HIRE lawyers and bring complaints to the FTC as opposed to simply talking smack in message boards. The thing you have to look at is what makes THIS case differant.
Well for one, part of the backlash is still over "Dragon Age 2" and while that was minor it contributed to the sheer rage when "Mass Effect 3" turned out to be garbage as well. Mostly though it's about how EA/Bioware sold out the ending for money, deciding that instead of finishing the trilogy as planned, they wanted to make it into a franchise and the best way to do that was not to properly end "Mass Effect 3" and in the process threw out the plans they claimed to have in place since the very beginning of the trilogy. Leading to the ending not even fitting within the spirit of the series up until this point. The ending was also set up to sell other products to see the entire thing, encouraging people to engage in multiplayer which is designed to be monetized to save time to get the full range of options in the ending, and also to do things like sell tie in apps that were going to be usable for the
same basic effect.... however most importantly Bioware's own design team made promises about this not being a standard game ending with a simple "A B or C" choice and that is what they have us. They also promised that all the answers would be given, and they were not.
See, a lot of the rage comes from interviews that were released as part of an app EA wanted to sell, where the guys writing the ending made it clear that they pretty much made up the ending at the end of the design process, which means that they had scrapped previous ending plans since one was supposed to be there since ME1. They also made it abundantly clear that they decided specifically not to answer the questions, and make the ending ambigious to generate discussion and hype.... presumably for the next game in the franchise.
Understand that this is not "speculation" on my part or anything of the sort, the interviews and information I'm referancing are out there, and even have their own threads here on The Escapist. The monetized multiplayer and readiness system can be seen just by turning on the game. If you have never played ME3, a basic run down is that to see all of the endings you need to have 4000 functional asset points and a full alignment bar (to save Anderson) or 5000 functional asset points and an alignment bar that isn't maxed (so Anderson dies). The number of points you earn in the game is reduced by a percentage based on your level of readiness, which can only be raised by playing that multiplayer moder where unlocks are sold for real money (though they can be grinded for over a long period of time by playing). As a result if you do not play multiplayer your points are halved so for all of the endings to be availible you would need 8000 or 10000 points to fit the requirements. Contrary to some statements there are not enough asset points in the game to get the 8000 to 10000 points needed without multiplayer, at least not yet, more could appear as paid DLC. I transferred a character who did ME1 and ME2 and could resolve problems "perfectly" to get all possible assets without having to choose between them in many cases, and maxxed out galactic readiness to 100% with some patience and with all my points counting instead of being halved I wound up with somewhere around 7800 points... mind you this is a perfect play through with their strategy guide, and I was shy of meeting that 8000 point goal with perfect readiness, if I had not done multiplayer I would have had 3800 points and wouldn't even be half way to the needed total. Other players have reported similar things, I have not seen anyone actually prove that there are 10000 potential asset points in the game, especially for characters created in ME3 as opposed to transfers. It is true that you do not have to pay anything to get all the endings, but you do need to grind multiplayer, and they are going to wave a cash shop in your face while you do it, and honestly the move seems to be aimed at people who just want to see all the endings and don't want to have to spend all that time in muliplayer.
In short the point is that people want Bioware to re-do this ending for a lot of reasons, it's not just because a few people didn't like the ending... if that was the case this would never have gotten to this level.
The gaming industry and press egging people on, probably hasn't helped matters any. All the claims of "gamer entitlement" and "artistic integrity" while they dance around most of the actual issues just serve to irritate people more. Basically when you call someone who is justifiably POed an entitled crybaby, that just makes him want to make you eat your words more.
Like it or not, the antics of the gaming industry, and the gaming press, backfired by making this personal for some people. Insulting the people bringing valid complaints is not going to make them see things your way.
Honestly when Bioware said they were going to work on this (and they did say that from what I'm reading) people probably would have chilled out a lot, if they weren't constantly under fire and being maligned, including by some fairly high profile sources. To be honest those who are complaining and insulting are largely what's keeping the mob going at this level.