Entitlement
- Thread starter CaptOfSerenity
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm saying the ending does affect the entire experience, but you have to remember how good the experience was before the ending. Escaflowne and Mass Effect are still great experiences, you just have to detach yourself from the ending so you can still enjoy it.bahumat42 said:
Go up a few posts and you'll see someone replying to me with a dating scenario that captures my experience with Escaflowne, and most people's experience with ME3, perfectly.
People like you don't understand what artistic integrity means.
Artists are asked to change their art ALL THE TIME.
Don't believe me? Look up a guy called Doyle. He wrote a little known thing called Sherlock Holmes. Go look up why Sherlock Holmes got novels published that were set after the novel in which Sherlock Holmes died.
Oops. People asked the artist to change the ending for years, which he eventually did. This led to literary classics that we would not know if "artistic integrity" would have the meaning you think it does.
No, actually. It is flat out lying. With any other product, you could indeed sue the maker of the product for false advertisement.
Game company entitlement makes the companies pretend this is "gamer entitlement" though.
No, it's like eating a bag of pretzels and then discovering that the last ones are rotten.
Guess what happens in this case.
Yup, you get your money back.
![Fr]anc[is](https://eg-forums-escapist-data-bucket.fra1.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/93/93202.jpg?1620797781){kind=avatar}
I always thought the major selling point of Broken Steel was that you got to keep screwing around after the final mission. You are right though, it is a precedent.coolbeans21 said:
Ok here is a small, but significant nitpick about that. Are you saying reviewers should spoil the ending? Susan didn't and went out of her way to say nothing when I asked her in the comments. I don't think the Destructoid guy did either. Going through detailed analysis of every aspect of the game before you buy takes out all the fun of discovering it yourself.bahumat42 said:
I had to take a shot because this was about Mass Effect 3
They already operate under a: Buy the game now, Buy DLC later model.
They changed the end of Mass Effect 2 by adding the Arrival DLC. All we're doing is suggesting (Demanding) that they change the end of Mass Effect 3 in a similar way.
When you boldfacedly lie to everyone who's interested in buying your product you have to expect some kind of retaliation.
While those things are both true I believe that games are a special case.CaptOfSerenity said:
They already operate under a: Buy the game now, Buy DLC later model.
They changed the end of Mass Effect 2 by adding the Arrival DLC. All we're doing is suggesting (Demanding) that they change the end of Mass Effect 3 in a similar way.
There's also lying, which is what Casey Hudson didCaptOfSerenity said:
That is not an opinion. That is a lie. There is not a grain of truth in that.Casey Dirty-Rotten-Lier Hudson said:
When you boldfacedly lie to everyone who's interested in buying your product you have to expect some kind of retaliation.
Then it sounds like they barely covered their ass.bahumat42 said:
I recall Todd Howard making a claim for Fallout 3's "500 endings!"
Which turned out to being 2 core endings with a bunch of added permutations based on simple yes/no flags that added/omitted scenes completely unrelated to the core plot.
True? Technically/mathematically.
Misleading? Very, but still legal.
No, it's not. I spent a whole other thread bashing Bioware for caving in and giving people the ending they're demanding. I think both sides of this are wrong, but this thread is about the consumers' entitlement, so that's what you're seeing. Go look at the countless threads fighting against Bioware if that's for what you're looking, but they are each separate problems, in my opinionFr said:
Well, to be fair, There is an ending to the story.Rawne1980 said:
Also many choices made in previous games would add assets or change parts of the story, for example there are tons of things that can go wrong or well in the genophage mission depending on whether Mordin survived the last, you kept Maelon's Data, and whether or not Wrex is alive, all of which are choices made in previous games.
I don't remember Bioware saying that the multiplayer wouldn't affect the single player. I do however remember them saying that all endings (including the best) would be possible without multiplayer.
What did Bioware promise?
A game that would function and a story that would conclude the Mass Effect trilogy.
What did Bioware deliver?
A game that functioned and a story that concluded the Mass Effect trilogy.
Think about any other medium. Fans decided that the ending to The Matrix wasn't very good and complained about it en masse, did the Wachowskis go back and change the ending? No. Harry Potter fans cried about the Epilogue because they decided that it wasn't exactly what they wanted from the ending, are there versions being published without the Epilogue? No. Even when there are director's cuts of movies it's because the director wanted to change it, not the fans. Musicians don't rerecord albums and songs, movie makers don't re-shoot the ending after the movie has been released, authors don't re-publish new versions with added additional endings (and A Clockwork Orange doesn't count, the so-called 'extra' ending was always supposed to be there) The Avatar team didn't remake the final episode of The Last Airbender to make it a Zutara story.
But when gamers get butt hurt about the ending, they get their ending changed because they whined hard enough about it not being exactly how they wanted it. To me that says entitled.
A game that would function and a story that would conclude the Mass Effect trilogy.
What did Bioware deliver?
A game that functioned and a story that concluded the Mass Effect trilogy.
Think about any other medium. Fans decided that the ending to The Matrix wasn't very good and complained about it en masse, did the Wachowskis go back and change the ending? No. Harry Potter fans cried about the Epilogue because they decided that it wasn't exactly what they wanted from the ending, are there versions being published without the Epilogue? No. Even when there are director's cuts of movies it's because the director wanted to change it, not the fans. Musicians don't rerecord albums and songs, movie makers don't re-shoot the ending after the movie has been released, authors don't re-publish new versions with added additional endings (and A Clockwork Orange doesn't count, the so-called 'extra' ending was always supposed to be there) The Avatar team didn't remake the final episode of The Last Airbender to make it a Zutara story.
But when gamers get butt hurt about the ending, they get their ending changed because they whined hard enough about it not being exactly how they wanted it. To me that says entitled.
He didn't change the ending. The Final Problem still ends with Holmes dead. He just resurrected him in a later work. That's a retcon, which is completely different from changing an already existing work.zefiris said:
No. Do you get a refund from a movie theater if something the director said in an interview didn't turn out to be true? Do bookstores give out refunds if the blurb on the back of a book was misleading? They don't. What makes games any different?
It is the point. Please go finish it and then come back and we can all talk together in a civilized fashion. That may seem like an unreasonable request, but I don't think it is unreasonable to expect you to know what you are talking about exactly and from experience before you start an entire thread (of which, I might add, we already have many like it) about the subject.CaptOfSerenity said:
This is not an insult to you. This is not a flame. This is merely a request that you educate yourself about the ending before you make assumptions about how people should feel about it - you don't even know how you feel about it yet, having not experienced it. Like I said, when you have, come back and let's chat - PM me if you like, I'm quite serious about being open to discussion on the matter.
There's a big difference between the two cases, and I'll use Egoraptor's set up on the nature of storytelling to explain what I mean.coolbeans21 said:
Basically, he asserted that there are three methods by which developers tell the story in a video game: the design (art and music), the gameplay, and the story itself. The problem with Fallout 3 was not the story (there was no "Retake Fallout" campaign, if I remember correctly) but the gameplay, which seemed counterintuitive to what the game and story was trying to be. I don't want to put any spoilers here (I know it's older, but I'd rather not ruin it for the few that care), but because the game ended when the main story did, the ending worked against the developer's intended desire to create an open world in which people could explore, and those who wanted to explore were de-incentivized from finishing the ending of the main story, which was far from the intended result.
As such, Broken Steel fixed this so that players could return to the world, but the ending was largely unchanged with the exception of the one significant detail that kept the player from returning to the world after the main quest was complete. It was a patch to the gameplay to meet the developers' already-established goal of open world exploration with a solid story base, and that needed to be fix in order to maintain the tone the developers wanted for the game.
Now let's look back at ME3. The gameplay is far from the problem; it's probably the most refined it's ever been. And there's nothing about the ending that needs "fixing" per se (yes it's bad, but its not so broken as to prevent people from completing gameplay). No, this controversy was caused by the belief among the Mass Effect 3 fans that they deserved better and therein lies the problem. Should Bioware have done a more thorough job with the ending, knowing it would be the last in the series? Probably. (Though if the Indoctrination Theory is true, there are a lot bigger problems with this whole controversy and Bioware as a whole) But assuming good intentions, they don't owe anyone anything, and that's what we mean when we say entitlement.
If you don't like it, sell it back. Don't buy more games from Bioware. Whatever makes you feel better. But you paid money for Mass Effect 3, and they delivered in the way they thought was best. One doesn't have the right to tell them how to make their game to your liking any more than they have the right to tell you how to do your job. If they screwed up, show them with your wallet, and the market will force them to fix it. Otherwise, people need to shut up, put their money where their mouth is, and move on.
Note: If they do release the new ending for free (and I doubt they will, as most Mass Effect fans seem to be willing to spend whatever it takes to get the ending they feel they deserve; at least the ones in my group of friends feel that way), then this is just a sacrifice of artistic integrity on Bioware's side, as they failed to stand up for their vision, however flawed it may have been, and how much that matters to you is dependent on a lot of other things.
Well, Bioware's vision allows for multiple different endings, and Bioware's stated design philosophy...as per Mike Gamble and Casey Hudson...calls for the players to co-author the experience with them. So adding more endings to the game that allow for the maximum number of players to feel satisfied with their experience is, in fact, perfectly in line with Bioware's vision.Falcon123 said:
Do you really believe this? Serious question. Take a hard look at that ending. At the weird continuity gaffes, at the copy paste explosions, at the rushed/fractured feel, at the abrupt and sudden plunge in production values...and tell me, with a straight face, that they gave us what they thought was "best".Falcon123 said:
Sure, everyone who doesn't like the ending of ME3 and are mad at Bioware for lying are just entitled fuckwads. Let's just ignore all of the interviews and statements claiming that the game would feature this or that. We have no rights as consumers and we should just let big companies walk all over everyone because they have more money, therefore they have more rights. Why not right? Because in America, money talks, and having money means you're entitled to more money and power.
I swear, the bleak future that is Syndicate isn't too far off.
P.S The people arguing against the "whining" about ME3 are just as annoying and fucking stupid as the people who irrationally scream about how shit the ending was. Meanwhile, the people with rational arguments, backed up with evidence, either get over shadowed by the whiners on both sides or automatically get labeled self entitled cunts by idiots who are too willing to give up their rights and let the corporation treat them like cattle with wallets.
Please note that I have taken part in most of this ME3 bullshit short of discussing the indoctrination theory or simply stating "I thought the ending sucked".
I swear, the bleak future that is Syndicate isn't too far off.
P.S The people arguing against the "whining" about ME3 are just as annoying and fucking stupid as the people who irrationally scream about how shit the ending was. Meanwhile, the people with rational arguments, backed up with evidence, either get over shadowed by the whiners on both sides or automatically get labeled self entitled cunts by idiots who are too willing to give up their rights and let the corporation treat them like cattle with wallets.
Please note that I have taken part in most of this ME3 bullshit short of discussing the indoctrination theory or simply stating "I thought the ending sucked".
Agreed.Rawne1980 said:
It's a dead end argument to begin with, since "artistic merit" is primarily subjective (with limited objective interpretation of technique, or lack thereof), and relative to the beholder.
At the risk of being brash, I get the feeling you're not a writer. In stories like this everything is building up to the ultimate payoff: The climax and its resolution, which should be the high point of the series. That's why plot diagrams show the climax at the peak. It is in that moment that everything you've been working towards is at its head, when all the cards are on the table and you're all in, waiting on that final card to be revealed. All conflicts at this point are at their worst, the battle is right at the gate and the audience's emotional investment is at its peak. Essentially, the climax and its aftermath are the most important parts of the story (which is hardly unknown in the industry), both because it represents the ultimate payoff that everything preceding it has been leading up to, and because it is the single moment that you will either captivate or alienate your audience, to say nothing of the fact that it effectively acts as the final impression your work leaves on the audience, which can and often does affect their overall opinion of the series.bahumat42 said:
In this case, there's a general perception of poor quality in the ending, which might have been forgivible if they'd included a denoument allowing for cathasis[footnote]of either the good or ill variety[/footnote] and closure, but that too is denied to the audience leaving them walking away from the series with a feeling of disappointment compounded by the outright nihilisitic undertones[footnote]Which is problematic in its own right, as that message runs in direct opposition to the general thrust of the series in both the in-universe and meta-sense, with the former being embodied by the series' mantra about unity triumphing over seemingly impossible odds (perhaps most triuphantly exhibited in the climax of Mass Effect 2, though it is repeatedly referenced throughout the games and acts as the main reason you assemble the Victory Fleet in the first place) and the latter embodied by the core gameplay mechanics of choice and consequence[/footnote] that effectively serves to ruin the very act of decision making throughout the series in the first place[footnote]Let's look at cause and effect
for a moment here:
You saved the Rachni in the first game? You do realize how much of a gamble that is, right? As the Turian on the council so succinctly put it, if you were wrong in your judgment then more than one generation will suffer for it...Nah, just kidding. There's no way for them to affect the rest of the galaxy after the Relays are destroyed, and they're probably going to all be dead within a year anyway. Sol can't support an intergalactic armada on its own. You reclaimed Rannoch for the Quarians? Congratulations, now they can finally return to their home and...oh wait, yeah, the Migrant Fleet's in the Sol system and Rannoch's in another arm of the galaxy...without the Relays no Quarian will ever see it again...especially considering that they and the Turians can't eat anything from our side of the galaxy...er...congratulations, they're screwed no matter what you did? Did you preserve the collector base? Well, rest assured that no matter what you did there, the results won't be any differnt in the end, as without the Omega-4 Relay nobody can even reach it. Incidentally, what happened to the council? Not that I care, I mean the relays where what allowed Galactic Civilization to exist in the first place. And what about that Genophage? Meh, either way it's not like they can affect the galaxy anymore anyways...
Hope that explains the sentiment a bit.
I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. For the most part the reaction I've seen is that the game is great up until the last 10 minutes or so, though those ten minutes tends to taint the series. In fact, one of the more common laments I've seen is that the ending's effect is only exacerbated by the general quality the series exhibited up until that point (noting that, ironically, they wouldn't have been as angry if the rest of the game had been of similarly poor quality), making the ending's effect all the more tragic.bahumat42 said:
Here's how I look at it: most video games cost $60 plus dollars these days, I expect a good experience for my money if I'm gonna get it right out the bat. I would hope that this is something that everyone can agree on.
Bioware said "No A,B,C" endings for their $60 plus product. What the Mass Effect fans got was a game that flipped them the bird at the end. That's not false advertising, that's highway robbery. I'm not a Mass Effect fan, I've never played the games, but I know a scam when I see one and Bioware scammed their customers. Simple.
Bioware said "No A,B,C" endings for their $60 plus product. What the Mass Effect fans got was a game that flipped them the bird at the end. That's not false advertising, that's highway robbery. I'm not a Mass Effect fan, I've never played the games, but I know a scam when I see one and Bioware scammed their customers. Simple.
I disagree, Broken steel did more than just allow free roaming after the end of the main story, it fixed a very large plot hole, this was the result of complaints from their customers.Falcon123 said:
Artistic integrity argument is also wrong, if they want to tell their 3 endings deus ex ripoff, then fine, they can do that, but dont ask me to give them money by lying to me in the run up to release, and it is fact that customers were mislead by bioware, the No three endings statement from Mr Hudson for one.
-edit-
Any argument I make from now on is tainted by several large Glayvas, so apologies.
And I'm saying that the reaction I've seen hasn't been ignoring the rest of the game, but did deride the ending for its retroactive effect (among other things).bahumat42 said:
And on a tangent, as much as I like to echo Clerks' analysis of its ending, Return of the King didn't have a bad ending persay. Was it slow? Yes, and it could have satisfactorally ended any of several places, but at the same time it is the nature of the denoument to tie up loose ends and at least hint at the ultimate fate of the principle characters. While it was slow and possibly excessive, it fulfilled its function adequately.