Entitlement

[Shinigami214]

anc[is]

Who's defending Bioware in this manner? No one is saying the ending was good or that they don't deserve the backlash they're getting. The argument is over whether DLC fixing the ending should exist and its ramifications on the industry as a whole long term. I'm going to have to ask for some more explanation on your point, because calling fans entitled for demanding a new ending is not the same as defending Bioware's poor handling of the situation...

Only about 80-90% of the opposition. The thread title is one of the two words you can just parrot in order to shoot down anyone who wants it changed.

But how is that a defense of Bioware? I'm not denying that Bioware presented a bad ending (and it truly was bad; I don't think anyone is denying that), but I do believe that changing the ending is the wrong move, especially given the long term ramifications such a move would have, and players don't have the right to demand a new ending just because they personally don't like it any more than I have the right to tell you how to do your job. You don't like it? Don't give them your money. But they don't owe you anything.

I disagree profoundly.

They owed me Mass Effect 3 *as they promised it* the moment I exchanged money for it.

The key factor here is *as they promised it*. Me, and many other consumers included, aren't expecting the game to conform to our own likes/dislikes/hopes/dreams etc.

We simply expect it to live up to the promises that Bioware/EA made when they were promoting it.

To summarise - they promised a game that would conclude the story arch providing elements such as closure (i.e. answering questions and not leaving more unanswered), game endings that would profoundly reflect the series of choices made throughout the whole narrative, and be consistent with the lore world they created.

This are not fan expectations, I point out - these are pledges and promises that Bioware/EA spokespersons made over time leading to the release of the game.

We're not protesting that the ending is 'bad' - We're protesting that this is a case of misleading advertising. What they sold consumers was not the product as advertised.

Companies *have* been found guilty of false advertising in the past, and I am reasonably hopeful that it will be the case this time also - but only if the gaming community realises that consumers are not sulking because the ending 'wasn't what they hoped it to be' - but because Bioware/EA did not live up to its own end of the deal.

 

[peruvianskys]

Entitled is just a buzzword cooked up by the gaming corporations to demonize people who buy second hand.

Let me ask you who is more "entitled". The consumer who A.) Wants the product they were promised they would get B.) Wants the right to resell a game they paid for

OR:
The developers who want to dictate not only how you play your games (DRM, online passes ect...) but also who want to be the ONLY medium that bans second hand games. They even use the excuse that even though you paid for your very own copy of whatever you got, you don't reeeeally own it. Even though money exchanged hands and you were given a physical item in exchange.

Who is the entitled one?

Umm...the first one. The people who make a game get to decide how it's produced, how it's played, and the terms on which you purchase it. If the company released a press notice complaining about how no one bought their game, that would be entitled.

Do people understand how capitalism works? Producer has control of the product. If you don't like it, you don't buy it and the market pressure causes change. That's what you get to do. To demand things from publishers or producers or artists or entertainers is not your right; they owe you nothing. They produce something and you get to choose whether or not you buy it.

 

[Slayer_2]

As a modder and game dev, I can attest to the fact that gamers are never satisfied. There will always be a large percentage of people who want something changed. You can't compare it to Fallout 3, though, since that game has an SDK, which allows dedicated people (such as me) to change the game to suit what they like/want. If ME3 had an SDK, this "problem" would be solved by now.

 

[Falcon123]

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.

...and they delivered in the way they thought was best.

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".

It's almost impossible to tell until all the news comes out (and I don't think we've heard all the details yet. There's more coming, that much I can guarantee), but I think that maybe this was the ending they wanted to tell, or at least the ending that the people who wrote the ending wanted to tell (look up the Penny Arcade leak story; if it's true, it's the most logical explanation as to how we got to this point). Did it work? No. Did it contain weird continuity gaffes and fail to provide any key differences? I suppose that depends on whether the indoctrination theory is true. But I do believe they thought this was best, otherwise they wouldn't do it. This is Bioware we're talking about here. They weren't bullied into it, and they have no reason to purposefully make a shitty ending. They just failed. Good intentions, poor execution. That's why I don't understand why people take this so personally. Yes, the developers screwed up, but they weren't trying to offend anyone. Of that, I can assure you

 

[Vegosiux]

Do people understand how capitalism works? Producer has control of the product. If you don't like it, you don't buy it and the market pressure causes change. That's what you get to do. To demand things from publishers or producers or artists or entertainers is not your right; they owe you nothing. They produce something and you get to choose whether or not you buy it.

That's an awkward way to put it, really. I mean, if it was that way, the producer could go (after taking your money) "Fuck you, I don't owe you anything," and just walk away with your money. So yes, the producers do owe the consumers something. Usually that "something" is what the producer promised/advertised to the consumer.

To requote myself, and just slightly change the wording.

If I am promised a product that does X, the producer owes me a product that does X, otherwise I'm entitled to returning it for a refund. If I am promised a product that does not do Y, the producer owes me a product that does not do Y, otherwise I'm entitled to returning it for a refund.

 

[Falcon123]

And remember, buying the DLC that "fixes" everything only gives more money to the developer that you seem to oppose so deeply. And if people don't buy it, then why do you care that they make it? And if it is made, people will buy it, and Bioware will learn the opposite lesson; as long as they fix it later, people will keep giving them money. That precedent will affect gaming far longer than people will remember why they hated this ending

Have they established they would be charging for ending DLC? If its geniune content alla "Broken Steel" then fair enough, But I assumed they will slap an epilogue on the end and patch it in for freesie.

Also didn't the fallen steel dlc for fallout 3 set this precedent you speak of already?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'd argue that the plot hole wasn't as big of a deal, and it certainly didn't cause the controversy that this did, especially since the modding community was able to fix the hole rather quickly, but let's move on to your other statement.

Bioware didn't lie to you, or anyone else for that matter. Do you realize how many changes game developers have to make over the process of making a game? How many times do you think they had to go back and change things, make edits, or otherwise mess around with facets of the game in their attempt to create the best game they could? This is why quotes from developers aren't used in actual advertising posters; they're not meant to be advertising. They had an ideal. It changed over the production due to reasons we don't know yet. That's not lying; that's the process changing. If you think that means they're lying, you've never had to rework an essay, maintain a website, or make any significant purchases in your life (i.e. saying in six months you'll buy a BMW only to decide later to buy a Mercedes doesn't make you a liar).

If you don't like the game because of the last ten minutes, that's your right. But let's be clear. You weren't promised anything. Yes, I've read the quotes. Yes, they were strongly worded, and it retrospect, that was a horrible PR move because it bit them in the ass, but as I said on an earlier post, Peter Molyneaux does this every time he releases a game, and we just laugh at him at this point. No one sues Lionhead for Fable 3 not living up to the lofty goals it sets for itself. Hell, nearly every game has a quote from a developer that turns out to not be true when release happens. Shit happens sometimes. It's unfortunate, but you weren't lied to. You paid for Mass Effect 3, and you got it.

Now, if you're still mad, that's your right, but just don't buy games from Bioware anymore. Vote with your wallet; it's that simple. I sympathize with you; I'm disappointed too. But I don't want to hear anyone tell me they were lied to anymore

 

[Falcon123]

anc[is]

Who's defending Bioware in this manner? No one is saying the ending was good or that they don't deserve the backlash they're getting. The argument is over whether DLC fixing the ending should exist and its ramifications on the industry as a whole long term. I'm going to have to ask for some more explanation on your point, because calling fans entitled for demanding a new ending is not the same as defending Bioware's poor handling of the situation...

Only about 80-90% of the opposition. The thread title is one of the two words you can just parrot in order to shoot down anyone who wants it changed.

But how is that a defense of Bioware? I'm not denying that Bioware presented a bad ending (and it truly was bad; I don't think anyone is denying that), but I do believe that changing the ending is the wrong move, especially given the long term ramifications such a move would have, and players don't have the right to demand a new ending just because they personally don't like it any more than I have the right to tell you how to do your job. You don't like it? Don't give them your money. But they don't owe you anything.

I disagree profoundly.

They owed me Mass Effect 3 *as they promised it* the moment I exchanged money for it.

The key factor here is *as they promised it*. Me, and many other consumers included, aren't expecting the game to conform to our own likes/dislikes/hopes/dreams etc.

We simply expect it to live up to the promises that Bioware/EA made when they were promoting it.

To summarise - they promised a game that would conclude the story arch providing elements such as closure (i.e. answering questions and not leaving more unanswered), game endings that would profoundly reflect the series of choices made throughout the whole narrative, and be consistent with the lore world they created.

This are not fan expectations, I point out - these are pledges and promises that Bioware/EA spokespersons made over time leading to the release of the game.

We're not protesting that the ending is 'bad' - We're protesting that this is a case of misleading advertising. What they sold consumers was not the product as advertised.

Companies *have* been found guilty of false advertising in the past, and I am reasonably hopeful that it will be the case this time also - but only if the gaming community realises that consumers are not sulking because the ending 'wasn't what they hoped it to be' - but because Bioware/EA did not live up to its own end of the deal.

Read the post I have above. My answer to you is the same as the answer to him. Quotes in interviews are NOT advertising. The product isn't finished yet. They have hopes and plans that eventually have to be scratched. It's unfortunate, but it happens, and in most cases (see Molyneaux, Peter) we move on. That people haven't here is beginning to upset me personally

 

[JediMB]

Heres the thing about entitlement. If someone thinks they are entitled to something it does not matter how much logic or reason you throw at them, they think they deserve it and nothing you say will change their feelings.

But the only logic put forth against the change of Mass Effect 3's ending is circular logic, such as...

"You can't change the story because it's art. You can't change art because you can't change art."

 

[Asita]

As a modder and game dev, I can attest to the fact that gamers are never satisfied. There will always be a large percentage of people who want something changed. You can't compare it to Fallout 3, though, since that game has an SDK, which allows dedicated people (such as me) to change the game to suit what they like/want. If ME3 had an SDK, this "problem" would be solved by now.

As someone who indulges in argumentation as a hobby, I can tell you that the whole "gamers are never satisfied" bit is a rather blatant invocation of the Perfect Solution Fallacy, and thus a faulty premise to base any decision off of. The pursuit of excellence should never stop for fear that the goal can never be reached, because every step towards that goal is a step in the right direction.

 

[KILRbuny]

People talk about entitlement like it's something developers come up with... I haven't seen one instance of a developer accusing their fans of being entitled. I've mostly heard entitlement used against pirating, which is a good thing to point out. Besides that though, I have seen very little good use of the word in the gaming community.

So you bought a game that you think had a bad ending. Maybe it was ME3 or maybe it was Modern Warfare, who cares? That game is an expression of the developer's vision. Sure you can petition them, rage about it, beg them to change it, but if the developer feels that they expressed what they wanted through that ending, you are not entitled to a change to it. Nobody is, really. Only if the developer feels they did not express the story they were telling properly should they consider changing the ending.

Think about it. Where do director's cuts films come from? Usually, it's from a studio demanding a cut of the film for theatrical release that removed or changed something the director did not want. Maybe the director decided post-release that they wanted something changed. A director's cut of a film is NOT a fan-petitioned change to a film. Then it would be called a "fan's cut," or a "for-the-fan's version" in which the director decided to appease fans.

No matter what, all of these decisions will come from whoever created the game or film (or any other medium). Petition all you want, ***** till you bleed. If Bioware decides they do not want to change the ending, they're not going to change it. And you are entitled to nothing more.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

For a fee i should get a full and not ones with holes in waiting for DLC. Like with the multiplayer in that resi-evil game and currently the extra casino stuff in FF13-2.

As for ME3 i enjoyed it all, ending wasnt that great and was repeated in different colours, which didnt help. But those that use the "choices" example need to admit that your choices really didnt amount to all that much apart from who lived and died in ME2 - and you would have to have rushed the game to kill your team off. Most of your choices in ME1 just gave you an email in ME2. Big whoop.

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

Regardless if you killed or saved the Rachni queen in ME1, there is still a queen in ME3.

SPOILER OVER!!!!!!!

So none of your choice from ME1 to ME3 made any real significant change at all.

 

[Hyper-space]

If you buy a bag of crisps (chips to you americans) on the promise that these crisps (chips) are cheese flavour but find to your horror that they are infact onion you are entitled to complain.

That is entitlement.

That analogy is shit, the only thing that could even come close to it was if they advertised Mass Effect 3's multi-player and then it turned out it wasn't in the game. Or if they advertised an online-shooter featuring team death-match and then they leave it out.

If a video-game trilogy ends with something that was completely different in tone or whatever, you can complain, but you are not entitled to a refund or whatever. You're not entitled to a different ending or something that would fit your personal preference. There is a difference between false advertising (as I said before, with the multiplayer and shit) and vague promises about how the ending is gonna be ("the ending will be [insert adjective]"). Apparently we forgot how to read hype and took everything at face-value.

In short: fuck this hyperbolic shit and get over it.

 

[putowtin]

If you buy a bag of crisps (chips to you americans) on the promise that these crisps (chips) are cheese flavour but find to your horror that they are infact onion you are entitled to complain.

That is entitlement.

That analogy is shit, the only thing that could even come close to it was if they advertised Mass Effect 3's multi-player and then it turned out it wasn't in the game. Or if they advertised an online-shooter featuring team death-match and then they leave it out.

If a video-game trilogy ends with something that was completely different in tone or whatever, you can complain, but you are not entitled to a refund or whatever. You're not entitled to a different ending or something that would fit your personal preference. There is a difference between false advertising (as I said before, with the multiplayer and shit) and vague promises about how the ending is gonna be ("the ending will be [insert adjective]"). Apparently we forgot how to read hype and took everything at face-value.

In short: fuck this hyperbolic shit and get over it.

The games producers describe the product:

"As Mass Effect 3 is the end of the planned trilogy, the developers are not constrained by the necessity of allowing the story to diverge, yet also continue into the next chapter. This will result in a story that diverges
Into wildly different conclusions based on the player's actions in the first two chapters" - Casey Hudson.

"We wouldn't do it any other way. How could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can't say any more than that..." - Mike Gamble

This is what we were promised, this is not what we recieved. I didn't say I wanted my money back, I just said we didn't get what we were promised. And don't tell me to get over it, it's just plain rude!

 

[VivaciousDeimos]

Even the worst endings shouldn't tar the rest of the experience. OR in essence what you are saying is the final 1-3% of the experience is worth more than the preceding 97-99% of it put together.

At the risk of being brash, I get the feeling you're not a wrier. 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....
Hope that explains the sentiment a bit.

Out of curiosity, have you read this article? http://jmstevenson.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/all-that-matters-is-the-ending-part-2-mass-effect-3/

It was interesting because the author precisely outlines how they fucked up the plot arc (lack of falling action/resolution), as well as several other issues.

 

[Slayer_2]

As a modder and game dev, I can attest to the fact that gamers are never satisfied. There will always be a large percentage of people who want something changed. You can't compare it to Fallout 3, though, since that game has an SDK, which allows dedicated people (such as me) to change the game to suit what they like/want. If ME3 had an SDK, this "problem" would be solved by now.

As someone who indulges in argumentation as a hobby, I can tell you that the whole "gamers are never satisfied" bit is a rather blatant invocation of the Perfect Solution Fallacy, and thus a faulty premise to base any decision off of. The pursuit of excellence should never stop for fear that the goal can never be reached, because every step towards that goal is a step in the right direction.

When did I say they shouldn't try to reach perfection (although, perfection is in itself subjective, and therefore impossible to achieve for all 7 billion people on this earth)? Just that the ability to modify games not only greatly increases the playability, but also decreases the outcry over controversial features (or lack thereof). If an SDK had been released for ME3, thousands of modders would have created alternate endings to satisfy all sorts of gamers ticked off over what they got. Plus we'd have a ton of kick-ass mods for general gameplay, and what's not to like there?

 

[CaptOfSerenity]

Without going into spoiler territory, what were you specifically promised (with a link, preferably) that did not live up to said promise?

I'm not paying for art i'm paying for a product. If that product turns out to be shite then i'm going to complain.

then why are you here? If you think so little of this medium, why are you here? How can you say this isn't a piece of art, good or bad, when it clearly has an affect on you, me, and millions of other people?

That's a terrible way to look at games, and demeaning.

 

[Xenedus]

I'd argue that the plot hole wasn't as big of a deal, and it certainly didn't cause the controversy that this did, especially since the modding community was able to fix the hole rather quickly, but let's move on to your other statement.

Bioware didn't lie to you, or anyone else for that matter. Do you realize how many changes game developers have to make over the process of making a game? How many times do you think they had to go back and change things, make edits, or otherwise mess around with facets of the game in their attempt to create the best game they could? This is why quotes from developers aren't used in actual advertising posters; they're not meant to be advertising. They had an ideal. It changed over the production due to reasons we don't know yet. That's not lying; that's the process changing. If you think that means they're lying, you've never had to rework an essay, maintain a website, or make any significant purchases in your life (i.e. saying in six months you'll buy a BMW only to decide later to buy a Mercedes doesn't make you a liar).

If you don't like the game because of the last ten minutes, that's your right. But let's be clear. You weren't promised anything. Yes, I've read the quotes. Yes, they were strongly worded, and it retrospect, that was a horrible PR move because it bit them in the ass, but as I said on an earlier post, Peter Molyneaux does this every time he releases a game, and we just laugh at him at this point. No one sues Lionhead for Fable 3 not living up to the lofty goals it sets for itself. Hell, nearly every game has a quote from a developer that turns out to not be true when release happens. Shit happens sometimes. It's unfortunate, but you weren't lied to. You paid for Mass Effect 3, and you got it.

Now, if you're still mad, that's your right, but just don't buy games from Bioware anymore. Vote with your wallet; it's that simple. I sympathize with you; I'm disappointed too. But I don't want to hear anyone tell me they were lied to anymore

These were not promises made early in the development cycle before they finalized the ending. Look at the dates on those interviews. The game was already finalized when they were giving those interviews and as such they were knowingly lying about the ending.

Secondly Interviews DO hold up as advertising or are you suggesting that I could promise that my product would make you a god among men and cook you breakfast every morning as long as I do it on an interview. The whole idea that devs can lie directly to your face as long as it's "in an interview" is completely absurd. Peter Moleneaux makes very abstract statements about his games and RARELY ever makes a specific claim or promise about his game that isn't met.

 

[anthony87]

Without going into spoiler territory, what were you specifically promised (with a link, preferably) that did not live up to said promise?

I'm not paying for art i'm paying for a product. If that product turns out to be shite then i'm going to complain.

then why are you here? If you think so little of this medium, why are you here? How can you say this isn't a piece of art, good or bad, when it clearly has an affect on you, me, and millions of other people?

That's a terrible way to look at games, and demeaning.

Why is it terrible to look at a game as a game rather than trying to elevate it up to a pedestal?

 

[coolbeans21]

I'd argue that the plot hole wasn't as big of a deal, and it certainly didn't cause the controversy that this did, especially since the modding community was able to fix the hole rather quickly, but let's move on to your other statement.

Bioware didn't lie to you, or anyone else for that matter. Do you realize how many changes game developers have to make over the process of making a game? How many times do you think they had to go back and change things, make edits, or otherwise mess around with facets of the game in their attempt to create the best game they could? This is why quotes from developers aren't used in actual advertising posters; they're not meant to be advertising. They had an ideal. It changed over the production due to reasons we don't know yet. That's not lying; that's the process changing. If you think that means they're lying, you've never had to rework an essay, maintain a website, or make any significant purchases in your life (i.e. saying in six months you'll buy a BMW only to decide later to buy a Mercedes doesn't make you a liar).

If you don't like the game because of the last ten minutes, that's your right. But let's be clear. You weren't promised anything. Yes, I've read the quotes. Yes, they were strongly worded, and it retrospect, that was a horrible PR move because it bit them in the ass, but as I said on an earlier post, Peter Molyneaux does this every time he releases a game, and we just laugh at him at this point. No one sues Lionhead for Fable 3 not living up to the lofty goals it sets for itself. Hell, nearly every game has a quote from a developer that turns out to not be true when release happens. Shit happens sometimes. It's unfortunate, but you weren't lied to. You paid for Mass Effect 3, and you got it.

Now, if you're still mad, that's your right, but just don't buy games from Bioware anymore. Vote with your wallet; it's that simple. I sympathize with you; I'm disappointed too. But I don't want to hear anyone tell me they were lied to anymore

Fallout 3's radiation issue may not have caused nearly as much controvesy as the ME3 debacle, but it was a developer fixing a fairly stupid plothole in their game and "changing their artistic vision", you cant dismiss the fact that the precedent already exists.

I understand that things change during the production of any game, movie or essay, but a lot of those prerelease quotes came in the last two months before launch.

When the Lead Producer makes a promise two months before launch (when the game is completed, remember they established that in defence of the day 1 dlc), or the lead writer makes a statement 30 days before launch, then that should be something we can "take to the bank" these aren't statements made mid development, the game is for all intents and purposes complete, they knew that these things weren't in the game yet said it anyway.


That right there isn't hype, thats lying.

Nobody is suing bioware, at worst an FTC complaint has been initiated, calling for an investigation into their practices.

 

[Falcon123]

I'd argue that the plot hole wasn't as big of a deal, and it certainly didn't cause the controversy that this did, especially since the modding community was able to fix the hole rather quickly, but let's move on to your other statement.

Bioware didn't lie to you, or anyone else for that matter. Do you realize how many changes game developers have to make over the process of making a game? How many times do you think they had to go back and change things, make edits, or otherwise mess around with facets of the game in their attempt to create the best game they could? This is why quotes from developers aren't used in actual advertising posters; they're not meant to be advertising. They had an ideal. It changed over the production due to reasons we don't know yet. That's not lying; that's the process changing. If you think that means they're lying, you've never had to rework an essay, maintain a website, or make any significant purchases in your life (i.e. saying in six months you'll buy a BMW only to decide later to buy a Mercedes doesn't make you a liar).

If you don't like the game because of the last ten minutes, that's your right. But let's be clear. You weren't promised anything. Yes, I've read the quotes. Yes, they were strongly worded, and it retrospect, that was a horrible PR move because it bit them in the ass, but as I said on an earlier post, Peter Molyneaux does this every time he releases a game, and we just laugh at him at this point. No one sues Lionhead for Fable 3 not living up to the lofty goals it sets for itself. Hell, nearly every game has a quote from a developer that turns out to not be true when release happens. Shit happens sometimes. It's unfortunate, but you weren't lied to. You paid for Mass Effect 3, and you got it.

Now, if you're still mad, that's your right, but just don't buy games from Bioware anymore. Vote with your wallet; it's that simple. I sympathize with you; I'm disappointed too. But I don't want to hear anyone tell me they were lied to anymore

These were not promises made early in the development cycle before they finalized the ending. Look at the dates on those interviews. The game was already finalized when they were giving those interviews and as such they were knowingly lying about the ending.

Secondly Interviews DO hold up as advertising or are you suggesting that I could promise that my product would make you a god among men and cook you breakfast every morning as long as I do it on an interview. The whole idea that devs can lie directly to your face as long as it's "in an interview" is completely absurd. Peter Moleneaux makes very abstract statements about his games and RARELY ever makes a specific claim or promise about his game that isn't met.

There's a significant divide in interviews and advertising. That's why they have different names.

Not everyone is involved in every aspect of game design, and things get cut after people make statements. It's possible that one team of people assumed the game would end one way, and those scenes were cut in the final product (this is actually what happened if you believe the Penny Arcade leak). In those cases, the promises were out of their control. Is it bad PR? Yes, but they weren't purposefully trying to mislead you. There's no reason they would put themselves in legal risk like that.

Now, withholding the correct ending that has closure and all the other things they promised to manipulate people into buying DLC...that kind of manipulation is absolutely possible, and I wait to see what details come out next before I remark on that