Entitlement

[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

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.

See the post above this one, as I handled a lot of the same things. And I still think the change in Fallout 3 was mostly made for DLC purposes, but we could argue on that for a while, and neither of us would get anywhere. I think we'll have to wait for more details before we can judge anything else, but I still think regardless that the reaction of Mass Effect fans has been completely overblown given the utter lack of information currently available

 

[Oro44]

Re-post from another thread: The word "entitlement" gets thrown around a lot these days, mostly incorrectly as a generic insult, but in this case, I think it applies (and not in a negative way).

Regardless of whether you feel video games are art or not, they are still a product. As a consumer, you are "entitled" to the product as it is advertised. This is why you hear about "money back guarantees". People get their money back on products all the time, be they defective or simply unsatisfying.

Unfortunately, Casey Hudson ran his mouth off and promised all sorts of things that were not delivered upon. This means that the product was not as it was advertised, and the consumer is, in fact, "entitled" to file complaints, demand their money's worth, etc.

Having said that; on the flip side, Bioware isn't required to do crap here. Though the complaints against them are valid (and I believe refunds are already taking place through Amazon), they do not have to "fix" and ending that they deemed sufficient in the first place. However, it would make good business sense to do so in order to not alienate their fanbase any further. In order to make money, people have to WANT to buy your future products.

Also, Casey Hudson running his mouth off may not constitute "advertising" per se. But it does constitute misleading the loyal fanbase or, indeed, anyone who watched / read his interviews. Where that stand from a legal standpoint? I don't know.

 

[Kahunaburger]

ITT: we discuss this issue as if art were not open to criticism and it were unnacceptable to request things from artists.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

No spoilers here, nor in the discussion, please.

After Mass Effect fans demanded that Bioware change the ending to ME3, a torrent of derogatory comments and overuse of the word "entitlement" have brought out adversarial relationships between games press, game fans, and game developers, with the fans on one side, alone.

Yes they are on one side alone(wonder why? =p), but you need to add that there are two groups of fans.

Fans that support in the whole "Retake Mass Effect", and fans like me that believe those fans are crazy and really shouldn't be calling themselves fans if they keep up with what they are doing.

 

[Asita]

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 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....
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.

I did indeed. I was actually considering linking it, but figured that more general statements on the importance of the ending would illustrate my point better.

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?

In as many words? It's a position that's easy enough to infer, given your claim "there will always be a large percentage of people who want something changed", which - whether intentional or not - reads as a rather defeatist position effectively synonymous with "people won't be happy anyways, so why bother?", at least in regards to this particular case if nothing else. Precident alone associates the phrase with that attitude, whether or not you espouse it yourself. If I misread you, I apologize.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

ITT: we discuss this issue as if art were not open to criticism and it were unnacceptable to request things from artists.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it is acceptable for people to go on such a tirade and try to make artists change their work.

If I had wrote a successful trilogy and fans of my work got all up in arms about how I decided to end it and demanded me to change it, I would laugh and say, "Hell no! It's my work and it will end how I want it to end."

 

[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.

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

My question is "what do you consider games?" I'm not elevating anything to a pedestal; I stated facts in that response.

 

[CaptOfSerenity]

No spoilers here, nor in the discussion, please.

After Mass Effect fans demanded that Bioware change the ending to ME3, a torrent of derogatory comments and overuse of the word "entitlement" have brought out adversarial relationships between games press, game fans, and game developers, with the fans on one side, alone.

Yes they are on one side alone(wonder why? =p), but you need to add that there are two groups of fans.

Fans that support in the whole "Retake Mass Effect", and fans like me that believe those fans are crazy and really shouldn't be calling themselves fans if they keep up with what they are doing.

Well, it goes without saying there are fans who disagree with these people. Nobody assumes it is all Mass Effect fans who are saying this. but, fair point.

 

[anthony87]

ITT: we discuss this issue as if art were not open to criticism and it were unnacceptable to request things from artists.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it is acceptable for people to go on such a tirade and try to make artists change their work.

If I had wrote a successful trilogy and fans of my work got all up in arms about how I decided to end it and demanded me to change it, I would laugh and say, "Hell no! It's my work and it will end how I want it to end."

It's not about not liking the ending. It's about the fact that the ending of the third game of the series takes an entirely different direction from the rest of the series within the last 10 minutes with no foreshadowing whatsoever.

Someone who has never touched any of the previous games and who just blows through the main story will get the same ending as someone who has been with the series from the beginning, doing every possible thing to get the best outcome since the days of Mass Effect 1 and considering that the series was built around your choices affecting the outcome, that's total bullshit.

I wouldn't say they should change the ending but they sure as hell need to fix it because if there actually is something to any of this "artistic integrity" nonsense that people bringing up then I fail to see how any of the writers involved would've wanted their game to end in that halfassed way.

 

[Asita]

ITT: we discuss this issue as if art were not open to criticism and it were unnacceptable to request things from artists.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it is acceptable for people to go on such a tirade and try to make artists change their work.

If I had wrote a successful trilogy and fans of my work got all up in arms about how I decided to end it and demanded me to change it, I would laugh and say, "Hell no! It's my work and it will end how I want it to end."

In what manner are you referring? I could see the argument if fans were yelling "Hermione and Harry should have ended up together!", or "How could you kill off Neo???", but what if they were pointing to the way your ending was contrary to the tone of the story, didn't make sense given what we know of the story, relied on the characters acting out of character, invoked deus ex machina, failed to deliver a sense of catharsis or closure, and/or was just plain poorly written from a literary standpoint? With those latter cases they aren't just disagreeing with your artistic vision, they are pointing out well recognized flaws in the prose itself. You could easily defend against the first two complaints, but ignoring the latter ones - provided the criticism is well placed - effectively kills you as an artist. If an artist is incapable of recognizing their own flaws and is unwilling to work to fix those flaws, he is not invoking artistic integrity, he is merely polishing his stubborn pride and will doom himself to make the same mistakes in the future.

 

[peruvianskys]

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.

The problem is that you have to distinguish between factual statements and hype. The back of the box for ME3 states that it is sexier, for example. I wouldn't have the right to demand a refund if the sexiness was not up to my standards. That is an example of a subjective concept that I may personally disagree with, but have no claim to actually shout "false advertising."

If the back of the box said "Watch Shepard bang two robots at once" and Shepard never banged even a single robot, then that's a factual statement about a feature that was not included. That would be grounds for being grumpy.

If the back of the box said "Pay twenty bucks more and we'll mail you a Mass Effect hat" but you did and they intentionally refused to mail it to you, THAT is a situation where legally you could complain and get money back and all that. The other two, not so much.

 

[Slayer_2]

In as many words? It's a position that's easy enough to infer, given your claim "there will always be a large percentage of people who want something changed", which - whether intentional or not - reads as a rather defeatist position effectively synonymous with "people won't be happy anyways, so why bother?", at least in regards to this particular case if nothing else. Precident alone associates the phrase with that attitude, whether or not you espouse it yourself. If I misread you, I apologize.

You say "defeatist", I say "realistic". The fact is that it is, and will forever be impossible to release a game that has 100% positive feedback. That's life. Unless we form a hive mind, which would have quite a few perks. Anyway, what matters is the size of the percentage, and can it be shrunk in a significant way without expending too much money? Fact is, you'd be hard pressed to get ANYONE to claim ANY game as perfect. A game without flaws, or something that the individual would like changed (no matter how small it is), is as elusive and impractical as world peace. Actually, harder to attain than that, I'd argue.

EDIT: I'd like to clarify that I'm not saying there's no point in trying, just that it's not possible to please everyone.

 

[Asita]

You say "defeatist", I say "realistic". The fact is that it is, and will forever be impossible to release a game that has 100% positive feedback. That's life. Unless we form a hive mind, which would have quite a few perks. Anyway, what matters is the size of the percentage, and can it be shrunk in a significant way without expending too much money? Fact is, you'd be hard pressed to get ANYONE to claim ANY game as perfect. A game without flaws, or something that the individual would like changed (no matter how small it is), is as elusive and impractical as world peace. Actually, harder to attain than that, I'd argue.

Methinks you misunderstand the meaning of "Perfect Solution Fallacy". The idea behind it is that a proposition is rejected because it won't be perfect. The fact that perfection is a pipe dream is actually one of the reasons that is a recognized fallacy, and I was saying that your post read like it invoked it. Clearly I didn't express that well since you managed to read it as if I was suggesting that there was an ideal solution.

 

[Slayer_2]

Methinks you misunderstand the meaning of "Perfect Solution Fallacy". The idea behind it is that a proposition is rejected because it won't be perfect. The fact that perfection is a pipe dream is actually one of the reasons that is a recognized fallacy, and I was saying that your post read like it invoked it. Clearly I didn't express that well since you managed to read it as if I was suggesting that there was an ideal solution.

I don't understand it at all, I'll admit. If you aren't going to do something because it won't be perfect, then you'll end up doing nothing in life, since nothing is perfect.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

A long and adequately constructed plea for sanity and common sense that's liable to fall on deaf ears.

I agree with you on all points but for your own sake? Stop. Nothing you could ever do, no analogies you could ever make are going to stop the opposite camp to come up with its own analogies and to shred your arguments into a fine pulp.

One group of folks feels it's their prerogative to demand a better ending because of Reasons A, B, C, and D, and another group of folks feels that we aren't in any kind of moral or legal right to make a fuss because of Reasons A, B, C and D.

All the ME3 rage or defense threads tend to devolve into circle-jerking, the way things are currently. My guess is we'll only have a straight answer once BioWare releases something. Either the angry ones receive vindication, or they're even *more* disappointed than they already were.

We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Asita]

Methinks you misunderstand the meaning of "Perfect Solution Fallacy". The idea behind it is that a proposition is rejected because it won't be perfect. The fact that perfection is a pipe dream is actually one of the reasons that is a recognized fallacy, and I was saying that your post read like it invoked it. Clearly I didn't express that well since you managed to read it as if I was suggesting that there was an ideal solution.

I don't understand it at all, I'll admit. If you aren't going to do something because it won't be perfect, then you'll end up doing nothing in life, since nothing is perfect.

Ironically, you just echoed the reason that the Perfect Solution Fallacy is considered a fallacy in the first place. Let me see if I can explain this a little better. I apologize if this seems basic, but I want to eliminate the source of this confusion:

A fallacy is a logical expression that fails as an argument due to faulty methodology. The most famous of these are "strawmen" (wherein the speaker attacks a fascimile of the opponent's position rather than the actual position), and "ad hominem" (personal attacks rather than actual argumentation).

When I say your phrasing invoked the Perfect Solution Fallacy, I mean that - regardless of intent - it implied that a change should not be made simply because it cannot deliver an ideal solution and due to its nature as a fallacy the implication is not logically sound.

For instance, another invocation of the Perfect Solution Fallacy might read thusly:

Posit (fallacious): Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car wrecks.
Retort: While seat belts could never save 100% of people involved in car accidents, the number of lives that would be saved is enough to far outweigh any negative consequences of wearing a seat belt.

In this case, I felt that your phrasing read in a way that could be paraphrased thus:

Posit: Changing the ending is pointless. There are still going to be people upset with whatever change they might make.

Which echos the spirit of the aforementioned fallacy, hence my speaking up against the implication.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

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.

Erm... no. Even if they are Art (and I maintain that some games are certainly Art (capital A) while others are still only art (small a)) they can still be a product. People OWN many things that are qualified Art. In fact, if people didn't buy Art there'd be no Art in the world, because Artists need to eat too, and therefore need to get paid something for what they do.

Art for Art's sake is... well it's something that only happens in certain cases and many of those include some artist starving somewhere or working some other job to facilitate the ability to exist while making their Art. There are some very romantic ideas about Art floating around the Internet... mostly held by people who are not Artists. I say that because Artists know the reality of Art is actually a lot like other career choices - sure it's your passion, but it's also food on the table and work and approval and all those other things us mere mortals have to deal with. I blame Deviant Art a little bit for this extra-romantic Art idea - you go there and you see all this amazing it's all very wow and cool, but those people aren't typically getting paid - that's not usually their JOB.

For the people at Bioware and EA - this is a JOB. It means they need to deliver a product for which we will pay them so that they can eat and their little children can eat and they can all have houses and so on and so forth - the circle of life. That's what makes their Art also a Product. Something we consume. They aren't painting one of a kind murals for a church. They aren't sculpting the meaning of masculinity for the ages. They are making a video game that millions of people will buy and enjoy. It's beautiful. It's Artistic. It is, in fact, Art yes - but it remains a Product. Just like lots of other Art is a Product - it's what happens when Art is sold.

Additionally, it's been pointed out, but lots of Art gets changed when the person paying for it (the consumer) has a say in what they are buying (happens a lot actually - request a commission piece sometime, you'll find out what a process that is). We want a say, because we all bought it. You find that unreasonable, there are certainly arguments to be made for that position, but they do not lay in the fact that we are discussing a piece of commercialized art.

 

[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.

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

I'm sorry, but arguing that advertising is somehow different from interviews is arguing a lost cause.

Legally and otherwise, they considered one and the same thing - promotion intended to draw consumer attention towards a product or service and the benefits that can be obtained through it.

This is the definition online I was able to obtain within minutes:

"advertising: the act or practice of calling public attention to one's product, service, need, etc., especially by paid announcements in newspapers and magazines, over radio or television, on billboards"

Re your claim that in interviews its ok to outline aspects that might later get dropped, honest trading and ethical advertising dictate that one informs consumers of the fact that the game changed from what was promised, and that some compromises have to be made.

I agree completely that its unfortunate when games fall short of their creators' dreams, but having made certain disclosures to the public in order to generate attention and appeal, its only fair to similarly think of the public when said features get dropped from the final cut.

First intentionally making certain pledges, and later not similarly publicly rescinding them when the content/features is knowingly cut for whatever reason, is at best inept, and at worst openly dishonest.

I don't really care what happened with Peter Molyneaux' game - if his consumers were content to roll over, that's their deal.

This is this, and here is now, and I'm quite confident that should this debate reach a point where Bioware/EA are held to account over how their finished product did not meet the expectations its own promotion created, it would be a positive landmark moment for the games industry, as game developers and publishers would have a harder time presenting each game as if its the One Game To Rule Them All.

 

[Slayer_2]

Methinks you misunderstand the meaning of "Perfect Solution Fallacy". The idea behind it is that a proposition is rejected because it won't be perfect. The fact that perfection is a pipe dream is actually one of the reasons that is a recognized fallacy, and I was saying that your post read like it invoked it. Clearly I didn't express that well since you managed to read it as if I was suggesting that there was an ideal solution.

I don't understand it at all, I'll admit. If you aren't going to do something because it won't be perfect, then you'll end up doing nothing in life, since nothing is perfect.

Ironically, you just echoed the reason that the Perfect Solution Fallacy is considered a fallacy in the first place. Let me see if I can explain this a little better. I apologize if this seems basic, but I want to eliminate the source of this confusion:

A fallacy is a logical expression that fails as an argument due to faulty methodology. The most famous of these are "strawmen" (wherein the speaker attacks a fascimile of the opponent's position rather than the actual position), and "ad hominem" (personal attacks rather than actual argumentation).

When I say your phrasing invoked the Perfect Solution Fallacy, I mean that - regardless of intent - it implied that a change should not be made simply because it cannot deliver an ideal solution and due to its nature as a fallacy the implication is not logically sound.

For instance, another invocation of the Perfect Solution Fallacy might read thusly:

Posit (fallacious): Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car wrecks.
Retort: While seat belts could never save 100% of people involved in car accidents, the number of lives that would be saved is enough to far outweigh any negative consequences of wearing a seat belt.

In this case, I felt that your phrasing read in a way that could be paraphrased thus:

Posit: Changing the ending is pointless. There are still going to be people upset with whatever change they might make.

Which echos the spirit of the aforementioned fallacy, hence my speaking up against the implication.

In this case, I think the car wreck has already happened, and changing the ending would be the equivalent of the wounded driver buckling up after the fact. Can't really make it worse, can't really make it better, either. The crash has already happened, within 24 hours of the game launching (as long as it took the first nerd to run though it as quickly as possible). Except it can make it worse, since putting on the seatbelt costs the driver (studio) money and time, something they aren't willing to do.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

I wouldn't say they should change the ending but they sure as hell need to fix it....

They could either change the ending or make some DLC to tie things up; the problem with that is that adding DLC would make the DLC the ending, effectively changing the ending.

So no matter what they do, they will be changing the ending.