Extra Credits Takes a Stab at the Mass Effect 3 issues

[Halo Fanboy]

Film is considered art, but not all films are artistic. And those that are, aren't always good. Same thing with prose. And music. And painting. And photography. As much as I love the filmography of David Cronenberg, there are some nights where I just want to pop in a Roger Corman creature feature. Is there a reason I can't have both? Do I have to pick one or the other and stick with it?

Further, do you believe that you can art in moments? The bomb scene in CoD 4 gets a lot of praise, and rightly so. It was genuinely unexpected and generated a real visceral response in players that drove home the unpleasant realities of warfare. The rest of the game was basically just gun and explosion porn, but does it make that scene any less clever or evocative? Is there any reason we can't have more stuff like that?

Uh, I just want to demonstrate that art issue isn't as necessary to good games as people are saying it is.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

If the "failure" of Mass Effect 3's final minutes has done anything, it has proven exactly how successful the rest of the trilogy was.

Fantastically said, Daniel Floyd, if only there were actually people who didn't realize how amazing the series had been up until that point. Even the best whiskey, perfectly aged in the greatest of oak casks, can have a soured opinion if the aftertaste leaves you wondering if they slipped in some rancid horse urine there at the end. Congratulations him on completely grasping the thing that made us all so angry, then saying that he wouldn't talk about it.

No closure, no account, no affirmation, and an ending theme completely disjointed from the rest of the point of the narrative would make anything fall flat. They want to end it on a bleak note, great, fantastic, it's their option as creators. People can ***** about that all they like.

Know what else would have proven how successful the trilogy was? If it had ended efficiently. Does anyone think Star Wars or Lord of the Rings would have been improved with a botched ending, where we could say "Wow, what a great series. Except for the ending that was so crap it threatened our memories of the rest of the trilogy." No. There's no call for an ending so messed up, when everything else in the series has come together to be an actual, honest to gods epic, a tale of impossible odds, of victories and deaths, of noble sacrifice and of heroic deeds.

 

[Tanakh]

That depends on whether or not you believe the adaptation must be totally faithful to the source material. I don't.

But if you are going to change it, then improve it. HAL was improved, so i am fine with that, the ending was horrible! You don't mix hard Sci-Fi with surrealism, not to mention fucking up the continuity for the next 4 books.

That said, i am totally cold to the psychodelia and most of the 60's, so YMMV. I am just grateful Clark ignored that hippy nonsensensical end in the rest of the series.

 

[klaynexas3]

it was a well written ending, and was like a tragedy. i did like that i could keep playing after the new ending, but still, i feel that prevents it's ability to have any closure and have any effect on me.

Hehehe really? Really? I remember there was kind of a "BLAT" noise, and you were a little bit of dust, and then you got some really perfunctory aftermath paragraphs, and then the game was over. I guess you could argue that the CONCEPT of the sacrifice was kind of moving, but the execution was so hilariously awful I actually can't stop laughing while I'm writing this.

No...Broken Steel was necessary, unfortunately.

i remember it differently, maybe because i haven't beaten it in a few years, but i remember things getting woozy and me dying of radiation poisoning, and yeah, the narrator comes and talks about what happens after this, but i'm dead, not like i can really play through the after math. and i guess that's a matter of opinion on whether the continuation was necessary or not, because i think the game was fine enough as was before hand

 

[217not237]

Hey artistic hacks, guess what. This is a game, a product one buys and spends money on.

Stop sucking on Kubrick's wang and get over yourself. 2001 was not a good movie, stop trying to force that on us.

See, when I'm talking about people being anti-intellectual and immature, this is the sort of thing I'm referring to. How is this guy helping anyone?

Well, to be fari Kubrick's movies seem to be alwasy shitty as adaptations of the source material. 2001 was a great film, but if you read the book start to wonder if Kubrick ever did.

I hate to get off-topic, but the movie was released before the book.

 

[Tanakh]

Debatable. I preferred A Clockwork Orange myself, but 2001 still had an impact on me.

Debatable my ass. You would need to be a genious of Robert Johnson proportions to combine two things as diametrically oposed as surrealims and hard sci-fi ending up with someting better.

I guess he had little choice though, the ending of the book open, it was obv planned as a series, and back then trilogies were out of style. So for an ending that he needed to devise it was good enough.

 

[Tanakh]

I hate to get off-topic, but the movie was released before the book.

Yep, it was, and?

 

[Jodah]

So, I have a question for the "games are art" folks out there. Let's say, just for a second, that games are art. Why then, are they the only form of art in the world that is immune to criticism? Nobody is forcing Bioware/EA to change the game. All people are doing is voicing their complaints, some better than others, but nobody has a gun to someone's head forcing them to change it.

Why then, is it a terrible strike against artistic integrity when gamers say "No, this is shit. You should change it" but it isn't when someone says it about a painting or music?

 

[Gigatoast]

Is anyone going to acknowledge that maybe the idea of consumers holding a studio responsible for their actions might be a good thing? This will lead to developers being more inclined to accept real fan-feedback because it proves that we are still a powerful force to be reckoned with, and they'll be less likely to cut corners in places where it matters.

I'm very disappointed in EC for falling into that tired 'artistic integrity' bulls**t. It doesn't apply to a commercial product, and it does not justify a failure to meet the promises made before release, and Bioware will not set a 'dangerous precedent' by fixing their crass mistake, end of story.

 

[Tanakh]

Are we really going to argue taste?

Yes we are! How can you justify changing from a hiperrealistic Sci-Fi narrative (as realistic as Sci-Fi can go anyway) to a mystic based one in the last minutes of the film? And PM me, we have derrailed this long enough

And by we i mean I, have that nasty habit on boring threds

 

[217not237]

I hate to get off-topic, but the movie was released before the book.

Yep, it was, and?

Well, your comment said it was a poor adaptation.

 

[Tanakh]

Well, your comment said it was a poor adaptation.

It is, the movie is based on the book mate. The movie also happens to be realeased before.

 

[Tanis]

I hope Bioware's DLC screws up the ending even MORE...just to piss off all these crybabies.

 

[RatRace123]

I have to respectfully disagree with the EC guys.
For this whole argument about artistic integrity, I've thought of a new point to bring out.

EA likely doesn't give a shit about artistic integrity, and I highly doubt that Mass Effect 3 is the game that it is because EA respected Bioware's artistic vision. I'm still convinced that multiplayer was put in just so they could charge for an online pass.

So, I'm pretty sure Bioware's artistic integrity was already shot by EA, and even if it wasn't, I don't think that adding on to the ending (I highly doubt that they're actually going to change it completely, and any DLC is probably just going to add onto the ending.) does anything to damage the message or theme that they were trying to get across. And even if it does, they sacrificed a coherent ending for artistic integrity, and given the choice between the two, I'd take a coherent ending.

 

[Snotnarok]

I'm amazed people are still flipping out about .01% of the game, when I'm sure more than 60% are replaying the game regardless.

They'll make a new ending that goes with DLC just like Fallout 3 and Sonic 3 & Knuckles, then everyone will be upset they have to pay for the new ending like it's something that hasn't been done before.

 

[Berenzen]

So, I have a question for the "games are art" folks out there. Let's say, just for a second, that games are art. Why then, are they the only form of art in the world that is immune to criticism? Nobody is forcing Bioware/EA to change the game. All people are doing is voicing their complaints, some better than others, but nobody has a gun to someone's head forcing them to change it.

Why then, is it a terrible strike against artistic integrity when gamers say "No, this is shit. You should change it" but it isn't when someone says it about a painting or music?

It isn't immune to criticism anymore than books and movies are. You are perfectly allowed to say "I really didn't like the way you did this ending, I think you could have handled it better."


However you are not allowed to demand them to change it after the work has been released- if they ask you for your opinion before the product is released, you can tell them that they should change it- they are asking you to take part in their artistic vision. After the piece is released, everybody else is not taking part in developing it- they are experiencing it. There's a bit of a difference. As far as I know, there hasn't been anyone that had DEMANDED an ending be wholly rewritten after the piece has been released in any medium aside from video games.