Imp Emissary said:
Grey Carter said:
Pyrian said:
Whatever your feelings on the ending and some the pressure to change it, accusing people who don't share your opinion of either not understanding it or being corrupt is intellectually dishonest.
Suggesting that people making blatant strawman arguments are "not understanding" is the
polite response, since the alternative (and probable reality) is that they're
deliberately mischaracterizing the discussion - which, BTW,
is intellectually dishonest.
If media figures who haven't even played the game are going to go around leveling ad hominem attacks on behalf of their sponsors, they're inviting criticism. Frankly, accusing games journalism of corruption is kind of like accusing lobbyists of the same - isn't it essentially their job description? Very few sites even pretend to avoid conflicts of interest.
So, just to get this straight, you're calling me corrupt? That's a very poor way to start a conversation.
Well this could have gone better. Good comic by the way.
Mind if I as 2 questions?
Do you think BioWare is putting their artistic vision (or whatever you call it) at risk with what they plan to do, by which I mean keep the ending the same, but adding on additional content after the end to explain it and give some more closure?
I get what people say about just changing the ending just because the people playing the game didn't like it, because that would be very very very very bad. However, I also get what people say about how the ending isn't just disliked because it's bad, but also because it doesn't make sense and gives no sense of closure (good or bad).
So, 3rd question (Its kind of a rewrite of 2). Do you think keeping the ending, but adding to it is an acceptable option?
Question 1:
I think it's a complex issue. Qualifying "artistic vision" when you're dealing with a team of people working under the yoke of a corporation known for editorial interference is a tricky proposition. As a writer, I find the idea of any kind of populist movement that tries to pressure creators into changing their work inherently distasteful, no matter how much I might agree that those changes would make the work better. That strikes me as fans overstepping the boundary between creator/audience, which inspires a kind of reflexive "No. Fuck you." I said some fairly stupid shit, [https://twitter.com/#!/the_moviebob/statuses/182566321035292674]on the topic - shit I would later regret. I think a lot of journalists reacted the same way.
After considering the issue, I'm a bit more moderate, but still convinced this whole issue will encourage other developers to experiment less when it comes to narrative. They'll take the safe option rather than risk fan outrage. That, to me, seems like a step toward the heavy duty focus testing of Hollywood films.
Legally, I don't think the movement has a leg to stand on. "Closure" is a difficult term to define in a court of law and creator commentary, particularly from a writer who doesn't have full control of the project, is not advertising. If it was, we would have burned Molyneux at the stake by now.
That being said I'm immensely proud of gamers for actually getting up of their arses and doing something about a problem rather than just whining about it. The internet is littered with the the carcasses of controversies and outrages that inspired nothing but a bout of belly aching and the occasional worthless boycott. The fact they're standing up for what they believe in is still commendable, even if I don't agree.
Question 2
Perhaps.
I think the biggest problem with the ME endings was their brevity. The actual core conceit: Reapers harvest advanced lifeforms so younger ones can have a chance at life, and the destruction of the mass relays, are both solid concepts that could, with the right amount of care, have made for an awesome ending. I think by expanding on these concepts, BioWare
could potentially answer most of the criticism of the endings. Whether it would satisfy fans is a different question.
Lore: The thing about Sci-fi "lore" is that it's inherently quite mutable due to the nature of technology. With a little bit of exposition you can generally explain just about anything. I find it hilarious that people complain about "space magic" in ME3 when, in the previous game, Shepard literally
came back from the dead after
falling from orbit. Of course, in ME2, the game actually explained to the player how the Lazarus project worked and made it seem almost plausible. After twenty minutes or so, players were ready and willing to accept their freshly-revived ChristShep as consistent with the lore. By actually explaining what the hell was going on rather than trying to pull and Arthur C. Clark, the original endings could have avoided coming into conflict with the lore.
Same goes for the logical gaps and the lack of closure. Show why Joker was flying through the Mass Relay. Show what happened to the various fleets on Earth, did they escape? (currently I'm just assuming the Krogan eat everybody)
The only two changes I'd make to the endings themselves (as opposed to simply adding more detail) are a: Have Shepard question the starfuck's assertions. He doesn't have to win the argument, but him staying quiet was out of character. B: Some kind of fight with Harbinger. Maybe have him fight Shepard, then self destruct, leaving Shep all crippled.
Ha ha ha ha.......
