ME3 and Auteur Theory

[votemarvel]

How about the actual plot of the beginning though?

Sorry for the snip, I hate quote trains.

I don't think the opening of the game is flawless, I apologise if I gave that impression.

My personal opinion, and it is just that, is that the world building that occurs surpasses the flaws that are there. That those flaws exist I don't pretend otherwise.

The opening of Mass Effect 1 does such a good job of involving me in that universe that I can ignore the faults.

I suspect you'd be a good person to discuss the merits of the different combat systems with. I prefer the first game for that as well.

 

[Ishal]

I largely think it's a pile of horseshit, same as Gilligan.

There is a genre that holds true to the auteur theory quite well, Fan Fiction. It has it's reputation for a reason.

/thread

But in all seriousness, it's great in theory, but so was Communism. People aren't geniuses of creativity, and the few that are hailed as such either flat out aren't, or they're the exception that proves the rule.

Peer review is necessary, both in hard science and in creativity. Sure, you can hold onto an artistic vision and stubbornly ignore suggestions and criticisms, and the audience should respect your vision. However, they by no means are obligated to respect or like the finished project. As others have said, they're free to call it shite if they so choose. That said, Mr. Auteur will then be watched under the magnifying glass that is today's social media, and the second he folds his arms and stomps his feet like a petulant child, the sharks are in the water. David Cage anyone?

Gilligan also has a point that I think is very interesting, and very smart. You want an invested writer. You want someone backing you up, someone who now has a steak in how the project turns out. You want a collaborator, not an employee. I think it says something about the showrunner/creator regarding how they act with their vision. When people come to work with them and want to change their vision, is it being watered down? Or, is it being supplemented and refined? And finally, after that, is it truly their vision anymore? Does that matter? I say no.

But ME3's problems weren't just with Walters and Hudson's ending. They started long before ME2 when Karpyshynn left the project to write stuff for ToR. The main theme was going to be something about Dark Energy, then it switched to the Technological Singularity.

 

[votemarvel]

EDIT: Wasn't there a Jimquisition about this?

A couple of them.

Jim reacted as a lot of the media did originally. Then he took a look back at what people were actually complaining about and softened his view somewhat.

I like that he's willing to look back at himself and change his opinions.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Before I go into my thoughts on Auteur Theory: I was sort of apathetic towards the ending. There were some good things and bad things as far as I was concerned.

Spoiler: My full thoughts for those interested.

For starters, I can't think of any better three choices they could have had. The Reapers were the driving force of pretty much the whole story, so it would make sense that a final choice would come down to exactly how to deal with them, and the three we were given matched up with the options presented to the player throughout the rest of the trilogy. Destroying them was the plan from the beginning. Saren basically argued for Synthesis in the first game, and The Illusive Man argued for Control throughout ME2 and ME3.

However, the presentation was awful. The pacing was, for the most part, poor, and the whole Star Child idea literally came out of nowhere.

As far as them not showing the exact effects of your actions: I was iffy. On the one hand, it felt like a slap in the face. We expected to see the effects of our actions throughout the trilogy, and Bioware clearly knew this. Did we get that ending? No. However, the game itself gave more than enough story for us to work with in trying to understand what happened after our final decision, and some have even claimed to get it down almost perfectly to what the Extended Cut gave us. It gave us plenty of room to personalize our own endings based on what we knew could be the effects of our endings, and it also gave us things like the Indoctrination Theory. But making it an ending you could make your own was likely unintentional, and I'm probably just finding some goodness to an otherwise lazily written ending that didn't give us the personalized end that we wanted.

With that said (so no one says I'm just condemning Auteur Theory just because of my thoughts on the ending):

Any good story requires at least some peer review. When my mom wrote a book, she would often get tips from friends, family, and the editor. Many authors have a page in their book dedicated to those who helped them with writing the story. I've personally had moments where I waited until after the story was finished to see what friends thought, and they tore it apart while pointing out many flaws that could have been easily fixed during the early stages of writing. To think that one or two guys can make a perfect ending all on their own is ludicrous. Not only could they miss the "artistic vision" of the work in the first place, but even if they get it right, there is no telling if they end up presenting it poorly anyways. If the writers for ME3 had asked even one person on the dev team what they thought of the ending, we probably would have gotten a much better one.

At the same time, though, let's not act like adding more people is the answer. Recognizing the benefit of peer review is one thing, but let's not act like asking hundreds to thousands of people their opinion is automatically good. The sheer number of ideas that will be getting thrown your way will likely do just as much to derail the story as a few stupid ideas from one or two guys can. The best thing to do would have a decently-sized yet manageable group all dedicated to the vision helping out with the work. That way, there are at least some barriers to anyone getting too far away with a crazy idea without overwhelming the writers with a bunch of crazy ideas at the same time.

 

[AD-Stu]

I don't necessarily thing auteur theory is a good or bad thing per se - like anything it can be implemented well and it can be implemented poorly.

My main problem with it in relation to ME3 is that Hudson and Walters invoking it after the ending backlash was a complete 180 on their public statements and attitudes up until that point. Hudson was always bending over backwards to say how much fans mattered, how much fans had shaped the story and the product, on and on and on. That's exactly the opposite of being the auteur.

You can't just slam on the brakes and say "screw you, it's our story and we'll train wreck it if we want to" at the very end and expect it to wash with an audience who, up until that point, had been told they were basically integral to the process of crafting the story.

 

[BrotherRool]

Sorry for the snip, I hate quote trains.

I don't think the opening of the game is flawless, I apologise if I gave that impression.

My personal opinion, and it is just that, is that the world building that occurs surpasses the flaws that are there. That those flaws exist I don't pretend otherwise.

The opening of Mass Effect 1 does such a good job of involving me in that universe that I can ignore the faults.

I suspect you'd be a good person to discuss the merits of the different combat systems with. I prefer the first game for that as well.

Snipping is so much nicer than having double page long comments because of all the quotations. I equally don't want to give the impression that Mass Effect has the worst opening ever, the introduction to the Citadel is still one of my favourite things ever, and indeed, once you remove the plot, the Citadel is absolutely amazing throughout. It really gives the sense of discovering a new universe and the design of it is just beautiful. The Citadel versions in ME2 and ME3 are so disappointing after you've experienced one. It was also an excellent idea to start with the hub world like that. As you said it gave the players time to explore and experience the world-building.

I think my main point is, just because it's something bad that doesn't necessarily make the entire section bad. People rip the plot events of the end of ME3 to shreds and say 'look how stupid this is, the designers lost it, they didn't respect us.' But actually the plot in their favourite games and parts of games was stupid too. If you play your cards right you can do something so well that people won't even care about anything else. If the ending of ME3 had taken place on top of Mount Everest or on top of a Relay (or anywhere that isn't the most grey and miserable version of earth ever) I think that would have considerably altered how people viewed it.

Btw, were you serious about wanting a conversation about the combat? Because I could totally have one of those

 

[votemarvel]

Snipping is so much nicer than having double page long comments because of all the quotations. I equally don't want to give the impression that Mass Effect has the worst opening ever, the introduction to the Citadel is still one of my favourite things ever, and indeed, once you remove the plot, the Citadel is absolutely amazing throughout. It really gives the sense of discovering a new universe and the design of it is just beautiful. The Citadel versions in ME2 and ME3 are so disappointing after you've experienced one. It was also an excellent idea to start with the hub world like that. As you said it gave the players time to explore and experience the world-building.

It's part of what I love about Mass Effect 1. It didn't just throw you in and say "save the world", it took the time to show you the world and the people you were going to save. All too few games take the effort to do that, and to my mind they are weaker because of it.

I think my main point is, just because it's something bad that doesn't necessarily make the entire section bad. People rip the plot events of the end of ME3 to shreds and say 'look how stupid this is, the designers lost it, they didn't respect us.' But actually the plot in their favourite games and parts of games was stupid too. If you play your cards right you can do something so well that people won't even care about anything else. If the ending of ME3 had taken place on top of Mount Everest or on top of a Relay (or anywhere that isn't the most grey and miserable version of earth ever) I think that would have considerably altered how people viewed it.

Looking back I actually don't mind the plot ideas at the end of Mass Effect 3, however they really fail in their execution.

You are right that that one bad piece doesn't know down everything else, but an ending especially can taint everything before it if it is perceived to be bad.

Oddly for me it isn't that ending of Mass Effect 3 that puts me off playing it, I admit to using the MEHEM in my game. Rather it is that the good parts of the story, such as pieces of Tuchanka and Rannoch, are over-shadowed by the mediocrity of the rest.

Perhaps the biggest villain for me was the meeting with the Rachni Queen, a conversation obviously written for those who hadn't played the first game. The part referencing the first game felt so forced in that it was cringe worthy.

Also a lot of the time I felt that the game was fighting me, wondering why I was talking to people instead of enjoying all the awesome pew-pew action.

I'm not a fan of the changes in Mass Effect 2 either to be fair but the game is saved by its heavy focus on the team you are collecting. ME3 however seems to fade that out with the increase of passive, Zaeed style, conversations.

Btw, were you serious about wanting a conversation about the combat? Because I could totally have one of those

Absolutely. I can't promise swift replies, work is a nightmare at the moment, but I enjoy talking about the combat differences and why I think the first game had a superior system.

 

[Vigormortis]

Two thoughts on this:

1: Narrative by "committee"; or rather by collaboration; can and has yielded some incredible story lines across many mediums, including video games. So "auteur theory" clearly means nothing in this regard.

2: Auteur theory, regardless of how one feels about it, is NOT an excuse for shoddy writing. And, quite frankly, I feel it's often a useless concept all together.

I'm with Vince Gilligan on this. His opinion mirrors my own.

 

[RJ 17]

As I'm sure you know, I'm obligated to respond to any ME3 topic.

What do those who fought for ME3's ending under the guise of Artistic Purity think of this, this concept of creation via collaboration? In light of Gilligan's comments, do you still believe that creating a game via committee will result in watered down, lowest common denominator pablum? Or do you think it is a necessary check and balance to keep things on course?

Ah, good, then I needn't write an essay since I never tried to defend it's "artistic integrity". I've always agreed that the faults of the ending lie purely with Hudson.

I also agree with Gilligan, getting creative input from numerous minds is a good thing, not a bad thing.

 

[Therumancer]

Get your sticks ready boys, that horse still has some life in it!

I only unearth the specter of ME3 and it's hideous ending because I was reading an article on Breaking Bad recently, in which the showrunner, Vince Gilligan, touched on the subject of "auteur theory". For those with short memories, it was widely rumored that ME3's ending was not subject to peer review as is standard practice for Bioware, but rather the sole product of Hudson and Walters.

During the many tiresome months of debate on these forums post-fiasco, a common defense of the existing ending was the concept of authorial fiat and sole artistic vision as sacrosanct. That if a piece of work was ever run through a committee, it would be watered down and ultimately lose its soul and all sense of meaning. Whatever we might have thought of the ending, it was the product of Artistic Vision, and thus was right and true.

Breaking Bad concluded earlier this year after a very successful 5 season run, and the ending was widely regarded as...if not perfect...reasonably cathartic and satisfying. Unlike other highly regarded shows such as The Sopranos, which went out in a hail of controversy, or The Wire, which had its final season hamstrung by a writers strike, Breaking Bad was able to tie off loose ends and go out more or less on top of its game.

Vince Gilligan was known as a good man to work for ? someone who managed to balance the vision and microscopic control of the most autocratic showrunner with the open and supportive spirit of the most relaxed. He was a firm believer in collaboration.

"The worst thing the French ever gave us is the auteur theory," he said flatly. "It's a load of horseshit. You don't make a movie by yourself, you certainly don't make a TV show by yourself. You invest people in their work. You make people feel comfortable in their jobs; you keep people talking."

In his room, he said, all writers were equal, an approach that he insisted had less to do with being a Pollyanna than with pure, selfish practicality. "There's nothing more powerful to a showrunner than a truly invested writer," he said. "That writer will fight the good fight."

What do those who fought for ME3's ending under the guise of Artistic Purity think of this, this concept of creation via collaboration? In light of Gilligan's comments, do you still believe that creating a game via committee will result in watered down, lowest common denominator pablum? Or do you think it is a necessary check and balance to keep things on course?

It's a somewhat different situation. With "Breaking Bad" it was a TV show and no real promises were made in regards to the series, it's content, and it's ending. With "Mass Effect" we were told flat out that the ending was going to be very different from what we received, it was going to answer all the questions, and be far more nuanced than simply picking "A B or C". What's more a part of the whole "ME3 Controversy" that people tend to forget is that there was a "behind the scenes" app released where it was mentioned clearly by the devs that they had no intention of answering all the questions posed thus far, which means that they were outright lying when they made promises to the fans. It was also revealed along the way that they derailed the project and based the ending based on some piece of fan mail written in by a little kid. What's more when your dealing with artistic vision, there is a matter of consistency, the biggest problem with the ME3 ending was that it did not fit in with the rest of the series, it didn't even fit in with the rest of the game where the basic point was "you have to make a hard choice UNLESS you did the right things in previous games and one of your companions survived which means you get the true "Commander Shepard" path, defy the odds, and save everyone", the whole ending which went rambling on about organics and mechanicals and the rest of the garbage which made little sense in context, especially if you had brokered peace between the Geth and their creators, and actually had the Geth fighting alongside the organics to stop the bloody Reapers.

ME3 was a mess, and it can't be defended under artistic integrity, because it didn't fit in with the rest of the work.

I'll also say one of the problems with hardcore fan boys that defend everything a favorite series does, is that they encourage the same kind of BS from being recycled later on. I think this is part of the reason why JJ Abrams has managed to recycle the whole "mystery box" thing so much, because he has enough fans who worshipped his basic ideas short of the ending that he was never called on it. Perhaps the biggest fanboy defended TV train wreck though was "The Sopranos", basically the writer had gotten this huge reputation for being a master storyteller, yet his big challenge was going to be how to end the series and have it feel natural, was Tony going to somehow take over New York, was someone going to whack him, would he be busted by the Feds? Instead he chose to cop out and not do any real writing by basically giving the series a non-ending which can be interpreted as someone whacking Tony, or life just going on as it has been, or other various things... in short a totally subjective ending that really resolved nothing, he concluded a series that was always about tight, clever, fully understood (to the watcher) resolutions, with complete BS totally at odds with
the flow of the rest of the series and it's formula.

That said, when someone like JJ Abrams or David Caruso does it, at least they aren't making promises which they are careful to do. Though truthfully a big part of the problem is probably that nobody has yet to actually pursue false advertising charges against entertainment media. Like a lot of aspects of society it's an area where we've gotten so used to hype and lies that nobody has a problem with it, and I think it's become a problem.

 

[crackfool]

Get your sticks ready boys, that horse still has some life in it!

I only unearth the specter of ME3 and it's hideous ending because I was reading an article on Breaking Bad recently, in which the showrunner, Vince Gilligan, touched on the subject of "auteur theory". For those with short memories, it was widely rumored that ME3's ending was not subject to peer review as is standard practice for Bioware, but rather the sole product of Hudson and Walters.

During the many tiresome months of debate on these forums post-fiasco, a common defense of the existing ending was the concept of authorial fiat and sole artistic vision as sacrosanct. That if a piece of work was ever run through a committee, it would be watered down and ultimately lose its soul and all sense of meaning. Whatever we might have thought of the ending, it was the product of Artistic Vision, and thus was right and true.

Breaking Bad concluded earlier this year after a very successful 5 season run, and the ending was widely regarded as...if not perfect...reasonably cathartic and satisfying. Unlike other highly regarded shows such as The Sopranos, which went out in a hail of controversy, or The Wire, which had its final season hamstrung by a writers strike, Breaking Bad was able to tie off loose ends and go out more or less on top of its game.

Vince Gilligan was known as a good man to work for ? someone who managed to balance the vision and microscopic control of the most autocratic showrunner with the open and supportive spirit of the most relaxed. He was a firm believer in collaboration.

"The worst thing the French ever gave us is the auteur theory," he said flatly. "It's a load of horseshit. You don't make a movie by yourself, you certainly don't make a TV show by yourself. You invest people in their work. You make people feel comfortable in their jobs; you keep people talking."

In his room, he said, all writers were equal, an approach that he insisted had less to do with being a Pollyanna than with pure, selfish practicality. "There's nothing more powerful to a showrunner than a truly invested writer," he said. "That writer will fight the good fight."

What do those who fought for ME3's ending under the guise of Artistic Purity think of this, this concept of creation via collaboration? In light of Gilligan's comments, do you still believe that creating a game via committee will result in watered down, lowest common denominator pablum? Or do you think it is a necessary check and balance to keep things on course?

The problem is that the other 99% of Mass Effect 3 was factory-assembled by EA, so it's disingenuous for the Bioware writers to cry out "auteur" when it's a clear case of them having to rush out an ending to beat a deadline. While I do appreciate fiction in the hands of an auteur, there are very few people in the video game industry who are capable of doing it right. Case in point: Hideo Kojima. Metal Gear Solid 4 could have avoided being one of the worst stories in all of fiction had someone actually peer reviewed Hideo's script and gave him a brutally honest critique of how amateur it was.

The few capable auteurs out there seem to be indie developers. Jonathan Blow comes across as someone with an actual creative mind. Supergiant Games is a very small developer who would not have created two of the greatest games of the past five years if some publisher told them to pander to the Jim Sterlings of the world.