MovieBob's thoughts on the ME3 ending controversy

[Abedeus]

Artistic integrity + day one DLC = does not compute.

How can you treat games as a serious medium where the content already on DVD has to be unlocked with more money?

Or to get the understanding of ME3's beginning, you HAD to buy Arrival, the ME2 DLC?

You can talk about art and shit, but it doesn't matter if the "artist" is inconsistent.

http://imgur.com/TEpJv

So, when consumer is angry and they want to get money, artistic integrity lol wut's dat. When customer already paid and he's angry, they want their precious integrity intact.

How about they make an ending that isn't full of plotholes, bullshit inconsistencies and lore/character/plot errors (Arrival's mass relay was already destroyed, cinematic shows that it's the first mass relay that explodes in ME3's ending - HOW? time travel? extra dimensions?), then we'll talk about integrity.

Also, closure. Damn to hell all storywriters and artists that forget to give the consumer ANY KIND OF CLOSURE.

Poof, magic. Poof, your teammates teleport to Normandy and desert you, committing treason. Poof, they crash on a jungle world... THE END NO QUESTIONS? OKAY!

See my response to the quote above you. Vote with your wallet. Boycott if you want. But you don't have the right to tell them how to do their jobs any more than they have the right to tell you the same.

I didn't realize I'm an artist that created a trilogy and then ended it abruptly, destroying all loose ends in 5 minutes not by resolving them, but cauterizing and making them obsolete.

 

[Falcon123]

Let me make this clear: I think the ending sucked. I think the fans didn't get what they were promised, that Bioware dropped the ball, and that fans have ever reason to be upset about their purchase. But here's the thing: sometimes, games, movies, and books fail to live up to expectations. That doesn't mean we get to change them. When I was younger, I was a big fan of the Pendragon series. Book 1-9 were great. The tenth sucked. Horribly. Especially the ending. But I didn't demand a better ending. He has a right to screw his series over because it's his series . That's the thing about art. You don't have to like it. It doesn't have to be good. The artist can realize that things were wrong and try to fix it if that's what they want, but as of now, we have no proof this is what Bioware wanted.

Sure, I can buy this... for non-interactive media where I'm just an observer. If an author wants to do something like this I have one caveat for it: It must make sense in the premise of what was already established, or at least not break anything major along the way.

Mass Effect is a different animal here because while yes we have been limited to the tools we've been provided by Bioware to tell a story, they atleast had the common courtesy to not break me out of the suspension of disbelief, usually. Sure, a few hiccups here and there, but nothing too drastic. However, the way they decided to end this series (as it currently stands) feels like I was doing some painting, then suddenly Bioware stomps in and says "To finish this picture you can only use this one brush and three colors: Red, Green, or Blue. I don't care if I provided you more options earlier! You must stick with these for the end!" It's even more disappointing when talking about the picture earlier, it was mentioned I would be able to use everything for the entirety of the picture, especially the end.

I don't see how this is a different animal. You're not the artist, even if Bioware gave you the illusion that you are. They created the game. They created the universe in which the story exists, as well as every possible option you could make. They crafted the game from beginning to end. You played their creation. Big difference.

It's an awful shame Bioware let its fans down. They failed on this ending. They dropped the ball entirely. I'm not arguing against that. I agree with a lot of what you feel. They lied to you. They didn't deliver on their promises. They didn't make the masterpiece ending this game series deserved.

Where I differ from you is that I know this happens and it's not up to the developer to make it up to me. You don't like the ending? Don't buy their games. Don't buy their DLC. Don't support developers that make games you don't like. It's that simple. If you give them your money, and you don't think it was well spent, you take your licks and move on. That's how it was in the days of the NES when game reviews weren't easy to get a hold of and you had to guess whether a game would be good or not. No one demanded Dr. Jekyll and and Mr. Hyde be fixed.

I know you care about this series. That's not what's wrong here; that's what makes gaming special. But at the end of the day, you have to step back from your experience in game and realize that this wasn't your game. It was theirs. They screwed it up, but they don't owe you anything. If you don't like it, sell it back. Don't buy their games in the future. Learn your lesson. But demanding they meet your demands isn't right. You don't have that right; it's not your game.

That people feel entitled to have a game be good because you care about the series will have ramifications that affect gaming culture from years to come, and I find it hard to see how it will be for the better.

Sure back in the stupid ages of NES games people just whimpered, took it up the ass and moved on when they were delivered something crappy.

And they should be honored in a way about the outcry. No other game in history has made such a fuss about something, that is how much people loved their creation that they decided to cockslap with that ending.

And voting with their wallets is exactly what people are doing, they are getting the word out, encouraging people that haven't been exposed to the crappy ending to save their money as they will be disappointed, and making it clear that if this crap keeps up Bioware wont be getting any more of their money.

And the funny thing is, people can demand all the want, I can demand that you leave the forums, jump off a cliff, or drink a dr pepper. Demands don't mean shit if you don't want them to. Again, no one is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to remake the ending under pain of death.

Where the gun is pointed is squarely at their wallet. So maybe you would like gamers to bend over and just take whatever the publisher wants to shove on up in there, but dont expect everyone else to bend over with ya.

See, I wish people were doing what you're describing. But all the people who demanded this new ending DLC will most assuredly buy it, and Bioware will learn nothing because despite the horrible PR, they will still have a massive fan base and piles of money from this game. People keep buying this game. People keep buying the DLC. People aren't actually threatening Bioware's wallets.

I implore people to boycott Bioware. I'm buying all their games used from now on, personally, and I'm refusing to buy their DLC because I don't want them to have my money. If others do the same, I'll be ecstatic. But I don't think they will. I think people want this ending so badly, they'll pay the price regardless of their principles, and the industry will be changed forever in the worst of ways.

 

[Morti]

I fail to see why it must be a sacrifice of artistic integrity to re-write an ending. We would never grow as a society if no-one paid any attention to criticism.

 

[Falcon123]

By all means, make a big deal out of it. Boycott Bioware games. Refuse to buy DLC. Write strongly worded letters expressing disapproval and making them aware they lost a fan due to their negligence, and make them win you back. You have a right to all of that. You don't have the right to tell them how to do their job, or demand that they be better at it. That doesn't work in any other industry or artistic medium, and the logic doesn't work here.

I'm not sure why this is a preferable outcome for anyone, most particularly Bioware.

People say that Bioware screwed up. They failed to deliver an ending. If you don't like what a developer does, don't buy their products. That's just how the market works. If they take a big enough hit, they'll learn and produce a better or product, or they won't and die out. That's how the market works.

My point is this: if you feel they did you wrong as a gamer, don't support them. But you don't have the right to tell them what to do or how to do their job if they choose to be underwhelming and underachieving. That's all I was trying to say

 

[Falcon123]

I fail to see why it must be a sacrifice of artistic integrity to re-write an ending. We would never grow as a society if no-one paid any attention to criticism.

It's not that they're re-writing the ending. Fallout 3 rewrote the ending and it wasn't a big deal. The problem is that they're re-writing the ending to meet others demands instead of their own vision, and that's not what art is about. People are telling Bioware how to do their job, and instead of standing up for their game, right or wrong (see Lucas, George for a equivalent demand in cinema), they caved. That's the sacrifice of artistic integrity. They're not doing it for themselves or their own vision, but merely to make a profit. That's what products do. That's not art.

 

[Falcon123]

I implore people to boycott Bioware. I'm buying all their games used from now on, personally, and I'm refusing to buy their DLC because I don't want them to have my money. If others do the same, I'll be ecstatic. But I don't think they will. I think people want this ending so badly, they'll pay the price regardless of their principles, and the industry will be changed forever in the worst of ways.

Buying their games used doesn't make it a boycott, it makes you a hypocrite.

What you are telling them is that their game is good enough to play but you dont want to pay full price for it. It makes you no better to a pirate. After all a pirate is handing their money to an ISP so they can use bandwidth to download the game, you just happen to be handing that money to gamestop instead.

If you wanted to make a statement, don't buy the game at all, none of this "well I am going to play it but I am going to make sure they don't see a penny from it!!1one!1" stuff.

Fair point. I could discuss the finer points with you on it, but at the same time, I've criticized others for the same point. I won't buy ME3, that's for sure. From there...we'll see. They'll have to do quite a bit to win me back after this mess

 

[Thammuz]

This whole "Art vs product" thing is fairly stupid, in my opinion.

It shows that Bob is a critic of cinema, because cinema is very rarely, if ever, done on a third party commission basis, but let's liken this to a painting, arguably the oldest form of art.

I am Mr Random J. Painter, i got myself a commission to portray the likeness of some rich guy and his family. I have complete artistic freedom on the style i choose as long as it is a realistic depiction of my client and his family. If you think that this is not art, and that art is only done for art's sake, then you can rule out as art everything DaVinci ever produced.

Besides, If we're talking art for art's sake, Bioware is already not qualifying. Electronic Arts, as publisher, or patron if you will, has obviously dictated some of the policies regarding the product, including, more than likely, the introduction of multiplayer.

I ask them to pose for my painting, work on it and then deliver an abstract painting that, to me, is a perfect representation of the client and his family. The client tells me he's not paying one dime, to take my painting and go home, because he specified he wanted a realistic depiction of himself and family, not some abstract representation. I go home with my painting and sob in the corner.

Now let's assume I recieved ALL the money in advance, and then delivered the painting. What would the next step for the client be? I would say "lawsuit". He has a written contract where we stipulated that i was to make a realistic depiction of him, i did not fullfill my part of the contract. I lose and give his money back.

Now let's say I offered to paint everyone who sent me a picture of themselves along with 60 bucks a personalized painting that faithfully represented them and mail it back to them. I then pull the same stunt i did with the client. The first group of clients, arguably the most excited for this, only had my word for it, because the first batch shipped all at once, and therefore they could not have any idea of the finished product before they recieved it. How is this any different?

Art for art's sake has no constraints, because it has no investors. But ever since the very beginning of civilization, artists needed patrons. who dictated what their art was going to be.

So, either you do your art for free, and we won't argue with what you do (See: Passage) or you make us pay for it, in which case you can be sure we're going to object if we think we've been wronged.

Frankly, returning the product en masse should be all a company needs to see they have to change something. Yes it is art, but it is not free from accountability.

If you want art to be free of constraint, you make it completely free to experience from start to finish (see: painting) and then allow me to buy it/donate to you.

If you expect me to pay a significant sum, in advance, without anything but your word to tell me what i'm buying, which turns out is worth nothing because you deliberately lied about the content, and then invest a significant amount of my time to experience your piece, you damn well better respect your word.

I'm not saying i have to like it, but i DEMAND that i get what i was lead to believe i was buying, which didn't happen with the portrait and didn't happen with Mass effect's ending, as i'm sure we all know already.

 

[guitarsniper]

Ah yes, because being accepted by Roger Ebert should really be the number one goal of video games as a medium. This is such a good idea. This is like all the metal bands I listen to deciding that they're no good unless some random country and western critic decides that they are. It's honestly quite disappointing.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I agree that players are a key part of that art. They are instrumental in bringing that art to fruition. But sadly, this does not make us the artist.

I think it would be interesting for developers to work with players to make a game...but not in this context. Not when either the consumers or developers are being metaphorically held at gunpoint by the other side. At this point, any movement towards a collaborative effort will appear as if they are caving into demand and sacrificing their artistry (and the effect on the industry will be the same) even if it's not true.

I agree, friend, that the ending is shit. It's horrible. If you read my article ( http://www.redshirtcrew.com/2012/03/why-mass-effect-3-has-changed-industry.html ) you know I understand where you're coming from, and you have my deepest sympathies. But this is the wrong way to come about it. Don't support this practice by giving them your money, thus telling them that what they've done is okay. Sell your game, don't buy the DLC, and make Bioware earn your trust back. All of that is fair. Maybe they'll learn their lesson that way and who knows, maybe they will start a collaborative effort with a gaming community that changes the way games are made. But if you buy the ending DLC, you're supporting this mess, they won't learn the lesson, and all the outside world will see is that Bioware didn't stand up for their product. The ramifications of that will shape the industry as we know it, and I don't think it will be for the better.

Make you the artist? Of course it doesn't. It makes you less than a passive consumer, though. It creates a situation where it's significantly more NATURAL for you to want a voice in the creative process.

As for Bioware learning their lesson...the only reason a dialogue exists with them regarding this nonsense is because they're taking a hammering. Releasing DLC for a profit at this point wouldn't be any kind of canny sales coup, nor an indication that they'll be hot in the pants to repeat this spectacle. At the end of the day, though, I don't really have a powerful motivation to teach Bioware lessons. I just want them to deliver me a quality product, for which I will give them money. I could just stop buying from them altogether, or I can offer them an opportunity to fix the stupid mess they made, which, as it happens, shouldn't really be that hard to do, as its contained in such a tiny portion of the game. I certainly don't think other developers are watching this, stroking their chins, and thinking "Geez, how can WE fuck up OUR games and get 90% of the fan base hating us so we can sell additional DLC?". Wouldn't it just make more sense to write such a good ending that everyone is ENTHUSED, and buy your DLC because they're HAPPY with your product? That seems like a better business plan.

 

[Mr Charles]

Yes games are art. We all know they are, so it doesn't matter what others think or say, or it shouldn't at any rate. However, the fact that games are an art form does not give those who create them a pass to make any claims they like about the PRODUCT that they are creating, and then sell it without keeping or rescinding those promises.

If Bioware choose to expand on or change the endings, it won't invalidate their status as art, any more than ending the game with an advertisement for DLC will. What it will do is fulfil the promises they made to their paying customers, whilst, in my eyes at least, improving the quality of the product/art overall. Provided the changes they make are not compulsory, I cannot see any reason to be unhappy with them, assuming they are of a decent quality of course.

Also, although I respect Bob's opinion, I wish he could make it heard without insulting all those who disagree with him. I would also like to be told exactly why art cannot be changed, in a more substantive way than simply "because its art!".

 

[Sylveria]

I thought people wrote his opinions on gaming off as bat-shit crazy ages ago. Bob's the only guy I know about that creams himself at any mention of the tanooki suit.

Bob only has two settings, nerdrage and nerdgasm. Everything he talks about from movies to comics to games is either the worse thing since Hilter and Skeletor riding a giant mechanical spider fueled by baby blood or a 25 out of 10 flawless god child who will deliver us into the promised land.

Not to mention his pretty much non-stop hypocrisy on.. well.. everything. Like someone else said, if Bob had his way he'd happily have Michael Bay completely remake Transformers to fit his vision because he didn't like it. He doesn't sit and say "Well I don't like it, but it IS art," no he complains constantly about how awful it is and how dumb anyone who likes it is.

Really, it concerns me that so many people, including myself, are dignifying his comments enough to comment on them. Bob is a troll or a controversy-whore more often than not, I still haven't been able to determine which is more appropriate.

Also, as much as it pains people to admit this, games are art and a product. The criticisms of ME3s endings aren't all "We' don't like it," as much as people calling it out for a slapped on, plot hole ridden rush job that even Bioware admits they didn't put much effort into.

 

[Mercsenary]

Considering that his defense of Other M basically boiled down to:

...I tend to take whatever he has to say about video game controversies with a grain of salt.

Agreed.

Film. Video Games.

Pretty distinct mediums. XD

Promise multiple varied endings with closure to the various characters and plotlines. Give us 3 recolored endings and little to no closure.

"Ah yes. 'Artistic Integrity.' The idea of consistency in one's actions through an artistic medium. We have dismissed this claim."

 

[Murmillos]

I fail to see why it must be a sacrifice of artistic integrity to re-write an ending. We would never grow as a society if no-one paid any attention to criticism.

It's not that they're re-writing the ending. Fallout 3 rewrote the ending and it wasn't a big deal. The problem is that they're re-writing the ending to meet others demands instead of their own vision, and that's not what art is about. People are telling Bioware how to do their job, and instead of standing up for their game, right or wrong (see Lucas, George for a equivalent demand in cinema), they caved. That's the sacrifice of artistic integrity. They're not doing it for themselves or their own vision, but merely to make a profit. That's what products do. That's not art.

"We" are not telling them HOW to rewrite the ending, but "we" we are asking that they SHOULD rewrite the ending that is more in-lines with the themes of the series. A ending that that makes sense and delivers on the promise that the choices we've made in the previous game have more of difference other then some characters showing up for 30 second cameo's on how Shepard made a difference at giving them a final shot of survival.

They can still keep their "artistic integrity" by creating a new ending, we are just calling them out on the fact they did not deliver on their originally stated "artistic" promise.

Also layer on the fact that somebody playing the MP can get a better ending (which there isn't really even one), then somebody who attempts to play the single player to the integrity of their character.

The ending of ME3 does not matter on your any of player choices in any of the previous games. BioWare failed on both their own "artistic integrity" of the medium they developed and failed on the "product integrity" in regarding to most of the promises they didn't keep.

I mean, if you order a steak sandwich from Gordon Ramsay, and he goes out and gets you a McD's hamburger, are you going to accept that?

 

[370999]

I'm glad to see Bob has approached this in his traditional respectful manner which activly investigates the position of both sides and tries to be as free from bias as possible to give a rational and unemotional response./sarcasm

I think my main problem with this is the idea that art isn't a product when it quite obviously is. If you live in a society with money then it is a product. It is also art (though for me the Asylum film's are art albeit pretty god awful so my definition may differ from others) in that it seeks to have an emotional resonance with the individual.

There is also the added dimension fo the specter of DLC. We have no idea if Bioware was planning to release DLC that provides more conclusion at the end, just like Prince of Persia. Surely if this is the case then the outrage is right to ensure that the art is kept as uncompromised as possible? If the Mona Lisa had just a normal smile with Da Vince promising to sell her real smile separately then surely individuals would be right to complain?

There is also the problem with Hudson's quite obviously false descriptions of what the end would be like.


So yes Bioware is the ultimate arbitrator on what's canon/what ending happens there is no reason to suggest they shouldn't be willing to change it if they want. Some people point out that might lead to a slippery slope but honestly if we have to pick between the two extremes of endings change all the time due to fan pressure versus endings being sold separately depending on what game you buy I would always chose the former.

Captcha: Look out! A prophet

 

[Scrustle]

Twitter really seems to bring the worst out of people. It seems perfectly suited to broadcast things said without meditation to a huge audience in an easily documentable way.

Although I agree with Bob that Bioware shouldn't have buckled to the fans.

 

[Sylveria]

See my response to the quote above you. Vote with your wallet. Boycott if you want. But you don't have the right to tell them how to do their jobs any more than they have the right to tell you the same.

People have the right to complain about the quality of a product. As long as games cost money and EA/Bioware refers to the users as "customers," games are a product and an art form.

It kinda boggles me that people are all up in arms using the "Games are art" flag to defend this but they weren't using it to defend, say, Duke Nukem Forever or Fallout New Vegas for being buggy and broken. Does the programming of a game not fall into the "artistic" domain? Is Big Rigs garbage cause it was poorly made or because the creators were trying to make some abstract artistic point? Where is the line between artistic integrity and quality production lie?

 

[boag]

Artist advertises a pictures of an apple

Buyer commissions picture of an apple

Ends up with picture of a fork

Buyer complains that he wants a picture of an apple

Artist says reviewers loved the picture of the fork, which he gave them for free

More Buyers complain that they want picture of an apple, not the picture of a fork.

Artist says he might make a transparency add on, that might have an apple that people can put on their picture of the fork.

Some Buyers are ok with that, because they can get the picture of the apple, other buyers say that the complainers are ruining the picture of the fork.

Some Internet reviewers say the complainers have ruined the artistic integrity of the artist for making him draw an apple add on to the fork picture.


True Story