MovieBob's thoughts on the ME3 ending controversy

[rvdm88]

WOW, it seems that Mass Effect spells Threadnaught...

Still i would be okay with just the current ending,
i would though expect them to leave the part that is already in place intact.

If they continued the story after the renegade ending it would be more logical.
Also it would be fitting if they would explain if the ending sequence was or wasn't a hallicunation induced by reaper indoctrination.

 

[Active Schizophrenic]

Seriously guys? This thread boils down to "Bob doesn't know anything about video games! he is a movie critic who said some other things I disagree with!" Number 1: Bob DOES know things about video games HIS LONGEST RUNNING SERIES IS DEVOTED TO THEM. Number 2: No one other than bob would get this kind of flak for these comments, Graham Stark shares THE EXACT SAME OPINION and nobody is flaming him. That is because he is beloved and bob is not. Why is there suddenly an increasing amount of bullshit from the escapist forums from "Nerds with an above average intellect" BECAUSE SOMEBODY SAID YOU WERE STUPID FOR BERATING A TOY COMPANY ABOUT THEIR DAMN TOY!

 

[Allthingsspectacular]

Honestly, I agree. They really shouldn't change the ending.

The ME3 ending is a mistake. Any attempt to change it would only make things worse. Instead, learn from it. Learn what made it so bad and use it going forward.

Although I disagree with the idea that it was art at all. It was a product from the beginning, nothing more. It wasn't art at all.

But hey, we just got Journey and that turned out as a success. So one step backward and two steps forward I guess.

 

[QUINTIX]

He's a crap movie reviewer and a crap game reviewer.

Point to me a game he reviewed in "overthinker."
Even when it comes to film criticism, he explicitly stated that what he does is analysis, not product testing.

EDIT: OP omitted this retweet: [http://twitter.com/#!/Lemegeton/status/182610001024647170]

no writer worth a damn will want to work in videogames again if Bioware cave and change the ending. #disgusted #Masseffect

 

[Tono Makt]

How quaint, another asshat who takes that kind of crap at face value.

You do love to insult people, don't you?

Here's his theme song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrgpZ0fUixs

 

[lowkey_jotunn]

Apparently MovieBob has never seen a director's cut movie.

How many years was the movie industry set back when the Blade Runner director's cut came out and really screwed with your mind on the whole "Harrison Ford is/isn't a replicant" thing.

Or how about the Highlander 2 directors cut, which removed all references to Aliens and actually turned it into a decent movie. (debating whether or not to link Aliens meme guy .... nahhh)


Video games need an avenue by which "directors cuts" can be released. Maybe call it "dev cuts." : 'This is the game that the developers WANTED to deliver, before the Chairman of the Bored told us to screw it up for DLC.'

 

[zinho73]

'It's art!' is the most pathetic defence for anything ever. So what? Just because it's 'art' doesn't mean it's not open to criticism or challenge or God forbid revision. I guess Charles Dickens rewriting the ending to Great Expectations threw literature back a decade too? Jesus Christ. The word 'art' is the most transparent shield imaginable.

Few things are examined as closely, or criticised as thoroughly as art. Art isn't or shouldn't be a defense to criticism or inspection. If anything, it's an invitation. If people use it as a shield, they're wrong.


However, art is dictated by the authorial mandate of its creator(s). Admirers of a piece of art should not possess editorial power over it. The problem with this whole ME3 debacle is that instead of people saying more reasonable things such as "We though the ending was bad, because of this or that.", they are saying things like "Jesus Christ, this ending is so horrendous, we want you to change it, and you should because you owe us because this is a product, we're the customer, and we don't like it."

This is also why it's disappointing to see Bioware potentially cave in. What's happening is that if they decide to change the ending, they are not doing so based on a discussion with the fans in which the fans demand nothing. Instead, they're changing it because of an incredibly vocal part of the community that outright demands changes to the ending.

If they change it, it is because it will make business sense, as it made business sense to them to make promises that they could not deliver in the first place.

What people fail to understand is that in the moment Bioware chose to hype the ending with false statements the integrity speech seems way out of place. People felt deceived and, honestly, remake, add or explain the ending is an easy way out for Bioware because people love the product - if the rest of the game were that bad, people would be demanding their money back.

Also, you might think it is hideous to alter something due to popular demand, but it is actually quite common in the entertainment industry and it happened before with videogames (Fallout 3) and with Bioware (book Deception).

This indignation is late to the party.

I understand that the word "demand" must cause some chills but the truth is that this is a hyperbole much more smooth than "this whole thing is setting back the debate of games as art a decade!"

Reasonably, Bioware will probably maintain much of this ending, if not all and will just add or explain things better. No big deal. I understand the fan that felt betrayed being hyperbolic and exaggerating things, this is the Internets after all, but the same behavior from a journalist is out of place. Nobody even knows what Bioware is going to do.

Don't get me wrong, what you are saying is right in principle, but the ME3 endings are not in a vacuum. They must be seen in the proper context: false advertising, EA pushing for DLC (removing content from the original game) and a developer that said once and again that the game was co-created with the fans.

 

[malestrithe]

Probably will never understand why people have to be sore winners. Mass Effect Crybabies, you won. You complained enough that you got the ending you think you wanted. Now, even though this debate is over, now you have to use the anonymity of the Internet to "silence" any criticism that you think is coming your way.

Grow the hell up.

I now give Lucas a lot more credit with Star Wars for not listening to the outrage of the most vocal of his fans.

 

[Nargleblarg]

Everyone forget Fallout 3 did this same thing about 4 years ago and nothing happened, and it in fact made the game a more complete experience.

Despite everything ME3 is overall probably the best in the series and serves as a fitting entry minus the already infamous finale.

And even though the ending to ME3 is lazy, unstructured, and artistically barren; the fans really don't care. What the fans want is closure; they could have killed Shepard and done anything else that they wanted, but as long as they put closure to the other characters and conflict of the story this would be a different. The first thought after beating the game for most was that DLC was sure to come, but for most that just makes the situation worse. The thing with the ending with ME3 is that it fails in it's dénouement of the three part story structure. In the dénouement conflicts are supposed to be tied up and the audience should be clear of any threat at the ending. This is basic story writing 101 that I learned in High School, and that was apparently lost at this point in the game's writing. I myself was not cleared of my questions I just had more, and I was curious of what happened to the characters I spent so long training and traveling with.

The scary thing is that it appears that the closure was avoided just to turn the consumers into a cash cow for something they were already invested in. That wouldn't be shocking from some other companies, but this is Bioware a name that may from now one carry a warning depending on what happens in this situation.


And sole complaining fans are one thing but this ending debacle has created an entire organized community to complain about this and the organization is currently at about 50k+ members. That in itself is an accomplishment, and something that has yet to be seen in this medium that should serve as a sign that there is a problem here.

Everything else aside the game is a commodity and at the end of the day the creators must listen and rely on what the fans want. They do not have to give in but it would be bad business practice not to, and that is what they are is a business. Otherwise if Bioware chooses to not listen they would lose trust with the fans; a longstanding trust built over 10 years and several amazing games.

 

[darkfox85]

I don?t see how that which is commercial, popular or ?a form of entertainment? is immediately disqualified from being art. If it is disqualified then the standards to which ?artness? holds itself must be so lofty, I wonder how any mortal has ever achieved anything resembling ?art.?

Not that I think games are art. I don?t feel Roger Ebert?s views on the subject have been effectively countered. I just wish gamers wouldn?t think that ?art? automatically equals ?good? or ?superior quality.? ?Art? is neither the most important, nor the highest obtainable status a medium can get.

 

[A Curious Fellow]

'It's art!' is the most pathetic defence for anything ever. So what? Just because it's 'art' doesn't mean it's not open to criticism or challenge or God forbid revision. I guess Charles Dickens rewriting the ending to Great Expectations threw literature back a decade too? Jesus Christ. The word 'art' is the most transparent shield imaginable.

wow, movie bob can be very near sighted sometimes.

Please someone tell me that this is not the first time such a thing was put down in print.

My own two cents: I like what Jim Sterling said a lot better. Also, I am one of those "crybabies" and had this been any other game developer I wouldn't have bothered saying anything at all. I only did because I'm under the impression that Bioware has a more intimate relationship with its fanbase than most and recognizes that we are also a fundamental part of their art. Games, their games, give and take. That is simply how it works. When a player finishes a game and ultimately feels nothing, feels that they have given nothing and taken nothing to or from a game, the art has failed in its purpose. We babies cry because we babies know that they are better than that failure. We cry because our contribution to the art has been overwritten.

 

[dragonswarrior]

Eh. I usually like what MovieBob has to say, but he has always been way to into objectivism for my tastes.

Objectivism, and the idea of "an artists work is sacred and solely their own!!" is silly to begin with.

It's even sillier when applied to an interactive medium.

Here's a thing I don't understand. How does 'an artists work isn't their own', which is a false statement, relate in any way to 'interactive mediums'? Last I checked, stories were created the same way.

Why don't you explain that to me. That's a good little boy. Or rather, don't.

Tcha tcha tcha!! Of course you miss the point.

First of all, a work of anything (doesn't have to be art) will always be built off of inspiration gleaned from the works of others. This happens simply because of life. There is no such thing as originality, there is merely skill. I shouldn't have to explain any further, if you actually are Smarter Than Me then you should get all the implications of the above statements within five minutes of solid thinking.

Secondly, frequently an artist designs their work with the idea that once it is completed, the person enjoying the art wont be able to affect it in any way shape or form. There will be criticisms of course, but aside from turning the pages of a book or pressing the play button on your dvd player there will be no audience involvement in whatever medium. Except video games of course... So... Implications... The artist has to go into designing a video game with the idea that the audience will have some level of control or another over said game. This already changes the artist/enjoyer of said art dynamic. Which results in a change in the creation of the art itself. It's not merely writing a story or designing a beautiful setting. You have to go into making a game knowing that the player will be in control of a character (because that's how we do it) that will be moving through and interacting with said story and setting.

*sighs* You know, it's late, and as I said earlier, I have given you enough to understand if you actually decided to think about it. I don't feel like actually trying to drag these ideas into concise sentences that won't bore you. You can figure it out on your own.

I don't think you will. So I am going to dare you. That's right, I DARE you to take the time out and actually think about what I just said. You won't. But I dare you anyway.

 

[josephmatthew10]

Ebert may have been out of line talking about a medium he doesn't understand (which he admits), but I'd expect better from MovieBob, despite his sometimes baseless opinions and stances. And, for the record, Ebert is 100x the film critic Bob will ever be.

 

[xDarc]

I don't get the whole games are art thing. I've been playing since the 80's and they were toys then, and they're toys now. I think that people want to make them into a narrative/emotional experience has made them worse. There were similar discussions back in the early 90's when FMV/full motion video was first being incorporated into games and there were plenty of folks who referred to it as "garbage." Twenty years later, it looks better, it's prettier garbage, but that's about it.

If games are more interested in their story than being played, then i'm not interested in playing the game. Which is why my experience with the mass effect trilogy can sum 1, 2 and 3 up as neat, uh huh... and meh.

 

[sumanoskae]

Saying that changing a product under fan reaction would somehow "Violate" it as art would mean that BioWare are, in fact, incapable of producing art. Since their artistic vision factors in the reaction of their audience.

Therefore, since they cannot produce art but have attempted to and have, in fact, changed it based on outside reaction (Because good artists NEVER listen to critique), they have inadvertently created a rip in space time that will rewind their respective medium one decade and the cycle will begin again so that the new organ- artists can be harvested by the fans and preserved in fan-fic form.

Bob now has 3 options
1) Destroy all fans, including critics. This will ultimately result in artists becoming fans of other artists, and new fans will thus be created.
2) Control the fans to ensure that they never attempt to hurt the artists with their stupid, smelly ideas ever again. This will result in Bob becoming a Mass Effect fan, and he too will eventually grow to despise the ending and attempt to change it himself, thus the industry will be destroyed. Because that's how multi-million dollar corporations work, when someone changes something in one of their products they just kind of crash and burn into obscurity and everyone starts hating them and FOX news and other associated idiots (And therefore everybody who matters) refuses to take them seriously
3) Fuse all artists and fans together... somehow. That way nobody can demand that art be changed because they themselves are all artists, and therefore totally identical and at complete peace, the artists that demanded Mass Effect 3 be changed before don't count LALALALA everything is happy forever!

But to assert such a thing would make you seem close-minded and entrenched in binary, single minded ideas that circle themselves more then marry-go-rounds. Glad nobody's doing that

I think the thing people aren't getting is that while games are defiantly art (By dictionary definition they factually are), they're not like any other work of art, and we shouldn't assume that they function the same way.

"To assume all races are like your own is racist" - Legion, Mass Effect 2

Even though other industries all have self destruct buttons that go off when something is changed after the magical time known as public release (Which NEVER happens, EVER!), games might not. This is why films and books are such underground and interdependently funded works, because corporations and sales projections have no hand in them whatsoever. If they did they would be rewinded so much that they would simply cease to exist. Oh the things they can teach us!

In all seriousness, art doesn't just die for no apparent reason when it gets changed. To suggest that art, literally defined as a product of human creativity, just ceases to be when someone else has a hand in it is totally arbitrary. What's even more arbitrary is to suggest that the entire industry will just change it's game plan because of this particular indecent. It's happened before, and not just in gaming. People might be more vocal this time but the fact remains that no one can force BioWare to do anything. The final say still rests where it always has. Everyone else in the industry will go about their business, fans will keep buying, critics will keep prophesying doom, and games will be no closer to or further from receiving the respect they deserve.

I doubt even BioWare will change when the smoke clears, if they really believe in themselves as artists, it's going to take more then one mistake, some lost fans, and an imaginary "Death of all art!" to stop them.

If that's all it takes they can't care that much.

 

[sumanoskae]

Apparently MovieBob has never seen a director's cut movie.

How many years was the movie industry set back when the Blade Runner director's cut came out and really screwed with your mind on the whole "Harrison Ford is/isn't a replicant" thing.

Or how about the Highlander 2 directors cut, which removed all references to Aliens and actually turned it into a decent movie. (debating whether or not to link Aliens meme guy .... nahhh)


Video games need an avenue by which "directors cuts" can be released. Maybe call it "dev cuts." : 'This is the game that the developers WANTED to deliver, before the Chairman of the Bored told us to screw it up for DLC.'

Something like what Bethesda does with it's GOTY editions, I would think. Seems we're getting pretty close.

 

[James Raynor]

Let's go over the facts for the ending:

The ending was not reviewed by the actual writers of the game. [http://geek.pikimal.com/2012/03/22/controversy-erupts-over-mass-effect-3-writers-forum-post-name-release/]


The ending was intended to create mass speculation and be as vague as possible, as seen in this picture.

The ending provides no closure, is out of place, doesn't stand in with the rest of the mass effect theme, and was an obvious attempt to make an ambiguous ending so that bioware could do anything with it. [http://www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-hatred-5-reasons-the-fans-are-right/]


The ending gives you a screen asking you to buy more DLC.

Calling it 'Entitled' to get a quality product YOU PAID for is not entitlement at all and shame on anyone calling it that. [http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/03/13/mass-effect-3-and-the-pernicious-myth-of-gamer-entitlement/] It's not entitlement to be a responsible consumer and not stand for bad business practices or shoddy products. We paid the money, we're entitled to a satisfying product. This isn't a free game, this costs 60+$ for the full experience. [http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/03/15/upset-mass-effect-fans-entitled-gamers-or-responsible-consumers/]

 

[Brad Shepard]

Bob, im tired of your retarded view on everything, Your one sided "Im right so you go fuck yourself" agenda, your insult to your fans, you are terrible. All you care about is getting paid to be in a ninja suit and spout your crap to the masses. Shame on us you say? No, Shame on you, we all can tell you are trying to cause trouble, so sit down, shut up, and please for fucks sake stop adding fuel to the god damn fire. I did not see him bitching with Fallout 3 did the same god damn thing with Broken Steel.