Patching a story

[Igor-Rowan]

Does anybody remember Dead Rising 2: Off the records? The game that was basically the original Dead Rising 2, but Capcom had just changed the main character back to Frank West, but rather than being an expansion or DLC they charged full price for it. And people bought it because they didn't like Chuck, and loved Frank so much.

What about Azura's Wrath? The game where you had to pay to unlock the good ending, that you could not get otherwise.

And finally Mass Effect 3, the game that upset the balance of the internet so much even I could feel it at the time and I hadn't returned to gaming yet, still managed to feel a backlash. As Egoraptor put it: "People said: 'I didn't like the ending. Change it!' and that's what they did"

Recently I've heard that Square Enix is going to patch the story in FFXV, mainly the parts where people where vocal that they did not like, flesh out some characters, get rid of some filler, just outright fix the story. And that's kinda rubbing me the wrong way... Not with people having issues with their story, the fact that the developer listened and is going to do something about it.

All of the examples above quickly sparked my memory of the first time people tried to pull that sort of stuff. For a technical and business standpoint, it makes sense, a better game will translate to better sales in the future, but from an artistic standpoint this feels all sorts of wrong, like Star Wars: Special Editions wrong, sure some changes were harmless, but people that saw the original were quick to point those out, and then 'Guido shot first' happened.

Maybe that's because the first time they're admitting doing that I'm tense, but I really wouldn't like this to become an habit in this industry.

 

[Zhukov]

I have nothing against the concept of patching story content.

My opinion on specific changes will depend on whether or not I like those changes. Case-by-case basis.

I suppose an ideal solution would be to let people roll back patches they didn't like. Like letting people buy original versions of Star Wars. Don't know how tricky that would be on the technical end though.

Can't say I really give a damn about the "artistic standpoint" though. Don't have much respect for the artistic merits of games. Besides, different medium, different way of doing things. One could consider this malleability to be a strength of the medium, no?

 

[Igor-Rowan]

snip

One of the main concerns is that video games are going the digital way, so a vanilla version of the game might become lost as older versions would be considered superior. With Star Wars we still have the options within physical media, but for how long?

 

[Zhukov]

snip

One of the main concerns is that video games are going the digital way, so a vanilla version of the game might become lost as older versions would be considered superior. With Star Wars we still have the options within physical media, but for how long?

Can't say that would bother me overmuch. It's not like I sit around lamenting the passing of that version of Overwatch before new characters were added.

For people who do care, how hard can it be to archive this stuff? Hell, I'd have thought digital content would be easier to archive than physical these days.

 

[tippy2k2]

I think like...well...all DLC and Microtransactions that have ever existed, it's a tool that can be used for Good or for Evil.

Did some the story elements just not work the way that the creators thought it would? Good use. Patch away peeps.

Did the story get chopped up into a bunch of pieces so that they could sell it later? Evil use. Go away spawn of Satan.

 

[Fox12]

For a technical and business standpoint, it makes sense, a better game will translate to better sales in the future, but from an artistic standpoint this feels all sorts of wrong

I wouldn't worry too much about FF 15's artistic integrity.

In all seriousness, FF 15 is a broken mess. It was stuck in developmental hell for years, and then they tried to rush it out the door at the end. It's not just that the story is bad, like the ending of ME 3, though it still is. It's that it feels unfinished. They have to add cut scenes just to make it comprehensible. It's not that they're changing it, it's that they released an unfinished version of the game and promised to fix it later through patches. They knew these story issues existed prior to release.

Even with the patches, though, it's a very bad game. I don't recommend it to anyone.

 

[pookie101]

i dont mind them patching the story and in some cases its needed. heck i finished mass effect 3 originally and went searching for the solution to the missing cut scenes glitch i thought i had before discovering wow thats how they chose to finish it. also quite a few games are rushed and have cut content, KOTOR2 for example that really only becomes complete with mods to add things back.

im not really fussed with artistic integrity with games unless its a really small team or even a solo developer. the big AAA games are committee developed to make money and any artistic integrity has long been beaten to death by executives and accountants

 

[Kyrian007]

I guess I don't care, I suppose its ok. But I'm not sure it would be necessary, unless my reaction is a uncommon one.

If I'm looking forward to a game, but the release is buggy... I'll wait to buy it until the problems are patched out. If however I'm looking forward to a game but the complaints are that the story is bad... I'll either never buy it, or I'm just buying it for the game mechanics and I won't pay any attention to the story anyway. And in either case I'll never really be any worse off if they don't patch the story so...

Fine I guess. If they want to that's cool, but I don't really care.

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

One of the main concerns is that video games are going the digital way, so a vanilla version of the game might become lost as older versions would be considered superior. With Star Wars we still have the options within physical media, but for how long?

That concern is justified, specially in online games. But single-player games are usually re-installable. Mass Effect 3 was an odd creature. It's ending was changed twice: one was after the whole backlash; but before all that (even before it was released), the game was going to have a different ending (one related with the Dark Energy that was mentioned in ME2). However the story was leaked, and EA ordered Bioware to change it so people wouldn't be spoiled.

EDIT: Oh, about ME3 being re-installable. The story patch was in DLC form, so you can play the vanilla story as long as you don't download it. The exception is the Wii U version, which has the extended ending already included.

 

[aozgolo]

This isn't new for Square Enix, they've done it a lot, just perhaps more subtle. Many times when they release a new version of a game, where it's an enhanced port or a remaster, or remake, they change story elements.

Final Fantasy Adventure -> Sword of Mana

Final Fantasy 1, 2, 3, and 4, possibly even 5 and 6

Final Fantasy Tactics: War of the Lions

Chrono Trigger for DS (new endings)

Final Fantasy XIV (just throw it out and rebuild from scratch)

In several of these cases the messing they did with the original narrative wasn't always overtly obvious or made a big deal out of, but it still messed with it.

I don't see the problem with this in principle though, I understand fans get attached to certain iterations and versions of the story but ultimately the intellectual property is in the hands of the creators, and it's up to them to do with as they please. While some changes may be pandering to their base, it is still their decision to do with as they please.

Artistic integrity is a subjective ideal, that at best can keep an artist from paying attention to the consumers of their work (which may or may not work out well for them), and at worst can completely hamper the creative process.

 

[CritialGaming]

The concept of "original" versions of games, in my opinion, died when it became okay to release an unfinished game in the first place. With the rise of digital distribution, game developers no long have to worry about deadlines or release approval. If something is wrong or incomplete they can always patch it later.

Therefore trying to defend the original "integrity" of a game now just doesn't work.

In FFXV's defense I will give them this, these extra story and cut scene additions are being given out at no cost. Which says a lot, considering they could easily charge for this content as a DLC chapter. Yet the realize the problems, and perhaps even had this content in the works and couldn't finish it in time, so they are giving it to players for free.

That being said, I don't think FFXV's story really needs it. To be honest FFXV tells its story in a much different way than any other FF game before. The story is almost exclusively from Noctis's point of view. So you only see what he does, and big events that take place away from him are not revealed to the player. I can understand how some people think this is bad, but to me, I felt it made the story unique. To experience a story and only knowing what the main character knows was a bold move. It didn't completely work, but at least it was different, and to be honest FFXV is easily one of the better FF games ever made. Incomplete or not FFXV is great, it's flawed, but great none-the-less.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

It is a slippery slope, yes. How do you tell when fans have a point and you, as the developer/writer agree because you agree, and when you agree simply because you want to shut them up/get more sales/cave to pressure? As someone already said, I think it's a case-by-case basis, at least for me.

A story, more often than not, can always be improved on, and the ability to go back and change it--even drastically in some cases--is part of writing. The fact that videogames are now catching up to this is probably a good thing overall, but it can easily be corrupted by fans whining so loud that developers can't hear themselves think.

 

[Dalisclock]

On one hand, Story is one of those things I wish would get fixed/expanded upon in a patch or "Updated" edition rather then graphical updates or such. I've seen enough remasters where I look at it and say "Well, it looks better, but it's still the same Unsatisfying story it was before".

OTOH, I really don't want to encourage game makers to make games even less complete then they already are by releasing an incomplete story with promise of "We'll release the rest later.....for a price(on top of what you've already spent)". I know this already happens with DLC but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

[Saelune]

Off The Record was a "What If?" spin-off game. Not something I'd encourage the way it did it, but it was different enough and I liked having Frank back. I liked it better plot-wise than the original too, but I also liked a certain character better and glad their outcome was happier.

The Koei Warriors games is also a rare example, but its a series based on very famous plots, like Romance of the Three Kingdoms (one of China's most famous stories). I enjoy how each Dynasty Warriors fleshes out the books more each game.

Ultimately I do not support adjusting the story post-game, certainly not in a "Ok, this happens instead". Fixing bugs is removing bad things that should not be there, but fixing a plot is well, maybe dont make a bad plot?

This should not become any sort of standard, and any instance should be considered a notable exception.

 

[Maximum Bert]

What about Azura's Wrath? The game where you had to pay to unlock the good ending, that you could not get otherwise.

Fixed it for you .

As for patching in story I am fine with it if they could not release it as intended although to be honest I hate that companies release games unfinished and then patch later although I suppose its better than release unfinished and never patch it.

But if the writers have it in a state they consider finished I do not like the idea of patching to extend or alter the story (regardless if others like it or not). However I would be fine with them rewriting it and re releasing an altered version as long as they communicate that is what they are doing especially if they are making a remake.

Still never finished Asuras Wrath and I actually really enjoyed that story but I am not rewarding atrocious business practices like that. The Ryu and Oni DLC was fine but actually sell the end of the story as DLC sorry Capcom thats low even for you and honestly I dont really hold them to a very high standard anymore anyway.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

I will say that even though I feel the DLC story ending was a kind of cheap shot, at least it wasn't MvC3 levels of bad and the conclusion to Asura's Wrath was one of the better ones I encountered. The ending was satisfying and you get not only one of the most emotional brofists in the history of ever, you get to punch the Creator of all things in the face and completely shatter half of it.

In conclusion, Asura's Wrath is, what I feel, a very good example of how DLC is both good and bad. And I still had a damn good time playing through the game to experience one hell of a story.

 

[Joccaren]

Honestly, I don't think most AAA games count in the form of "Artistic Integrity" defence. Like many movies, they are focus group tested, designed by committee, and aren't there as an artistic expression that the creator wanted to express, but as a product being produced and sold.

Sometimes this isn't the case, and there are also a lot of games where it honestly is just the designers creating something they love, and then allowing other people to see it. The difference comes from what the primary intent is when creating the game; Is your first thought how to create a successful and marketable product, or is your first thought how to express a certain message or lesson you want to impart through the medium of videogames? Both should be considered in any game, but which one is the primary driving force, to me, determines the legitimacy of an "Artistic Integrity" defence.

There is also another part of things that you're overlooking though. Videogames aren't just movies. They aren't a one way communication from developer to audience, portraying out this artistic message. They're a collaboration between the developer and the player. BOTH are essential to the artistic message of the piece. One great example is, as you've pointed out, Mass Effect 3. The Mass Effect series as a whole has always been largely collaborative between the player, and the developer. It was a story the two forged together. One of the biggest problems come Mass Effect 3 for a lot of people, was that it changed from a collaborative experience, to one where Bioware just told their own story and you, the player, was now expected to sit back and watch. If anything, the developers damaged the artistic integrity of the series, trying to remove the player's involvement in the plot and alter it for their own desires instead.
The ending to ME3 also was never changed. The ending is the same as its always been. The difference now is that there are many extra "Deleted scenes" that were missing from the first version. Its like saying Director's Cut and Extended Edition movies are bad because they alter the story.

And on the matter of archiving games and such as art... The above is actually a core component of why its pretty hard to do that. They're a collaborative and interactive medium. Archiving that part of the art is... basically impossible.

I think there is a line to be drawn somewhere, but at the same time, for as long as a game is treated primarily as a commercial product, that line is drawn way back.

 

[Aerosteam]

As video games become more digital this stuff is inevitably gonna happen, it's entirely up to the devs if they want to go back and change stuff, even if whiny fans want a change, it's still up to the devs to make the final call. Some things though:

-I'd prefer it if the changes are optional. This removes the risk of changes ruining anything
-It must be free. If I have to pay extra to get the full/better story, fuck that

However, above all that personally I'd prefer it if devs have more of an "over and done with" mentally to projects, instead of releasing a game and having constant support for it months ahead, I'd like them to focus their efforts on their next game, release it, and move on.

 

[CaitSeith]

Honestly, I don't think most AAA games count in the form of "Artistic Integrity" defence. Like many movies, they are focus group tested, designed by committee, and aren't there as an artistic expression that the creator wanted to express, but as a product being produced and sold.

Sometimes this isn't the case, and there are also a lot of games where it honestly is just the designers creating something they love, and then allowing other people to see it. The difference comes from what the primary intent is when creating the game; Is your first thought how to create a successful and marketable product, or is your first thought how to express a certain message or lesson you want to impart through the medium of videogames? Both should be considered in any game, but which one is the primary driving force, to me, determines the legitimacy of an "Artistic Integrity" defence.

There is also another part of things that you're overlooking though. Videogames aren't just movies. They aren't a one way communication from developer to audience, portraying out this artistic message. They're a collaboration between the developer and the player. BOTH are essential to the artistic message of the piece. One great example is, as you've pointed out, Mass Effect 3. The Mass Effect series as a whole has always been largely collaborative between the player, and the developer. It was a story the two forged together. One of the biggest problems come Mass Effect 3 for a lot of people, was that it changed from a collaborative experience, to one where Bioware just told their own story and you, the player, was now expected to sit back and watch. If anything, the developers damaged the artistic integrity of the series, trying to remove the player's involvement in the plot and alter it for their own desires instead.
The ending to ME3 also was never changed. The ending is the same as its always been. The difference now is that there are many extra "Deleted scenes" that were missing from the first version. Its like saying Director's Cut and Extended Edition movies are bad because they alter the story.

And on the matter of archiving games and such as art... The above is actually a core component of why its pretty hard to do that. They're a collaborative and interactive medium. Archiving that part of the art is... basically impossible.

I think there is a line to be drawn somewhere, but at the same time, for as long as a game is treated primarily as a commercial product, that line is drawn way back.

By design, the game experience is impossible without the effort of both the developer and the player. But Mass Effect story has always been told by Bioware, with outcomes already created for the player just to explore, not to create. The player's choices in Mass Effect 1 or 2 are limited to what Bioware decided the player could do. Bioware decided what effects each of player's choices would have on the story; the players can't alter the story beyond that. The only difference with ME3 is that the later was done poorly and more restrictive; and the ME3 was re-written at mid-production (removing the Dark Energy plot by orders from EA) long before release.

 

[Igor-Rowan]

I guess Saelune summed up the best, in FFXV they had 10 years to make the game, but they are just NOW, after the game came out, figuring out that they want to change what should have changed before sending it to the public.