So MovieBob had some crap to say about that there Mass Effect 3 thingy...

[crystalsnow]

Anyone who is using the "He didn't play the games, so he is automatically wrong" is an idiot. I played the games, and let me tell you, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether or not you played the game to know that everyone bitching about this is way out of line.

When I first read the tweets he made, I could sort of understand some of the anger being directed at him, because he was being pretty critical about it all, but once I watched the video? He does nothing but make genuinely correct points about the situation and anyone who is refuting that is simply too caught up in their own reality to pay attention to other people's viewpoints. He very VERY specifically states that you all had the right to complain about the ending, but what you did not have the right to do was demand that something be changed.

But I also feel sorry for my self, because I'm on the same side of the argument as you. I want a new Mass Effect ending too. Most people are trying to say Bioware's setting a dangerous precedent by changing the ending to ME 3. But I don't understand why. (From where I stand they've also set a dangerous precedent for terrible endings too.) They already changed the ending to Dragon Age Origins and Mass Effect 2 with DLC. Why does people wanting it make it worse? Or bad at all?

From all that I've seen (which hasn't been all that much so I might be wrong) nobody's telling Bioware how to end the story, just that they should change it. That reeks just as much of desperation as of entitlement. There using all their misguided "They owe us" comments because (Well that's a tricky one, some people actually believe it. [sub]dumb sods[/sub]) they are pretty damn sure that "Please" won't work. And a Boycott is not an option, because gamers have already proven they can't stick to a boycott to save their lives. The only course of action they have left is to act like children and hope for the best.

It's a bad situation, the odds that anybody's going to come out of it satisfied are practically nil.

This is actually a pretty good argument right here. I think the main reason that Bob's saying this will create a worse precedent is because Bioware has caved to what is essentially peer pressure. Another point that can probably be made is that this whole ordeal is no doubt generating an enormous amount of publicity, for the gamers directing the crying, and the game itself. I wouldn't be surprised if Bioware is actually enjoying this publicity because it's probably giving them some sales. Them changing the ending is only generating more publicity, which means even more sales. Bad publicity is still publicity after all.

 

[WanderingFool]

I'll start listening to his rants about video games when he changes his name to GamerBob.

As he's called Moviebob i'll just pass along without giving a tree whippets spunk about what he thinks.

You do know he was GAMEOverthinker first, right?

Actually, I believe he first wrote movie reviews, hence his moniker of "MovieBob". The Game OverThinkercame out as more of a side project, while his focus was still that of a movie reviewer.

 

[him over there]

Snip Snap

Oh I definitely agree with the Indie "Arty" scene, which is also very backwards. it's sort of like people who make experimental films. There is a right and wrong way to do it. The right way is ;"I have an idea that nobody has ever tried before and I am in a position where I can experiment and fulfil my vision." The wrong way is; "I want to make something experimental, what is vague and weird that nobody would normally do so that it will be experimental?"

 

[MPerce]

Hey look, it's this thread again. It's a fun topic, though, so whatever.

It all comes down to where on the balance between "art" and "product" does a video game lie, and how much of a right does a consumer have to demand that an, um..."art product" better fits their criteria?

Now, criticism is awesome. I don't think anyone is saying that we shouldn't criticize Mass Effect 3. Nothing's perfect, not even Ocarina of Time (fucking Navi...), so if you want to say the ending to Mass Effect 3 is the most ridiculous sell-out piece of shit you've ever encountered, have at it. Make yourself heard.

But telling Bioware that you want them to change the ending because you didn't like it is not keeping in line with what art is. Bioware is telling the story to you. It is not your story. It never has been. All those choices you make throughout the series were presented to you by Bioware. The endings of the first Mass Effect were also essentially the same no matter what your decisions were. In fact, I'm pretty sure the authenticity of most of the choices you make in Mass Effect would also fall apart under close scrutiny. And no, I don't care what Casey Hudson or whoever said about the ME3 ending before the game came out. Shit happens, and endings gets changed. Half the stuff Peter Molyneux says will be in his games doesn't come true, and we don't file complaints to the FTC about him.

But for whatever reason, the "choose your color" ending is the ending Bioware chose for THEIR story. And you can either like it, or not like it. If you don't like it, yell and scream all you want, but don't demand that the artist cater to your tastes, because what about the people who did like the ending (or at least thought it was passable)? There are a lot more of us than you think there are.

tl;dr Art is subjective, if you don't like something, sorry. Go watch/play/read something else instead of demanding that the art should "get better."

 

[Hyper-space]

That was nowhere near as bad and/or vitriolic as I was expecting. I mean... he didn't even call us crybabies! I'm actually a little disappointed.

I agree with him on the "owe" business. Nobody owes us anything. The "games and gamers being taken seriously" stuff is horse shit though.

Also, since he hasn't played the games it's clear that he isn't aware of just how narratively broken the ending is, even if you ignore the choice business and the lack of closure.

I'm sick of "gamers being taken seriously" "games as an artform" etc. etc.

It's bullshit and who really cares. Honestly who gives a shit. If you enjoy it and think it's good why do you crave the validation of everyone else who thinks it's good?

It's pathetic. Gamers act like these little hipster kids who have this weird reclusive hobby so they crave the acceptance of others.

I don't care what other people think of the music I listen to. I also don't care what other people think of the games I play. This "taking gamers seriously" shit HAS to stop because it's making everyone look like fucking weak nerd kids being bullied.

EVERYONE plays games nowadays MovieBob. EVERYONE. My mum enjoys games. She knows what Skyrim is. Everyone knows what a DS is. Everyone knows who Mario is. Games are a part of popular culture now, they're not your little nerdy autistic hobby. You don't have to crave attention and make everyone think it's an artform because no ones cares. Games are here. That's it. End of.

I make a similar argument when people call comic books "graphic novels" if they were not originally published in graphic novel form. Calling it a graphic novel doesn't automatically mean its a higher form of literature than a comic book. Just read what you want and haters can fuck off.

Do you know what I wish for? Something that can we can call our own, something that proves the potential of the medium. As of now, we are not pushing this medium forward or making the most of it, we still just want our emotionally simplified power fantasy where we get the girl and everything revolves our ultimate superiority.

As of now, the only thing we have is teenager-level of art, where the message is either hammered home without any subtlety or just so goddamn vague that it tries to pass off its non-existence as "deep".

If we do not try to take this medium seriously, instead jealously guarding it from any respect from outside sources, developers will never try to make anything worthwhile. They will just settle for the lowest common-denominator, churning out either brain-dead trash or drivel that tries to pass itself off as intelligent when its anything but.

This is not a question whether that douche-bag who made fun of you for playing video-games respects you, its whether we will create something that's worth respecting.

 

[Blade_125]

After his continued beating this dead horse I have a tough time taking Bob seriously, let alone gamers.

News flash Bob. Other "art forms" use the same techniques, the only difference is they don't let themselves to be able to be modified post release. Games are unique in taht they can be modified easily afterward, adn even that has only really been possible in the past 5 years or so.

His continued insistance about games as art and needing to be taken seriously is strange to say the least. He raises totally valid points, but one thing trumps all. Economics.

Bioware and EA want to make money. If they release a product that fans don't like then they won't buy future product. Hell I am willing to bet people are holding off on buying ME3 because of the issues going on. If the developers say they are going to fix it and do, then they likely get more sales.

And on entitlement, what is wrong with that? And let me put that in context. When I spend money I feel I am entitled to get what I expect. That does not always happen. When it doesn't I can complain and try and have it corrected, or never spend money on that product/company again. If it is a one off mistake, then I haev to make a judgement, but that will usually be influenced buy what the provided does to recompensate me.

I don't know that making a new ending is the right thing to do, but making our displeasure known is a very good thing. I can only hope that Bioware and EA learn from the displeasure of ME3 and DA2 and make improvements on future games.

And seriously I hope Bob gives this a rest. He comes across as an elitest art critic who condemns others for not understanding modern art.

 

[chiggerwood]

Soooooo let me get this straight. The upset fans of Mass effect 3 that are calling for a change to the shitty ending are the ones setting back games artistic progression by a decade! Right-O you know what I'm not going to say anything about how EA has the artistic integrity of a vending machine, or how they constantly screw over gamers, or famous artist who changed things so their customer would be happy . I'm just going to show you a picture

ARTISTIC INTEGRITY!

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

So let me get this straight...
He's ranting about fans of a series that he has never played, and said he doesn't really like.

Why would I listen to him?
He's obviously being an ignorant ass about everything, sniff the irony there?

Mass Effect does it's job at driving it's story to the core- It makes it down-right personal.

Your actions have always effected you.
Hell, you could die in ME2, if you made so many wrong decisions. (Still a better ending, anyone?)
People who like the ending, aren't wrong, IMO, I am highly displeased by it, but I can understand the fragment of satisfaction you can get from it, especially if you jumped in at Mass Effect 3.
This final shard should atleast have some better writing, I mean the game was absolutely great!

And now that I've completed mass effect 1 for the first time, and imported my character into Mass Effect 2, it's freakin clear how much your choices matter. (I completed ME2 4 times using default character settings.)

 

[boag]

No, complaining about things you spent money on is fine. It becomes entitlement when you start making demands for a new ending. I've said it before, You can be unhappy with the game, you can complain about the game. but you can't demand a new ending from bioware, spending $50 on a game doesn't give you a say in how the game is created/updated.

as a Consumer I can demand whatever I want, as long as I dont put a gun to Biowares head, they are free to do whatever the fuck they like with my demand, from laughing in my face and giving me the bird to making free DLC with a new ending.

The choice is entirely theirs at the moment, and no one is forcing them to do anything.

If you think that Vocal fans are a minority, then your worries are unfounded and your claim that fans demanding a change will ruin videogames are an illusion.

 

[chiggerwood]

Soooooo let me get this straight. The upset fans of Mass effect 3 that are calling for a change to the shitty ending are the ones setting back games artistic progression by a decade! Right-O you know what I'm not going to say anything about how EA has the artistic integrity of a vending machine, or how they constantly screw over gamers, or famous artist who changed things so their customer would be happy (Leonardo Davinci comes to mind). I'm just going to show you a picture

ARTISTIC INTEGRITY!

Surely you mean 'Dante Alighieri'?

And while I won't argue that that game wasn't an outright butchery of the Divine Comedy. It was a gorgeous looking game and pretty fun to boot.

I'm not sure how well the game would have worked if it stuck true to the text. Although it would certainly have been something I'd have loved to see.

I didn't mean Leonardo Davinci, nor did I mean Dante Alighieri. I can't remember who I was thinking of. Probably due to the fact that my blood sugar is low and I'm a bit tired.

Butchery doesn't begin to describe it. I won't talk too much on the game (every time I do I begin to rant) I'm just going to say this is the game that made me swear off every title with the EA logo on it. I despise this game with a seething, burning hatred that reaches into eternity.

 

[irishda]

EDIT: Yeah he has no idea what he is going on about, saying by interacting with a medium, the story is of a worse quality than if you'd read it in a book/seen it in a film? Yeah. He is completely wrong.

He's right on that. Stories in games are generally shit because that's the most exciting kind of story, B-grade shit wherein you kill armies of people in between brief exposition points. I believe Yahtzee touched on this at some point. Let's break down some of the best stories in games, or at least what people usually say are the best:

HALO- One man must stop an army of aliens (by himself) from destroying Earth/the Universe.
Elder Scrolls- One person is chosen by destiny to stop an army from destroying the land (technically by themselves).
Mass Effect- One person must stop an army of aliens (with a small group of people) from destroying Earth/the Galaxy.
Uncharted- One man must stop someone from possessing the power to destroy/take over Earth.
Diablo- One person (or a few, if it's multiplayer) must stop evil from taking over the land.
Max Payne- One man must avenge the death of his family by killing everyone involved.
FFVII- One man (along with the help of a few others) must stop one man (in possession of an army) from destroying the world.
Beyond Good and Evil- One woman must uncover a conspiracy and stop aliens from taking over the world.

What I'm getting at is that game stories are either A: One person against (insert large group of enemies here) to save the world/universe/family or B: One person against (insert large group of enemies here) to avenge their family. And there's two ways of delivering this story. One is the linear model and the other is the open world/make your own adventure model. The former makes for better stories than the latter, because having people write their own stories makes for shitty stories, stories where the hero missed the opportunity to corner the bad guy because he left to go get drunk, play poker, and shoot random people.

Games haven't really gotten to the point where they have GOOD stories that reveal something of the human condition and make people talk about them in classrooms for centuries to come because, as so many people on these forums point out, most people want their games to be FUN first and foremost. There's very few people in this world that can do both FUN and SMART (which is a generally accepted characteristic for a great story), and there's even fewer people who can do it while letting the player take over the pen.

The only game I can think of that presented a story on par with many films or books is Heavy Rain.

TL;DR: Game's can't have great stories like books or movies because they have to be fun first. And fun usually means lots and lots of violence to the gaming community.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Games haven't really gotten to the point where they have GOOD stories that reveal something of the human condition and make people talk about them in classrooms for centuries to come because, as so many people on these forums point out, most people want their games to be FUN first and foremost. There's very few people in this world that can do both FUN and SMART (which is a generally accepted characteristic for a great story), and there's even fewer people who can do it while letting the player take over the pen.

TL;DR: Game's can't have great stories like books or movies because they have to be fun first. And fun usually means lots and lots of violence to the gaming community.

Most good books or movies are enjoyable on some level (prose, cinematography, etc.), unless they deal entirely with a topic that is painful to see or read about.

 

[ThePS1Fan]

EDIT6: He just said we're entitled to ask for patches to fix "real problems". That is not entitlement. This dick has no idea what he's going on about.

Really? He said patches make us entitled? This guy's a comic fan right? The group of people who'll ***** and moan for months because Batman's cape was too long in one panel of one issue right?

 

[irishda]

Games haven't really gotten to the point where they have GOOD stories that reveal something of the human condition and make people talk about them in classrooms for centuries to come because, as so many people on these forums point out, most people want their games to be FUN first and foremost. There's very few people in this world that can do both FUN and SMART (which is a generally accepted characteristic for a great story), and there's even fewer people who can do it while letting the player take over the pen.

TL;DR: Game's can't have great stories like books or movies because they have to be fun first. And fun usually means lots and lots of violence to the gaming community.

Most good books or movies are enjoyable on some level (prose, cinematography, etc.), unless they deal entirely with a topic that is painful to see or read about.

Enjoyable on entirely different levels though. Games are enjoyable because its a reward system. People may talk about how much they care about characters in games, but ultimately they still play them mostly because the game rewards them for their actions. They're usually pushing through the game to get their guy to the next level or unlock that next skill, better guns, better armor, trophies, etc. They have to reward the players for their work first and foremost.

People find things like books and movies enjoyable for more intangible reasons, and these mediums can be more enjoyable for a wider variety of reasons than a simple risk/reward system. Generally they present people with relatable situations that appeal to people's emotions and attachments to character, not the "I pushed the button and got a cookie for it" portion of the brain. I don't love the TV show Luther because he kicks people's asses, I love it because it presents character struggles I can empathize with and the emotional depth of complex characters. The ass kicking is really just visually stimulating flavor.

 

[ultramarine486]

Surely you mean 'Dante Alighieri'?

And while I won't argue that that game wasn't an outright butchery of the Divine Comedy. It was a gorgeous looking game and pretty fun to boot.

I'm not sure how well the game would have worked if it stuck true to the text. Although it would certainly have been something I'd have loved to see.

Consider that EA hired people to stand out in front of their offices and picket the game with quasi religious signs about how the game was 'evil'
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/05/ea-confirms-dantes-inferno-protest-was-staged/

Or that they sent $200 dollars to critics with the quote.
"In Dante's Inferno, Greed is a two-headed beast. Hoarding wealth feeds one beast, and squandering it satiates the other. By cashing this check you succumb to avarice by hoarding filthy lucre, but by not cashing it, you waste it, and thereby surrender to prodigality. Make your choice and suffer the consequence for your sin. And scoff not, for consequences are imminent."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dante's_Inferno_(video_game)

or the whole 'Acts of lust' contest where they told players to go and commit acts of lust with the booth babes.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/93408-EA-Demands-Acts-of-Lust-With-Comic-Con-Booth-Babes

Artistic Integrity isn't something EA should really be allowed to use to defend their actions or games.

 

[irishda]

I play a lot of games inspite of the gameplay, not for it.

Some games are enjoyed purely for their story, atleast as far as I go.

That's the thing though, it's not a logical response for gamers. Why would they play a game that has terrible gameplay?