I've written about this somewhat myself, and rather than be crass and just post a link or two, I'll condense my thoughts as well as I can for you to peruse. I'm honestly shocked I have to post this again, but it seems that certain people are too busy shouting so the cheap seats can hear instead of listening to how they're sounding or what they're saying. And I'm not talking about fans.
Short version: Mr. Chipman, with all due respect on the matter of games and so-called artistic integrity, I disagree.
Stories have done the "what you choose doesn't matter" ending before, and it's been effective. Brazil and 12 Monkeys spring to mind. But those were films. These are video games. Moreover, the Mass Effect series are video games that emphasize player choice, tolerance, examinations of individuality and life itself. We are told, and invited to exemplify through gameplay, that the choices we make matter, that the direction lives take are important, and that tolerance and peace are not only possible, they are preferable to the alternatives even in our current, modern day lives. A world where different species can form friendships and even romances without any serious social implications and a man can talk about his husband in a very real and moving way is one that is definitely worth dying for.
But the endings of Mass Effect 3 are devoid of meaning. There's no sense of closure, no sense of gravity to our decisions. In the end, we're given to understand that everything we've done doesn't matter. To make everything in all three games come down to a single choice could work, if the aftermath of that choice also reflects choices we've made since the beginning. As it stands, those decisions carry no weight. It's one thing to botch the ending of a video game. It's another to ruin its replay value as a result, and another still to also destroy the replay value of the games that came before it. As a writer and a gamer, I simply cannot grok this decision.
I'm glad you say we're allowed to be upset about this, but wait: we're not allowed to feel we have a say in the process? You propose we are mere consumers and not participants? I disagree with this more than anything else you said. The Internet's instant communication and dissemination of information is accelerating the process as we, as gamers, find and refine our voices. While we'll never be able to excise every single idiot or douchebag from the community, we can minimize their impact while maximizing what matters: our investment in our entertainment. We are not mere consumers - we are patrons, and video games are the art for which we pay.
Changing the ending of a novel or film because fans didn't like it is one thing. Most directors and authors would cite artistic integrity in keeping their tales as they are. There are those who feel game developers should maintain the same standards. That doesn?t seem right to me, though. Gaming is so different from every other art form, so involving of the end user of the content, that sooner or later a different set of standards should be observed. You say that drawing a line between developers and gamers will make people take games more seriously as art; I say such behavior holds the art form back. Yes, our criticisms and opinions should be as constructive as possible in order to be heeded, but consider the possibilities if we can manage that feat. We can stop being seen as mere end-user consumers, and start participating actively in the perpetuation of this art form. To me, that's exciting and powerful.
I mean, we still have people using racist and homophobic language in the community, but hey, baby steps.