The Big Picture: Mutants and Masses

[DrWilhelm]

Here's the thing: All of that could be said about DeusEx:HR, but it barely registered a blip. Why are people in arms around ME3 to such an extent?

Mostly I'd imagine because Human Revolution wasn't the epic finale to a beloved trilogy that many gamers have spent the last 5 years heavily emotionally investing in, but rather the prequel to an already concluded story from a decade ago. The excitement and hype surrounding the Deus Ex franchise had already died down, and I expect many players of Human Revolution had never played the original anyway. Moreover, being a prequel, there were only so many ways for Human Revolution to end and still have the original Deus Ex make any kind of sense, though that is far from a flawless excuse.

This is true, but I find "emotional investment" to be a massive cop-out and a synonym for "it wasn't what I thought it was going to be and am angry because of it."

I find the entire fiasco that has resulted to be very petty in the end. Like I said above, I played the game, I found the ending to be reasonably satisfying if a tad cliche, and I moved on... Not everything, especially in media, will go the way you want it to. The trick is just to get what you can out of it and move on.

I wouldn't say that emotional investment means quite that, though you're kind of on the right lines if you prune away the negative perspective. Without thinking too hard about it (it's 6 in the morning where I am, I haven't slept a wink and I have a very busy day ahead so Mr Brain finds this "thinking" idea suspicious and worthy of scorn) I'd say that it's a fairly nebulous concept that a storyteller really wants to instill in his audience because it will amplify their reaction to the story, simply because they care more about it. It's a double edged sword though, because negative reactions will be amplified in the same way, for the same reason.

It's all about gauging your audience, and understanding what it is they want out of the story. Hopefully what the audience wants from the story is the same thing that the writer wants from the story, and if that isn't the case then I believe the onus is on the writer to adjust. It's the same way that a stand up comedian needs to adjust his routine to the audience if he's expecting to get any laughs.

If that didn't make a lot sense (and I suspect it didn't) then I refer you back to Mr Brain, who is currently casting dark glances at Mr Logic and Mr Rational Thought, and sharpening his claymore.

 

[Joccaren]

*sigh*
People aren't pissed about the ending not being exactly what they wanted. They are pissed about it being, quite literally, the worst case scenario for the ending, and not living up to the promises that the Devs made.
Why worst case scenario? I'll see if I can find a thread, but one person on the Bioware forums literally predicted this whole thing (Sort of). "Probably the worst they could do is push in some god thing, destroy the mass relays and kill everyone, and not give different endings" were pretty much his words. This is exactly what I got.
Also, before some idiot comes up and says 'I was promised this but I didn't get it' - think about what is actually happening here. Promises were made on a PRODUCT that CAUSED people to SPEND MONEY to PURCHASE said PRODUCT. These PROMISES were NOT MET and people BOUGHT said product thanks to the FALSE ADVERTISING offered by the Devs. There is a reason this isn't instantly refuted, and there are some business and law professionals taking this seriously - this was false advertising, whether intentional or not. It must now be decided whether this was acceptable because it may not have been intentional, or whether it is not acceptable, and you should keep to your promises to fans. I speak for a lot of people here when I say that had Bioware told the truth, and said 'None of your choices will really matter in the end. We'll offer you one ending, with three variations, and no matter what it will really screw things up for the universe, and the choice will be given to you by a godlike AI', we wouldn't have bought the game. The example that I saw of this was that someone was promised a demo who's sales would determine whether a game was made or not, but the demo never came out. That is a completely different case, and if you think they are the same you need to re-evaluate how you would feel if you bought a $1500 fridge that was supposed to have a water and ice dispenser, and compartments for different food types, as well as an attached freezer, but what you got was a fridge that could get its temperature down to 10 Celsius minimum, had no compartments nor freezer, and did not dispense water or ice.

In addition, what would you have us do, all you criticisers of the Retake ME3 movement? Resell all our games on day one and never purchase another Bioware game again? 'cause currently that's the alternative. We are giving Bioware a chance to keep our business because we care about them, and want them to continue existing. For the most part, they have lost our trust though, and had they not rewritten the endings, many would not have returned to them as a company - something they can't afford if they don't want EA to repurpose them to a generic shooter design team or something.
I'm also not going to bother pointing to all the sites with the NUMEROUS literary failings of the ending. You can find them if you want I'm sure, and go 'It doesn't matter, its what the devs wanted' all you like.

Really, the bottom line is that the Dev's artistic integrity is still intact, even if they change the endings. Why? Because they decided to. They could very well decide not to change it, but you know what? We would take our money elsewhere. If you say that is entitled and childish, you may want to rethink that - saying that basically means you think they are entitled to our sales, and that is wrong in so many ways.
Honestly, those who say Bioware changing the endings is a bad think, and criticising them for it, are as damaging to Bioware's artistic integrity as those who demanded they get changed. It was Bioware's artistic decision to change the endings, and just because it was because the fans begged them to doesn't mean the final decision wasn't with them. They could have left the endings, but they didn't. As such, if you're telling them that them changing the endings is a bad move, your doing the same as those telling them that them making the endings was a bad move - you are criticising their artistic decision - but worse than that, you are telling others off for doing the same thing.

 

[Seanfall]

Auteur theory can't apply to video games because they're team-efforts? So is film, which is where the medium the phrase "Auteur Theory" was originally coined for.

What if I just think the "Auteur Theory" is complete bullshit?

*reads up on what the Auteur Theory is* ....Yeah...yeah I agree it's BS.

 

[Lalo Lomeli]

Just because Bioware promised something or other and you wet your panties in anticipation doesn't mean that you raging fans are being less ridiculous.

 

[Seanfall]

*sigh*
People aren't pissed about the ending not being exactly what they wanted. They are pissed about it being, quite literally, the worst case scenario for the ending, and not living up to the promises that the Devs made.
Why worst case scenario? I'll see if I can find a thread, but one person on the Bioware forums literally predicted this whole thing (Sort of). "Probably the worst they could do is push in some god thing, destroy the mass relays and kill everyone, and not give different endings" were pretty much his words. This is exactly what I got.
Also, before some idiot comes up and says 'I was promised this but I didn't get it' - think about what is actually happening here. Promises were made on a PRODUCT that CAUSED people to SPEND MONEY to PURCHASE said PRODUCT. These PROMISES were NOT MET and people BOUGHT said product thanks to the FALSE ADVERTISING offered by the Devs. There is a reason this isn't instantly refuted, and there are some business and law professionals taking this seriously - this was false advertising, whether intentional or not. It must now be decided whether this was acceptable because it may not have been intentional, or whether it is not acceptable, and you should keep to your promises to fans. I speak for a lot of people here when I say that had Bioware told the truth, and said 'None of your choices will really matter in the end. We'll offer you one ending, with three variations, and no matter what it will really screw things up for the universe, and the choice will be given to you by a godlike AI', we wouldn't have bought the game. The example that I saw of this was that someone was promised a demo who's sales would determine whether a game was made or not, but the demo never came out. That is a completely different case, and if you think they are the same you need to re-evaluate how you would feel if you bought a $1500 fridge that was supposed to have a water and ice dispenser, and compartments for different food types, as well as an attached freezer, but what you got was a fridge that could get its temperature down to 10 Celsius minimum, had no compartments nor freezer, and did not dispense water or ice.

In addition, what would you have us do, all you criticisers of the Retake ME3 movement? Resell all our games on day one and never purchase another Bioware game again? 'cause currently that's the alternative. We are giving Bioware a chance to keep our business because we care about them, and want them to continue existing. For the most part, they have lost our trust though, and had they not rewritten the endings, many would not have returned to them as a company - something they can't afford if they don't want EA to repurpose them to a generic shooter design team or something.
I'm also not going to bother pointing to all the sites with the NUMEROUS literary failings of the ending. You can find them if you want I'm sure, and go 'It doesn't matter, its what the devs wanted' all you like.

Really, the bottom line is that the Dev's artistic integrity is still intact, even if they change the endings. Why? Because they decided to. They could very well decide not to change it, but you know what? We would take our money elsewhere. If you say that is entitled and childish, you may want to rethink that - saying that basically means you think they are entitled to our sales, and that is wrong in so many ways.
Honestly, those who say Bioware changing the endings is a bad think, and criticising them for it, are as damaging to Bioware's artistic integrity as those who demanded they get changed. It was Bioware's artistic decision to change the endings, and just because it was because the fans begged them to doesn't mean the final decision wasn't with them. They could have left the endings, but they didn't. As such, if you're telling them that them changing the endings is a bad move, your doing the same as those telling them that them making the endings was a bad move - you are criticising their artistic decision - but worse than that, you are telling others off for doing the same thing.

Thank you wise Gandalf. Exactly how I feel.

Graybeards know what's up.

 

[I.Muir]

This best explains the whole Mass Effect 3 controversy.

Ye. Gods. The sheer level of smugness in that video is STUNNING - and please keep in mind who's saying that.

Auteur theory can't apply to video games because they're team-efforts? So is film, which is where the medium the phrase "Auteur Theory" was originally coined for. "Staff of fan-fiction writers?" The same tired "these people have no qualifications!" trashing of game journalists? "You're just praising 'art games' to sound smarter?" Give me a break.

Trashing game journalists seems to be quite popular nowadays. Besides the auteur theory which I don't think I personally agree with, was there anything else you thought was wrong (being smug). That's one point gone out of many without debating the merits of auteur theory itself, somebody else can do that.

I don't think video games are in your area of expertise.

 

[Karadalis]

You see the problem i have with the whole "It is Biowares baby, Bioware is the artist, you dont force artists" is that Mass effect is not really Biowares baby.

It isnt... it is EA who owns ALL rights to the franchise... who owns all the assets, who owns every little creative idea that EAs (<- important) employees come up with even... and thats the kicker... IN THEIR FREE TIME.

Bioware does not exist as an independent studio or group of people. Their writers and employees get switched around so often that alot of people that worked on Mass effect 1 arent even on the team anymore for mass effect 3.

There is no real vision here since EA has the last call in EVERYTHING. Maybe bioware gets a tiny bit more independence because of its success compared to any other studio EA bought.

But the fact remains that not bioware has the last word about their "art" its is EA.

And nothing that is owned by a company that is focused on profit first and art maybe... MAYBE last can be called "Art"

That is why you dont call a new mercedes "Art" heck you dont even call a Ferrari "Art"

Aslong as the franchise is owned by a coldhearted uncaring multy million dollar corporation you can not call it art.. because it isnt.

Art is the expression of oneselfe... that is why there are Directors for movies... that is why most novel series are written by one and the same person and not switching authors because the publisher demands so.

Sure they have filming crews and editors.. but only to help them with all the work such a project entails. In EAs case EA simply tells its studio to give them a product with mass market apeal to make as much money out of it as possible.

Art is not art if you go in with a mindset of making money first and art maybe as an afterthought. (that is why the majority of artist have a second job and not every artist can live of his art alone.. unless youre a superstar in the music branche it seems)

Lets take Harry potter for example:

The author owned ALL the rights to her book and the entire story, the publisher ONLY had the right to publish her story.. the publisher did not own the movie rights.. they did not hired j.k rowling to write the books.

No what they did was pay J.K rowling for the right to publish said books.. end of story.

EA thought owns Bioware and thus the name bioware is just a laber for a certain group of EA employees.

You dont really believe that anything was made for ME3 without getting the greenlights from the higher ups in EA?

So no.. Mass effect 3 is less "biowares" child as it is EAs newest entertainment product.

So both parties.. the people that want a better (not necesarly new but better) ending... and the self entitled snobs who see ME3 as a piece of "Art" are barking up the wrong tree.

It is NOT biowares call to decide about a new ending.. it is EAs.. they decide if there will be more content and how much support there will be for ME3

They are the guys hosting the multyplayer servers... not Bioware.. and they will be the ones to decide when to drop the support for this so called "piece of art"

And you guys know why ME3 is not a comissioned piece of art like the sixtine chapell or a mona lisa or something beethoven wrote?

Because comissioned means you buy the talent... but in this case EA not only bought the talent but every creative idea anyone of their employees ever had. And thats another thing: Every member of bioware is an Employee and not a "hired artist" theres a big difference between theboth. Think about it.

 

[Joccaren]

I ask again because no one gave me an answer that justified the outsized response that this ending has garnered. I don't go out of my way to Forbes or the NYTimes for them to explain it to me or read the "dozens of articles" about it. I want to read, in their own words, why each player has a problem with it. So far, all I've gotten is: it wasn't conclusive enough, it ends abruptly/goes in a odd direction that disrupts the plot (I disagree with this one), and my decisions earlier didn't matter (also disagree).

Justify the outsized response? That really depends on what you think is justified and not. I think a big upcry about false advertising done by devs is pretty justified personally, but some people think it would require the last scene of the game to be a montage of Hitler's men killing Jews with the words 'Glorious Purity' written underneath for this to be justified. Just curious, what do you think would justify this level of outrage? Really, when it comes down to it, this is just all the hate from each individual player of the game coming together in an organised fashion. Were they able to not come together to do something, the same amount of hate would still be there, but you likely wouldn't notice it as they would have little way to express it - except with their wallets.
As for what was wrong with it?
From a Literary perspective: http://jmstevenson.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/all-that-matters-is-the-ending-part-2-mass-effect-3/
From a consumer perspective: Broken Promises by Devs regarding how the ending would be.
From a player perspective:
-Lack of closure
-Flimsy motive for the Reapers, that doesn't really stand under scrutiny
-The overall rushed feeling of the ending
-Plot holes and character inconsistencies
-Forced Diablous Ex Machina and Deus Ex Machina
-Lack of variety in the ending
-No play of choices into the ending
-Betrayed by Devs who promised things

Here's the thing: All of that could be said about DeusEx:HR, but it barely registered a blip. Why are people in arms around ME3 to such an extent?

Because, look at the type of game Deus Ex: HR is, then look at ME3.
One is a prequel, where the outcome of the ending is already known. Where your decisions don't change much - if anything at all - and weren't promised too, where you play a certain character with a certain background, you just choose whether they're a pacifist or not for the most part, and whether they support implants or hate them.
The Other is a sequel and conclusion to a series with a history of your decisions having an effect on the game, where they were promised to have an effect on the ending - and a rather large one for some decisions - where you play an undefined character with one of 9 semi defined backstories, where in the first game of the series you could choose an awful lot about who your character was - religious views, views on genetic modification, on risks and science, on law, on journalism, on crime, on the value of life. Whilst in HR you did get to do sidequests relating to some of these, Jensen's overall blank personality, and the shortness of the missions and how little emphasis was on them tended to reduce the effect a lot.
We didn't care about closure so much in HR as we knew what happened to everyone we knew about in one ending - they all died - and we had a reasonable base for speculation on everyone else. In addition, we knew how the whole thing turned out in the end thanks to it having a sequel. In ME3, no ending tells us what happened to anyone but Shepard, and there is no firm base to begin speculation with thanks to the destroyed Mass Relays.
In HR we didn't care about our choices mattering as they hadn't really before, and there was no promise they would. In ME3, we had played ME1 and 2 and seen our choices take effect, and been promised they would affect the ending. They didn't. Some things were shown, a lot wasn't, and even then nothing affected the ending other than EMS.
There is also quite a leadup to the abrupt ending in HR. Throughout the game are clues of this overall plan, and then how well done the ending sequence felt added even more to this. The final decision could somewhat be seen coming from a fair ways off. Whilst there was leadup to destroy and control in ME3, there was no leadup to Relay and Citadel destruction, no leadup to the Catalyst, nor its role, no leadup to synthesis, no leadup to Shepard's death until the Harbinger beam (Unless you count that stupid dream sequence near the end of the game) - a lot of stuff came out of the left field for little reason.

And here's my big problem: why is it bad? It's cliched and really predictable in its general scope once you're about 2/3rd through the game (you know there's definitely going to be a choice between control and destruction at the end, Shepard is dead no matter what happens, and the Reapers will no longer be a threat). That's not the same as being bad.

Read the literary link I provided. That is why it is bad. Personal opinions of why it is bad differs from person to person, but from a literary perspective, that post sums up nicely why the ending of the story quite simply didn't work.

So, what choices are not addressed from ME1/2 that is not addressed in ME3? ME3 is not written as a stand alone game, it is a third act all its own and the entire game consists of Shepard wrapping up those decisions from prior games, from the romances to the lives saved. What is missing then?

Ok, excluding War Assets, only a few. The decision with Samesh Batier or W/E and his wife's body, the decision with that crime lord chick, and whether you helped her then killed her, or helped her then helped her retire from crime, or whether you helped her and took her money, or whether you didn't help her at all. The Vito decision had nothing on it when I got to ME3. There are others, but mostly minor. The thing is, most people don't count "+50 war assets" as really responding to your decision, much like they didn't like purely emails in ME2. In the ending, we were hoping to see at least some of these decisions come into play. We saw the Tuchanka one, the Geth/Quarian one, and the Destiny Ascension. Each had about a 3 second cameo, or a very short speech. We wanted to see the Destiny Ascension fighting, the Geth save her from destruction. We wanted to see the Salarian fleet fighting if we got their support, and Krogan ground troops charging. We wanted to see Geth protecting Quarians, and Rachni swarming Reapers. Even then, we would hope they would at least change the story. The more forces, the greater the chance of success right? Wrong. You always succeed, unless you hesitate for 20+ minutes or W/E at the Crucible, and the worst thing that can possibly happen is you get the 'bad' destroy ending. There is no promised Reaper victory. Having more war assets doesn't help you stop Harbinger from attacking you. It doesn't give you re-enforcements in the battle in London. Your decisions add up to almost nothing in the grand scheme of things; First they are converted into a meaningless number, then that number is mostly disregarded too. Honoured choices? Nope.

But that is not how this works nor is that how it should be. The precedent set if Bioware capitulates to you guys would be one where all creative control is lost to the mob. What's the point of being a game writer if everything you wrote (and, more importantly, the most essential element of it: the conclusion) could be rewritten by the mob outside because they didn't like it?

Why would you buy a game if you knew you weren't going to like it?
I'm all for Bioware deciding not to change the ending - or I would have been had they been independent. Thing is, they carry an EA label. They made this art as a commissioned piece for EA, promising it would please fans and move sales. It has moved sales, but that has begun to slow, and it has NOT pleased fans. The precedent that this sets is that if you want to sell a product, you make it the way the purchaser wants it. If you care about your art, you don't promise it will move sales, or please people, you don't make it for someone else, you don't make it because you want money. You make it because you want to make it, and because you believe that that's how it should be.
If someone made a sandwich for themselves, or for the sake of making it, I would not go and tell them they put the wrong fillings in - I just wouldn't touch the damn thing. If they told me it had the fillings I liked in it, and made it for me, I would damn well tell them they put the wrong stuff in it if they did.
One other thing to think about is that if you truly cared about your art, wouldn't you want to make it better? It has been pointed out how bad the ending is in numerous ways numerous times. Why would you not want to make your work better? The only reason is because you don't care about the work, you care about how you want the work to be. When you're trying to sell something, this point of view doesn't work, and that is why I will not support ME3 endings in this sort of debate.

 

[RTK1576]

I imagine this reply will be swallowed up in this massive thread, but as I've resisted commenting on the other ME3 endings, I need to say something.

Bob, I respect you. Even though there's a 50% correlation between the movies you like and the ones I like, your analysis is always welcome. In my heart, I am also a critic. I like my movies with substance, I believe in artistic integrity, and I tend to lament the nature of pop culture with its blockbuster emphasis designed to squeeze the disposable cash from silly young people. I tend to defend you most of the time.

You're wrong here.

First off, some complaints and attacks done by irate ME3 fans are not justified. Personal attacks should never be okay. I don't support that kind of thing.

But here's the thing that you just seem to ignore - stories can change. Art can change. Directors and writers do it all the time. Sometimes they do it for the money, sometimes for the story, and sometimes because fans rise up and say something. Fans have won extra seasons of endangered TV shows. Fans buy extended editions of books or director's cuts of movies. Fans salvaged Sherlock Holmes from a watery grave when Arthur Conan Doyle wanted to do historical novels.

Do we have a right to demand such things? No. You could argue "but fans don't MAKE them do it." But we do buy the products. They have the right to do what they want, and we vote with our time and money. Here Bioware has a chance to not lose business that movie makers and tv producers don't, thanks to the miracle of DLC.

You also rather seriously ignore DLC, a big money-maker these days. Thanks to DLC, story-based games change all the time. Fallout 3 had its underwhelming ending changed with its Brotherhood of Steel DLC. Did you think that was crossing a line? Most people didn't.

Personally, I don't like the lecture, Bob. We're not all idiots who don't get the idea of creativity and "artistic integrity." I not dropping you from my viewership yet, but consider this strike one.

 

[tzimize]

What people need to get is that he isn't saying you don't have the right to complain. You can complain all you want. But DEMANDING that you get a better ending because it was OWED to you is just plain silly, and the unbelievable extremes the "Retake" movement have gone to to get what they are "owed" are just downright pathetic.

Now becuase this is the internet, and because the "Retake" movement tends to make strawmen of people who disagree with them, I'll spell this out in big letters for them.

[HEADING=2]Nobody is saying you need to like the ending.

Nobody is saying you can't complain.

But there's a line that can be crossed[/HEADING]

And the "Retake" movement crossed it veeeeery quickly.

The thing that Bob neatly jumps over is how Bioware made a truckload of promises to their fans/buyers and then did the complete opposites in the actual game. THAT is why people want a rewrite.

If someone said they were going to make a new Turtles movie, and instead it starred Spice Girls...people would probably be a bit upset. Dont you think?

Its bad enough that ME3 has a bad ending, thats survivable. But the worst part is that its not at ALL what the creators promised. Thats the problem. Actual broken promises, lies, to get us to buy a product. I cant seem to remember Bob talking about that part.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Just this: Teenage alien ninja turtles from space? Now that's yet another ignorant and dumb retcon.

To be honest, I am well over-saturated with all those ORIGINS and THE BEGINNING and other prequel nonsense. It was, in a few cases, quite original and fun, in most other instances it was just annoying, cheap and desperate. No more. Really: No more!

 

[lordmardok]

I really just think Bob is treading into Idiot territory lately... He really needs to stay in his realm of Movies and Comics. I mean... on the Mass Effect 3 debate it's painfully obvious that he can't tell the difference between movies and games, and on the TMNT debate... well... Did anyone expect Michael "Optimusprimacide" Bay to actually make a faithful depiction of a pre-existing series? Is ANYBODY SURPRISED?

Really... Bob is a sub-par movie reviewer who 'reviews' mostly on bias and has no place in the game community.

 

[balberoy]

Hi Mr. Moviebob,

the Case with Mass Effect is different.
Bioware (EA) released a game with no ending you can understand.

Consider sitting in the movie and at the end, the movie stops playing
and the staff comes in wanting 10 more bucks from you.

We all see the upcoming Mass Effect 10,- bugs DLC for an actual ending
rushing our way.

The people are not outraged because "they didn't like" the ending, but
because there is no ending anyone can understand.

Essentially Mass Effect has no ending at this moment and this is a strategy to
sell more DLC, with a 100% certenty.

This is "very unpleasent" to stay polite. And another showcase on
how EA F...'s us as "Customers". For EA we are cattle, that prints money.

 

[Driden Wornegon]

This is something that should be said as to art argument.
http://www.gamefront.com/why-changing-mass-effects-ending-wont-compromise-art/2/

And a bit more from me. I know that games can be art, no discussion there I feel. They simply can be created as such, and be played in an art gallery, why not? All it takes is someone with idea, skill, and passion. Established name in the art circles would be nice. After Duchamp created Fountain it's hard to say that anything can't be art. Or maybe anyone could say that games are less of an art than a toilet made in a factory?
That rises a question. Would another uninspired shooter, or changing an ending to not artistic game hinder this artistic potential in any way shape or form? Of course not. Just as making a crate out of wood does not make any sculpture made from this material less of an art. And stupid, sloppy movie does not destroy credibility of Lars von Trier. Thinking that something like this could in terms of games is the thing that really can harm artistic ambition of other games. Just because in other medium they don't have to carry the baggage of bad practices of they're medium, and in games we seem to make them do that. Mainly because we want them to uplift the whole medium, which is I feel a mistake. They will do it either way if we let them.
It is one of the symptoms of medium immaturity (which is nothing wrong in itself really, it is young) and still searching for respect in older media, which sounds at times like a fourteen year old saying he's adult. We can't show others that games are fully mature medium, we have to and it can't be rushed. We simply have to wait until we simply will be such.

This really does not involve Mass Effect because even if it's a great series of games it's not an art, it wasn't made as such and it's not a problem. Just like Shawshank Redemption is a great movie without having ambition of being art.
And there is bigger problem, there are quite big mistakes, and errors in this ending. Mentioned so many times in here that let me not list it one more time. Here is a good article about it [http://jmstevenson.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/all-that-matters-is-the-ending-part-2-mass-effect-3/]. Defending this with an argument of "art" is like saying that painter should not change anything in his painting even though while in hurry he by used ketchup instead of red paint by mistake and had no time to fix it. Such a change would not shatter he's artistic integrity. Don't get me wrong artistic integrity is important, but it's not a default, especially in projects that costs big amounts of money. There are producers and publishers messing with it all the time.

As to the other side of the argument. For me raising money for charity to get the attention for something is nearly never a bad thing. Saying on the forums that you do not like something and you think that it should be change too, but here starts a problem. The thing that should be remembered is form. No one will listen to someone shouting, and whining no matter if he is right or wrong. I understand, the reaction is purely emotional, but it makes all of it tiering and childish. One post after just finishing the game is fine, but treating it with the same level of emotions a week later doesn't look good, and affects how people see this movement from outside. Not to mention that "retake" is really poor name choice.

Last but not least, Bob I understand that as a game publicist it's hard for you not to say anything on controversy that big, but when you talk about something you do not know enough about you're loosing you're credibility. Most of the time you where wise to avoid such a topics and might be irritating to have to read through all of this whining, to stay in touch for the shows, even though you do not understand what all the fuss is about. But when you comment you honestly seem not to know what all the fuss is about. And mentioning you do not know this ending in the video does not help, just sounds unprofessional and it's hard to say for me, because I really like you;re shows.
It's just a delicate, still hot discussion and it has to be treated with good understanding of it's roots.

PS: Sorry for possible mistakes, English is not my native language.

 

[FedericoV]

so naturally bob is against movie test screenings that can result in changes to movies right, because that would be changing art.

you've been missing the point for a while. go read some of the things the game makers promised pre release then watch the ending

Moviebob is not only a soldout like all the bloggers who get paid to write serious shit about games and stuff (and who happens to forget what does it mean to be a gamer in the first place). He is even boring. A lot. At least Yathzee is a funny and smart soldout. If he would have cared to play the game or to make some research about what's really happening before attacking and offending the vast majority of Bioware's active fanbase, I would have respected him no matter his position or his words.

Considering that he has done nothing of the above since he was too busy playing Kirby, it's even pointless to post a rebuttal or to try to inform him or to gave him a wider view about what fans are actually saying, so we could start a possible dialogue. Wich is ironic for something called "the big picture".

At the end, he perfectly knows that games stories are not art and that a writer that want to make real art, will never write for videogames or TV series. Videogames stories are subjected to any kind of evaluation and compromise and as you point out, we are talking of corporate stuff like focus group and the like. Marketing have a big impact on game stories: in DA2 they cut the origins feature becase it's easier to market a game with a single protagonist and because it was too expensive to voice more than one protagonist. Where's the art in that?

I mean: does Moviebob knows that the lead writer of ME3 changed the ending that was prepared for the two previous games by the former lead writer?

There's no Cormac Mc Carty in the gaming business. There's no place for real art in the corporate business. But Moviebob allready knows that. As he knows that ME3 endings are a vulgar plagiarims of Deus Ex and Matrix Revolution. Where's the "artistic integrity" in plagiarism? I mean, if I remember correctly they even copied the colors of the original Deus Ex endings. So why he does not aknowledge those things? Becuase he is a soldout. Becuase he is not in good faith. Because he thinks that only critics have the right to question game developers and he fears that if gamers step up and demands quality and respect above all, there will be no more place for the like of him.

 

[albinoterrorist]

2) The Mass Effect 3 ending was NOT what was promised to the fans. BioWare promised a fulfilling, questions answering, plot thread ending EPIC which turned out to be a badly written mess. Again, the consumers are in their rights. This time, because they were bloody LIED to.

If broken promises entitled anyone to anything, Molyneux would've been out of business with the release of Black & White 2/any of the Fable games.

Please, don't assume you deserve special treatment just because Bioware managed to string you along for a full series before shitting in your bed.

 

[AdrianRK]

Hello MovieBOB,

I don't think you'll ever read this, but I have to say it anyways (for my own sake)

Imagine General Motors is launching a new car. The car is highly advertised and all of its features are presented. You find out that the car is powerful, safe, extremely efficient and is 100% electric. They constantly advertise that this car can go toe to toe with any SUV and that it holds its own.

You get super excited, and you make an advanced payment for the car. The launch day comes and you get your new beauty and you start to test-drive it. It runs smoothly, it's beautiful, it's superb, it's everything you hoped for and you instantly fall in love with your new car.
Then you go to the gas station to recharge the batteries and you discover that your new car is not 100% electric and it is in fact a hybrid. You get mad at the fact that you were lied to and you stat writing a complaint letter to General Motors. You were falsely advertised to by General motors and you're trying to do something about it. Then MovieBob comes along and calls you an entitled little shit because you're not satisfied with the work the General Motor engineers did because one little feature isn't exactly the way you wanted it and that people like you are throwing a stick in the wheel of progress of the auto industry for complaining about a new car.

This is exactly how we feel about the Mass Effect ending. We're not upset because the ending is a pile of garbage that was clearly written by someone who never read any of the game scripts, we're upset because we were lied to. The marketing of this game in the last 5 years bombarded us with the notion that the player will be an active element in this space adventure. We were told over and over again that our input in the game mattered in the end and that we would essentially be an active writer in our own experience. And the product we got is just not what they promised us. We feel conned.

The main feature is just not there, the car we bought is not 100% electric, it needs gas, and that has a huge impact on the maintenance costs. Mass Effect's ending has destroyed any replayability value the game could have had. And for some of us, this feature was the only reason we bought the game in the first place. I can't afford to buy a game for 60 Euros that I'm going to finish in 20 hours and never want to see ever again, this was an investment that was suppose to keep me entertained for at least 60 hours.


Thanks for reading

 

[mfeff]

Mass Effect has no idea what it wants to be.

The narrative is the elephant in the room.

The exposition, choppy delivery, and sad last minute work around to cover for the Collectors Edition and DLC, that they didn't have, cost time, so yes they cut content, to sell it back to you as DLC.

Screwing about and trying to be Meta and Arts'i blew the focus... which was to make a game.

This awkwardness culminates with the player finally getting to the arse-end of the elephant.

Tickle it's nuts... while you stare into it's gaping abyss... No you have to tickle it's nuts.

Get three colors - in your face.

That's choice you can take to the bank.

The ending is incoherent because the game is incoherent, because it wanted to be something other than a game. It wanted to be a philosophy paper. It did both, and it did both poorly.

There is no "Re-take" coming, there is no DLC that fixes it, because if there was, they wouldn't of cut the DLC in the game now, from the game, to have sold BACK to you as DLC.

You bought a philosophy paper, under the pretense it was a game, behind the guise that it is art, for the sole purpose of flipping a buck.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

So once again Bob doesn't understand the difference between games and movies. And misrepresents the retake ME movement. Standard stuff from him them.

Bob just does shit like that, he doesn't like first person games or macho stuff, and because of that tried to say Halo was evil by saying it had Nazi undertones to it.

Every time I have seen Bob dislike something, he pics the most manipulative way of expressing it.