The product isn't defective. If there was a game-breaking bug or glitch that prevented a consumer from playing the ending of the game, THAT would be defective. Creating a definitive conclusion for a trilogy that people didn't like is not defective. The game isn't broken; its just kind of bad.Murmillos said:You are partially right that we can no longer change old work because its time for change has long passed and gone.albinoterrorist said:Wh-what?
I'm sorry, but, What?!
You CANNOT do this to ANY form of product from an artistic industry!
You can't rewrite the new Star Wars trilogy (the prequels), because it is George Lucas's product.
You can't make Macbeth the victor mid-performance, because it is Shakespeare's (and the production's director's) product.
You can't redo David without a wang, because it is Michelangelo's product.
You can't rewrite Mass Effect, because it is Bioware's product!
Feel free to not buy their products again, after such shitty performance on bith their and Ea's parts, it's fully deserved.
However, until you are physically brought in to their studios for consultance, it is madness to believe any claims that you are "co-producers" of anything.
You have no right to rewrite their product.
By all means, return it, sell it, burn it, I don't care - just understand you will not be offered any alternatives to the ending, except on Bioware's own terms (likely as over-priced DLC).
The artistic industries do not work in the same way as other industries.
Why has it taken so long to realise this?
But you are 100% wrong that we can not change todays work. The problem with this particular BioWare issue, is they promised some very particular statements, not 2 years ago as per-speculative hype, but after the game had already went gold. Therefor, they were lying about particular items their game would and wouldn't do. So they sold a defective product. We want them to fix their defect product.
They don't have too, but if they want any of my future business, it behooves them too fix it.
Thats all this is, gamers expressing to a developer that they sold a product that did not come to the expectations that they told us to believe, and we are telling them they can fix it, or lose future business. We will not roll over and take this any longer.
Also, anyone using test screenings as a premise to debunk the notion of creator's rights is off. One: that kind of player testing already occurs in games. Not bug or QA testing, but actual product screening. Two: directors often lack final cut authority. Now, there are times when changes are necessary, but they can be made and still respect the director or writer's artistic vision. Other times it's a situation of producers or studios sticking their noses in where they don't belong and screwing up a movie because they want to make it more commercial. That's why the director's cut of stuff like "Blade Runner" and "Aliens" (and many more) are superior to the theatrical version; the studios made cuts that made the movie worse, not better. Recent example: "Thin Ice". It's a so-so "Fargo"-alike with an awful ending that was forced on the film by the studios. Situations like these (and there are a lot of them) point to overzealous test screenings and other forms of outside interference being a net negative for art and product. They have their place, but they shouldn't be allowed to fundamentally alter a creator's work.
Also, if you think that cinephiles should whine, threaten, and cajole more creators to make better movies, then you're obviously only looking at what's out in the multiplexes. If you expand outwards, there's a wealth of good movies out there; no one needs Hollywood for every single movie they watch.