I got that point from Bob: Fans do not get ownership in any way. It's crystal clear.Draech said:CounterpointsAisaku said:While Bob may be completely right on the legal side of things, he is definitely missing the big picture here.
1. Videogames are not movies, they're not books. DLC set the precedent for games to change and divert from their original form.
2. What I am arguing as a fan is that this is no the ending that the series deserve. And given the precedent of DLC, Bioware could very well go back and revisit it. I'm not asking for Bioware to do exactly as I want, but for them to meet their own standards.
3. Good or bad Bioware and ME3 is getting an unprecedented amount of publicity over this. This is something that's making them money, money they wouldn't have made otherwise if they had gone a more conventional way. Even Bob's benefiting from standing on this side of the debate. How can you divorce this from the decision to make the ending so inflaming?
If authorial intent is sacrosanct, what intent can we derive from the endings as a whole? Once you realize that all the permutations amount to killing off all the major players as well as the galaxy around them?. Is it not to leave the invested audience with a gaping wound?
In a movie this would be fine, after all it wasn't you who shaped the main character, all the characters and the world around them under the author's control. Even if you identify with the character,it's easier to let go. This is not the case with Mass Effect.
It may be unprecedented, but once you look at all the forces involved, what Bioware did is not unlike an author holding a beloved character hostage for publicity, larger monetary gains and getting the invested readership to pay ransom.
How can you not find that despicable I do not know.
1: By the choice of the original creator only.
2: if you are only arguing that the ending is bad, then you got no problem with what Bob said. Critique wasn't a problem. An entitled sense of ownership over the story was the problem.
3: Deal with that as it is. That Bioware is being at an advantage because of possessive fanboys doesn't mean that the possessive fanboys arn't acting like spoiled children.
Side note:
That you shaped this char makes no difference. You were still only shaping him within the bounds and limits setup by the original artist. It is a misunderstanding I have seen dragged out as an argument again and again. Only real choice you have outside the artists creation is to Play or not to.
You do not get ownership over the chars or the setting just because you like them very much. You can call it holding a char hostage all you want, but it isn't a real person. It is their work.
What I'm objecting to here is to the blatant manipulation of the fanbase. They measured the ramifications of the fan outcry and went ahead with it. Are authors responsible for their fanbase? Of course not.
Nevertheless, there's an unspoken contract between the author and the audience, the promises made by both sides of the line that when upheld lead to long fulfilling relationships.Bioware broke the author - audience contract and is laughing all the way to the bank. Not all of the outcrying fanbase may be aware of it, but this is something worth standing against.