The Big Picture: Mutants and Masses

[shoddyworksucks]

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?

You are partially right that we can no longer change old work because its time for change has long passed and gone.
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.

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.

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.

 

[mfeff]

LEAKED!

The REAL ENDING!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVZUVeMtYXc

 

[Hatchetman]

Mutants and Masses

EDIT: Before you go crying about how you're sick of people complaining, I think I should point you to THIS. [http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-role-of-the-player]

Heh. Refuting a video on The Escapist with an Extra Credit video. Well played my friend.

 

[Murmillos]

The product isn't defective.

I guess we are going to have to strongly disagree on what makes a game defective.

I believe, because games are often an interactive medium (strongly so in the case of RPG's and even doubly so for the ME series), anything that changes the story enough that players no longer enjoy the story, it means the product is defective.

Most of the time, we have to accept it because as noted, the developer went in a direction that we didn't agree with - which is fine as normally, as there are no promises.

The problem with ME3, which makes the "game is defective" argument, is that just weeks before being released, well after they game was locked and being printed before being shipped to the stores, key higher-ups within the development team and publisher made very very VERY specific statements about a key part of the game, notably the ending.

We aren't saying the product is defective because we don't like the ending, we are saying the product is defective because they told us the ending was not going to be exactly the ending(s) we got. That's how ME3 is a defective product.

Take anything else is life; food, entertainment, buying a car, what ever it is, and if that sales person tells you are going to get items A B and C when you buy this product, and after you buy it, you find out that product didn't provide items B and C, regardless on what it is, do we just go home and go "Oh well, they lied to me.. everything just fine... la de da." I'm going to go out on a limb and say Hell No. You are most likely going to go back to that person/company and say, "You promised A, B and C.. and I only got A. Either provide elements B an C, or you will loose all my future business!"

A lot of people have enjoyed BioWare games for a long long time, and as such, hate to walk away from a strong and talented team of developers because of some ass-pulling from the game devil, EA.

Edit: Also because the ending feels quite contrived, rushed and counter to every single moment & provided decision proceeding it. But that's a matter of (much shared) personal feelings.

 

[albinoterrorist]

You can write fanfic of Star Wars or make a story with a similar premise that ends the way you want it to.

Macbeth is the victor mid-performance, that's why he becomes king (he only loses at the end). There's no law preventing you from making a version of Macbeth in which Macbeth defeats Duncan and remains the King of Scotland.

You can sculpt anything you want, so feel free to make David without a wang or a fig leaf that can't be removed.

You can make fanfic or mods to rewrite Mass Effect.

In conclusion you can rewrite anything you want if you don't like it. Though you may need to change some names if you don't want to be sued for plagiarisation.

Yes. But all those examples are done BY THE FANS, of their own sweat and toil.
Creating your own canon is entirely different to MAKING the producers rewrite theirs.

 

[Dr. Dan Challis]

I guess we are going to have to strongly disagree on what makes a game defective.
I believe, because games are often an interactive medium (strongly so in the case of RPG's and even doubly so for the ME series), anything that changes the story enough that players no longer enjoy the story, it means the product is defective.
...
We aren't saying the product is defective because we don't like the ending, we are saying the product is defective because they told us the ending was not going to be exactly the ending(s) we got. That's how ME3 is a defective product.

I hope you can see the contradiction between those two points.

You can define ?defective? any way you choose, I guess, so long as you recognize that your definition has little to no relation to the legal one. You certainly have the right to feel that that product was defective and that you got ripped off, but you have no legal recourse from a product liability standpoint. ?Fitness for use? is the legal measure by which a product is deemed defective, not relative enjoyment. If the game is playable from beginning to end, then it is fit for use. End of story.

Even if, through some bizarre legal maneuvering, Mass Effect 3 was decided in a court of law to be legally defective, the decision would likely entitle complainants to a refund of the purchase price and no more than that.

 

[QUINTIX]

Is there a reason you changed my words from that I thought that that was a good video?

I was quoting mfeff
My appologies. Editing embeded quotes here is a bit of a pain. I must also further confess I was skimming. Here is what mfeff has to say:

"Smugness" sounds a touch ad hominem...

Who is saying that? A guy on YouTube, who is saying he is smug, a guy on the Escapist, that lives at home with his parents? I mean, why even play that game? I think we all have a lot of respect for you Bob, it is why we support your work. Be above the argument man.

I'll fix it.
Edit: A qutation mark was missing in the post number, so it attributed mfeff's quote to you and didn't show your quote at all. I still misquoted you. Again my appologies. It should be fixed now.

Further edit: Just to poke fun

 

[tobimaro]

And I was so looking forward to the DVD release of "Salute Your Shorts", with Michael Bay's commentary about why the series was the high-water mark of Canada's dominance of children's TV production. Oh well. Now he gets to wreck the Turtles. Not that I cared for them anyways. I stopped watching them when they made the first bad TV series.

 

[Murmillos]

I hope you can see the contradiction between those two points.

You can define ?defective? any way you choose, I guess, so long as you recognize that your definition has little to no relation to the legal one. You certainly have the right to feel that that product was defective and that you got ripped off, but you have no legal recourse from a product liability standpoint. ?Fitness for use? is the legal measure by which a product is deemed defective, not relative enjoyment. If the game is playable from beginning to end, then it is fit for use. End of story.

Even if, through some bizarre legal maneuvering, Mass Effect 3 was decided in a court of law to be legally defective, the decision would likely entitle complainants to a refund of the purchase price and no more than that.

Yes, I did recognizance that contradiction, which is way I clearly stated normally no one can do anything about it because no promises about said ending were made.

I'm guessing "fitness for use" is a UK term. I listen to TotalBiscuit and I've heard that saying pop up here and there.
Yes, the game is "fitness for use", but in the US, we have something called anti deceptive marketing. If you promise that your product is going have specific features, but then doesn't come with those features, despite the rest of the product being "fitness for use", it still don't come with the features as promised. That's deceptive marketing. Games have always toed the fine-line, but this is the first game that blatantly crossed it and with a fan base willing to call them out on it.

I mean, a car that starts, drives with all 4 wheels and brakes as required is "fitness for use", I mean, who cares that you were promised A/C, power windows and GPS navigation.

There is a clear difference between "future feature speak" which is spoken during game development [and those features can be cut any time before the game is shipped with no legal recourse; at worst they only have to contend with a angry fan base for over promising features] and stating specific features are in the game after the game has gone gold, when they know full aware that those features are NOT in the game.

 

[LadyDeadly]

I don't know how to feel about the ninja turtles movie. Man i remember the live action show , that was pretty boss , i loved watching it. But im pretty sure i wont feel that same way about this movie.

And also a side note.
I wish the whole mass effect 3 ending thing would blow over already. Yes we got no closure, yes i personally think it was pretty bad but i think i can deal with that and move on. I hope bioware gives us some closure but i really think its time to move on to something else.

Like Bioshock Infinite. that looks cool.

 

[shoddyworksucks]

I hope you can see the contradiction between those two points.

You can define ?defective? any way you choose, I guess, so long as you recognize that your definition has little to no relation to the legal one. You certainly have the right to feel that that product was defective and that you got ripped off, but you have no legal recourse from a product liability standpoint. ?Fitness for use? is the legal measure by which a product is deemed defective, not relative enjoyment. If the game is playable from beginning to end, then it is fit for use. End of story.

Even if, through some bizarre legal maneuvering, Mass Effect 3 was decided in a court of law to be legally defective, the decision would likely entitle complainants to a refund of the purchase price and no more than that.

Yes, I did recognizance that contradiction, which is way I clearly stated normally no one can do anything about it because no promises about said ending were made.

I'm guessing "fitness for use" is a UK term. I listen to TotalBiscuit and I've heard that saying pop up here and there.
Yes, the game is "fitness for use", but in the US, we have something called anti deceptive marketing. If you promise that your product is going have specific features, but then doesn't come with those features, despite the rest of the product being "fitness for use", it still don't come with the features as promised. That's deceptive marketing. Games have always toed the fine-line, but this is the first game that blatantly crossed it and with a fan base willing to call them out on it.

I mean, a car that starts, drives with all 4 wheels and brakes as required is "fitness for use", I mean, who cares that you were promised A/C, power windows and GPS navigation.

There is a clear difference between "future feature speak" which is spoken during game development [and those features can be cut any time before the game is shipped with no legal recourse; at worst they only have to contend with a angry fan base for over promising features] and stating specific features are in the game after the game has gone gold, when they know full aware that those features are NOT in the game.

There's a difference, also. False advertising laws are designed to protect consumer choice. False advertising occurs when a company willfully misrepresents their product to attempt to alter consumer decisions. So, one: BioWare would had to have willfully and knowingly deceived consumers to get them to purchase their game (unlikely, since their reputation had already taken a beating after "Dragon Age 2", a truly terrible game, and the company would want to avoid further embarrassment); two: there would have to be consumers of ME3 who would not have purchased the game if they hadn't read the oft ballyhooed interviews (also unlikely, since ME was already a popular franchise and consumers would have bought the final game of the trilogy anyway). So, are the Retake ME people saying that if BioWare hadn't made any comments about the ending of the game, they wouldn't have purchased it? I doubt that.

 

[willbailes]

Okay, first the half-hearted hunger games review and now the disapproval of the consumer's role in a development and critique of a product?

Bob, I'm really starting to question your credibility, and more importantly your ability to see things like we young geeks do. In other words...

You better check yo'self before you wreck yo'self.

 

[Delicious Soy]

I'm really loving this whole poor narrative = faulty product thing.

As a million others have said: Subjective complaints about quality does not equate to an objective fault that requires replacement. Nor does consumption of a product equate to creative authority.

 

[dystopiaINC]

I find it amusing that after ragging on Transformers and god knows how many other geek things that were done wrong, Bob defends Bioware when they step wrong. Seems a little ironic/hypocritical. When things are done horribly, are not the fans entitled to complain, or should they just take the blow quietly and be happy for some perverse reason?

ragging on it is okay, he never said you could never rag on it, he said demanding that it be changed to suit you is too far.

you can complain all you want about transformers, mass effect, TMNT, anything really, but you can't start demanding it be rewritten because it sucks. feed back is important, but the retke mass effect is not just feedback.

 

[themadmaiden]

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with the Mass Effect 3 stuff. Like so many others on here.

Yes, they should have the freedom to take risks. But you know what comes with risks? The possibility of failure. And when something fails, it's not unreasonable to try and fix it. It's not unprecedented for games and other mediums to change things after all. See Fallout 3's, DLC ending. And the only way they know they failed is if people/fans voice their displeasure. Which they are doing.

Are some people being unreasonable about it? Yes. That doesn't invalidate everyone else's arguments though.

Wanting a better ending for Mass Effect 3 is not going to cost game makers the right to make choices or take risks with their work. It's simply looking for the ending we were promised.

 

[I.Muir]

Here is a new vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MlatxLP-xs

 

[Dr. Dan Challis]

I'm guessing "fitness for use" is a UK term. I listen to TotalBiscuit and I've heard that saying pop up here and there.

I don't know who TotalBiscuit is, but he/she sounds very learned and well informed.

The legal parlance may vary slightly but the concept of "fitness for use" still underpins product liability law in the US. I think you recognize this, which is why you switched tack from defective products to false advertising. The problem with that has already been addressed by shoddyworksucks, so I'll not belabor the point.

Suffice to say that your efforts to shield yourself from disappointment by invoking legal concepts that you clearly don't understand are pretty transparent, even to a layman.

 

[Seanfall]

Okay, first the half-hearted hunger games review and now the disapproval of the consumer's role in a development and critique of a product?

Bob, I'm really starting to question your credibility, and more importantly your ability to see things like we young geeks do. In other words...

You better check yo'self before you wreck yo'self.

I want to thank you for making me remember that that phrase existed. And yeah...bob is...slipping. To say the least. I mean I wasn't really listening to the TMNT part cause. It's about Micheal Bay's TMNT and I'm at the max level of 'don't give a shit' but it actually sounds like he was...supporting Micheal Bay. And if that's true then hell just froze the fuck over.

And I can't even begin to go into how his comments on the ME3 controversy got me. I've lost all respect for him. Not only him but just about every person who's spoken on the topic has been mocking and taking pot shots at well...people like me. Extra Credits didn't take the pot shots but the fact that they still use a lot of the same arguments was upsetting.

Really only Shamus, Forbes, and Angry Joe seem to get/share the fan outrage. We got a few in our court. and well Shamus gets why we're upset, I'm not sure on if he supports us but he gets it at least.