The Story Doesn't Matter

[Bretty]

I loved the ending of ME3. Maybe I chose the right one?

I put off playing ME3 for awhile because of all this and I can honestly say... FUCK YOU! You mean I put off playing what was one of the best playing experiences I have had for over a year? The fact that I sat there dreading the ending almost ruined my immersion entirely. To all those that winged and moaned, I hope you get nothing. I hope Bioware changes nothing and they still make a ton of money, they deserve it.

Again, like many other game related issues, people flock to an issue and (IMO) try to polarize. Seriously, I am becoming more and more despondent about 'gamers'. I have been a gamer for nearly 18 years now and only now am I starting to see this as a bad thing.

I read 4 reviews by Game Reviewers and because of their great reviews I figured what the hell. And damn am I glad I did!

 

[370999]

I'll just put this here for reviewers. Hopefully Mr. Young will do an article on this double standard.

WRPG: Save the world = best story ever made
JRPG: Save the world = JRPG cliche would not play again

Because it's not just about the basic outline of the plot, it's about how it presents it, how it engages with the audiences, the characters that it produces and their motivations, the sense of a realistic and engaging world, etc.

I am not for a minute suggesting JRPGs lack that or that all western RPGs have it but that it's a reason why stories that might have a similair structure can be vastly different in quality.

 

[RaikuFA]

I'll just put this here for reviewers. Hopefully Mr. Young will do an article on this double standard.

WRPG: Save the world = best story ever made
JRPG: Save the world = JRPG cliche would not play again

Because it's not just about the basic outline of the plot, it's about how it presents it, how it engages with the audiences, the characters that it produces and their motivations, the sense of a realistic and engaging world, etc.

I am not for a minute suggesting JRPGs lack that or that all western RPGs have it but that it's a reason why stories that might have a similair structure can be vastly different in quality.

True, but some reviews of JRPGs do say the reviewer looked at the box art and wrote a review based off of a gameplay video and gave it a meh score because of its plot which is save the world. Some don't even get their facts straight.

 

[Kekkonen1]

Well Shamus I can understand your point to a degree. But for me there are two glaring problems.

First, as many have stated before, after the whole controversy started virtually all major gaming sites (including the ones I frequent in my own country) has basically continued poking fun of people geniunly dissatisfied with the ending. Sure there will always be bad apples screaming bloody murder on both sides of an argument, but to only focus on those few and painting everyone not satisified with the ending as idiots is just deliberately schewing and ignoring the valid points many have.

My other main problem with this is that despite discussing the ending afterwards with several reviewers not one of them admitted there even being any issue at all with the ending. Even in retrospect they claimed the ending was amazing, thought provoking, brilliant etc etc. Just to clarify, I'm not saying that they are not allowed to think that (although deliberately ignoring all the plot holes are baffling to me personally), it's just that it becomes rather queer when almost all reviewers seem to think so while the opinions of the fans are much more divided.

I also find it interesting how so many who does not seem at all invested in the games themselves still feel the need to weigh in with their criticism of the dissatisfied fans. dissatisfaction with something will always seem strange to those not invested in it. I for one never understood the issues with the endings of for example Lost, as I never got into it in the first place. But I didn't turn around and call people dissatisfied idiots for voicing their opinions.

Somehow I feel that many reviewers are taking this stance out of pure elitism. I dont think they are paid off (although one should be aware of the sometimes dangerously close relationship between industry and game journalism), but I think some of them are being very elitist regarding this just for the sake of it. And to not see how artistic works are being changed due to different compromises each and every day and somehow paint this changing-the-ending business as the end of games as an artistic expression seems on the one hand naive and on the other just dishonest. Surely even they must now that movies get changed due to preview viewings all the time, books have been changed many times in the past (sherlock holmes being the one I can think of right now), and publishers definatly make people change their artistic works. How then is this suddenly so incredibly controversial.

Wrapping up, I just wish the people not invested in it would simply stay not invested and let those of us dissatisfied be dissatisfied. And it pains me greatly that many gaming sites I used to frequent and many journalists I used to respect has been virtually fighting with each other for the title of who can best belittle their fans. That genuinly saddens me.

 

[370999]

I'll just put this here for reviewers. Hopefully Mr. Young will do an article on this double standard.

WRPG: Save the world = best story ever made
JRPG: Save the world = JRPG cliche would not play again

Because it's not just about the basic outline of the plot, it's about how it presents it, how it engages with the audiences, the characters that it produces and their motivations, the sense of a realistic and engaging world, etc.

I am not for a minute suggesting JRPGs lack that or that all western RPGs have it but that it's a reason why stories that might have a similair structure can be vastly different in quality.

True, but some reviews of JRPGs do say the reviewer looked at the box art and wrote a review based off of a gameplay video and gave it a meh score because of its plot which is save the world. Some don't even get their facts straight.

Indeed, though JRPGs are a niche, as well as games journalist being quite young

 

[mfeff]

Et tu Shamus?

Nah, in all fairness this was a pretty decent article, which points out the "trending" nature of reviews, stemming from the fact that those reviewing the material, have not (fully) engaged the material.

This is why most "the best bits" of games happen in the first few hours... developer's know this and cater to the weakness of the "system".

This should naturally lead one to a sense of "credulity" when taking "anyone's" commentary on a product. ESPECIALLY a game, in which the staff of said reviewing establishment is "in" the game.

Concerning ME 3 specifically... it is a 7/10 at best. A retcon RPG space opera transformed into a cover based shooter, suffering from many of the same issues it's predecessor(Dragon Age 2) suffered from.

A black eye for Bioware (they seem aware of this fact), and the proof of the pudding will be in the DLC sales they make, or consequently, don't make.

A shame in many respects, in that there are not that many options in the genre, in the "games and toys" section of the local shop-mart.

While Shamus may not be obliged (contractually?) to express his real opinions, at least he has made an attempt to stay neutral. Good show.

 

[RaikuFA]

I'll just put this here for reviewers. Hopefully Mr. Young will do an article on this double standard.

WRPG: Save the world = best story ever made
JRPG: Save the world = JRPG cliche would not play again

Because it's not just about the basic outline of the plot, it's about how it presents it, how it engages with the audiences, the characters that it produces and their motivations, the sense of a realistic and engaging world, etc.

I am not for a minute suggesting JRPGs lack that or that all western RPGs have it but that it's a reason why stories that might have a similair structure can be vastly different in quality.

True, but some reviews of JRPGs do say the reviewer looked at the box art and wrote a review based off of a gameplay video and gave it a meh score because of its plot which is save the world. Some don't even get their facts straight.

Indeed, though JRPGs are a niche, as well as games journalist being quite young

True, true. Although we do need more JRPG centric reviewers(the only one I know of is Dale North on Destructoid) as places like GI and GP have admitted in the past that their staff dosen't like the genre.

 

[mjc0961]

For example, I can fault Mass Effect 2 for putting opposing actions like "sprint" and "take cover" on the same button.

And Mass Effect 3. And Uncharted 3. And any other fairly recent game that's still doing that shit. Game devs: KNOCK IT OFF. I get it, Gears of War did it like that when it introduced this kind of cover system into gaming. It was a stupid way to map the controls then and it's a stupid way to map the controls now. And do you know what else Gears of War did? They fixed it in the third game with an alternate control scheme that puts dodge rolls and running on X and leaves cover on A. Took a while to get used to, but I'll never play any other way again. Or, I wouldn't, if you other developers would stop forcing me to. I'm goddamn sick of getting stuck to a wall when I wanted to sprint or roll away (followed by getting killed) and rolling against a wall before standing up again when I wanted to take cover (followed by getting killed again) in games that aren't Gears 3 but use the same kind of cover system as the Gears franchise.

And to make it worse, Mass Effect 3 stuck about 2-3 other functions to the A button, so I can roll or take cover when I wanted to pick something up, activate something, or revive someone. Holy shit, you failed big-time on that one BioWare. Forget fixing the ending*, fix the *#$%ing controls!

...No I did not enjoy my Insanity playthrough of Mass Effect 3, why do you ask?

*Fixing the ending is an impossible task anyway. They'll never find something to make everyone happy. There's the people who just think there needs to be more time to get proper answers out of you-know-ho, there's the people who just want to see more of how the galaxy turns out years after the ending, there's the people who swear by the Indoctrination Theory, there's the people who think the entire ending is crap and needs to be completely thrown out and redone, and there's the people who think it should be left alone. And I probably missed a few. Never going to be able to "fix" the ending with so many flavors of unhappy players. But you know what you can fix? The controls. So fix those instead.

 

[Shiro No Uma]

I had the same discussion, that turned into an augment with, another member of the Escapist crowd and appreciate your words on reviewing vs critiquing, punditry vs journalism.

Something that I think made a difference for me and my enjoying, and subsequently strange liking of, the ending was that I never thought that my choices made a difference in the world I was experiencing - except to say how I viewed, and the surrounding cast viewed, my character (as in my morality). The choices I made really felt like they would always result in the same thing - continuation of the game. I played in a way that felt like I was all ways asking "how can I make your life/world better." I always wanted to be the likable hero, and in the end that's what I chose. The out come of a choice might be slightly different with certain factions and individuals and you might not get the resources you are after, but you still got to go to the next mission, always. You might loose options for how to finish a mission, and possible loose side quests, but it was alway the same result. Shepard continues on. Because of this, I think that I never got a sense that Shepard was that deep, and the people around him/her could be slightly more molded as they were trying to make a relation ship with me.

This is off topic and a bit devils advocate, but I very curious about the people who sent the cup cakes to Bio-Ware and a certain cyclical thought about the endings. Many fans are saying that all the endings are the same, and most of those fans are also screaming about a promise that it wouldn't be an A, B, C ending. If they are the all the same aren't they all just variations of "A" and thus one ending? Not and A, B, or C? Just "A" with a little more green and what not? Or was the promise something else? Like you won't get a dialog tree and get to chose and ending? Just curious....I like cup cakes too.

 

[GoodApprentice]

Game journalists from most of the major gaming sites seemed genuinely shocked and uncomfortable by the outcry over the ending. I think the gaming public caught them not doing their jobs adequately, and it made them take an overly defensive stance. Combine this with the fact that Bioware has long held an overly comfortable relationship with the big gaming websites, and you quickly saw how game journalists circled the wagons and took endless pot shots at unhappy gamers.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Yes. Yes, you pretty much are.

If that's what you want to believe it's fine by me. I respect your opinion as a consumer, I just don't respect the opinion of a professional reviewer. Especially not after so many people (myself included) hated the ending and had a shitload of logical arguments to backup our claims to why it sucked. How did some of those people get a job like that is beyond me.

Game journalists from most of the major gaming sites seemed genuinely shocked and uncomfortable by the outcry over the ending. I think the gaming public caught them not doing their jobs adequately, and it made them take an overly defensive stance. Combine this with the fact that Bioware has long held an overly comfortable relationship with the big gaming websites, and you quickly saw how game journalists circled the wagons and took endless pot shots at unhappy gamers.

Well of course. They were exposed and they thought the only course of action is to blame the fans and try to justify their shitty job with "games are art" bullshit. But when the "whiny idiots" (we who hated the ending) deconstructed that ending and with logical arguments explained why we were right and they were wrong, suddenly they stopped. They know that further attempts at blaming the fans would end bad for them, and admiring a mistake would be even worse, so now they're playing the "let's ignore this until it's gone" card.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Yes. Yes, you pretty much are.

If that's what you want to believe it's fine by me. I respect your opinion as a consumer, I just don't respect the opinion of a professional reviewer. Especially not after so many people (myself included) hated the ending and had a shitload of logical arguments to backup our claims to why it sucked. How did some of those people get a job like that is beyond me.

So basically, if I am a consumer, who is not posting a review, and I liked the game and thought it was a great conclusion to the series, crappy ending notwithstanding, I am fine. If I am a reviewer and hold the same opinion, I am unprofessional/paid off/not worthy of respect? I don't get that. Tell me if I am misunderstanding your opinion, but as I understand it now, it makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

And Shamus gets another vote for President of the Internet, for being a reasonable source of discourse.

I'll just put this here for reviewers. Hopefully Mr. Young will do an article on this double standard.

WRPG: Save the world = best story ever made
JRPG: Save the world = JRPG cliche would not play again

While I'm not saying I wouldn't read his opinions on it, the Extra Credits guys did a three part series on the difference between the two genres recently that was fairly comprehensive.

 

[mfeff]

Surely this little video has nothing at all to say on the subject...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwD2GgWKIrs&feature=relmfu

Fact is, if you game... you will be lied to at-least-once, by someone, somewhere, involved in the product process.

 

[Centrophy]

Sounds like you're making excuses, Shamus. Story in a narrative driven game does matter and all of Bioware's games thus far have been narrative driven, whether you agree or not that is a fact. Granted I also disagree with Angry Joe giving ME3 an 8/10. Before even going into the ending at best it's a 6-7 out of 10, considering all the stuff that was removed from the game or just poorly implemented. I'd also hate to bring this up, but "fun" isn't a good way to grade or describe anything. Just so you know, some people think self mutilation is fun.

 

[zinho73]

Shamus said: "When I first beat Mass Effect 3, I was simply disappointed by the ending and the lack of closure".

That's reason enough to raise an eyebrow and mention it on your review. Also, as other people have pointed out, a lot of the journalists are defending the ending even today and really overplaying the art card.

I think game journalists too frequently loose perspective, spoiled by a relashionship with the game (previews), their own excitement with a title and simply lack of knowledge about some technical stuff (graphic engines, narrative structure, etc.).

Yes, deadlines are hard and, in RPGs in which you have to spend lots of hours, they are particularly fierce, but failing to connect with the consumers on this level is truly bad an opens the door to all kinds of mistrust.

 

[zinho73]

Yes. Yes, you pretty much are.

If that's what you want to believe it's fine by me. I respect your opinion as a consumer, I just don't respect the opinion of a professional reviewer. Especially not after so many people (myself included) hated the ending and had a shitload of logical arguments to backup our claims to why it sucked. How did some of those people get a job like that is beyond me.

So basically, if I am a consumer, who is not posting a review, and I liked the game and thought it was a great conclusion to the series, crappy ending notwithstanding, I am fine. If I am a reviewer and hold the same opinion, I am unprofessional/paid off/not worthy of respect? I don't get that. Tell me if I am misunderstanding your opinion, but as I understand it now, it makes absolutely no sense to me.

Sorry to get in the way of the discussion - just to add my 2 cents:

Sometimes the reviewer likes a game but he is also able to recognize that some people would not like some aspects of it. The best reviewer can mix their own opinion with a more broad analysis.

The Angry Joe review is something like this in reverse. He clearly dislikes the ending a lot, but recognizes that the game has other merits that are worth an 8/10.

To me, a reviewer that fails to understand what are the expectations for a game like ME3 is a bad reviewer - it simply does not matter if he likes the game or not.

 

[zinho73]

Kaidan was wonderfully characterized. Just saying. I'm a bit of a fangirl about him.

And I knew seconds after finishing the ending that I hated it. But this makes sense from a review perspective. When people are judging your judgment it makes sense to only talk about things that can be factually proven.

Well, A lot of reviews I read were praising the ending, and some said things like "you definitely will get the closure you want". I want they factually prove that.

SPOILER

The mere death of the main character is not closure to the story. So Shepard dies and the Reapers are defeated - if this is enough to warrant a good closure they could simply write this words on a black screen after Marauder Shields (And the worst of it is that I think this is actually better than the actual ending).

 

[The Critic]

Very well said, Mr. Young. I'm in agreement with you on this. I have to say, thoguh, I thought that your words on how a story factors into a review were was the most interesting thing said. I'm in agreement with you there; something that's so subjective should best be left for a post-review op-ed piece.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Yes. Yes, you pretty much are.

If that's what you want to believe it's fine by me. I respect your opinion as a consumer, I just don't respect the opinion of a professional reviewer. Especially not after so many people (myself included) hated the ending and had a shitload of logical arguments to backup our claims to why it sucked. How did some of those people get a job like that is beyond me.

So basically, if I am a consumer, who is not posting a review, and I liked the game and thought it was a great conclusion to the series, crappy ending notwithstanding, I am fine. If I am a reviewer and hold the same opinion, I am unprofessional/paid off/not worthy of respect? I don't get that. Tell me if I am misunderstanding your opinion, but as I understand it now, it makes absolutely no sense to me.

Sorry to get in the way of the discussion - just to add my 2 cents:

Sometimes the reviewer likes a game but he is also able to recognize that some people would not like some aspects of it. The best reviewer can mix their own opinion with a more broad analysis.

The Angry Joe review is something like this in reverse. He clearly dislikes the ending a lot, but recognizes that the game has other merits that are worth an 8/10.

To me, a reviewer that fails to understand what are the expectations for a game like ME3 is a bad reviewer - it simply does not matter if he likes the game or not.

I guess we are in disagreement here. When I read a review, all I want is the reviewers opinion of the game and the reasons they have that opinion clearly spelled out. If I want to know anything about a game I might not like, I can glean that from the meat of the review itself or from a different review. I don't feel a reviewer should be forced to arbitrarily lower or raise their scores depending on whether or not other people will like or dislike the game as much as them. It is up to the reader to decide, based on the reviewers opinion of the game, what to do with the info. But, I digress, that is getting away from the topic at hand. I don't want to lead this comments section down a bunny trail.