Who Really Owns Mass Effect 3?

[JPArbiter]

Best Fourth Option I can see already sort of exists. DO NOTHING! if you wait long enough you get a game over and a message that the crucible was destroyed. rather then that, have the game jump to a new Cutscene with the Crucible and the Citadel being hit by weapons fire and Sheppard giving a transmission that the Crucible is not an option, and all we have left is to fight, survive, and rise above, Sheppard then bleeds out and dies.

sure, maybe include some BS about the Catalyst imploring a choice, and being visibly frustrated that Sheppard won't choose. maybe make the Reapers retreat from Earth being pursued by the allied fleet the entire to the relay.

The catch. one Reaper stays behind and disables the Charon Relay on the way out, and leaves the Reapers with the mother of all catch 22's their biggest threat is isolated, but will not be for long (the Citadel, already established as a Relay itself is intact.) and they will eventually have to deal with that threat while taking losses conquering the rest of the galaxy.

 

[I.Muir]

The power in these things always has belonged to the money, just in this situation it's EA.
They can and always have had the power to do whatever they want and they often do. I still don't really know what to think about the series "fans" going apeshit and demanding a new ending but a little extreme comes to mind. The response from bio ware however was worse for people who are supposed to be professionals, that's if the whole thing wasn't just done for free publicity.

As for artistic integrity, well I'm not sure how that can apply when profit was the only thing in the mind of it's ultimate creator EA. In any case bioware let the quality of the product slip in a few key areas and that was just bad... craftsmanship. They are of course "entitled" to do so but would have been better off in the long run if they hadn't because they damaged their reputation. The product overall is certainly worth money, but how much I think I should decide. $40 enhanced edition, or whatever they call the actually complete day 1 game, sounds about right to me.

Regardless of whether they change the ending or not I might just imagine my own version of how It ends. I'm already imagining a massive space battle in which (going for the cliche) you're forces are nearly spent and were only just able to come up with weapons that could damage the reapers anyway. Then the whatever enters and let's say it's a massive EMP which requires the entire organic fleet to be sitting ducks for a good five seconds to stop being fried and most of them get killed anyway. Reapers are destroyed, Shep has a sad moment looking at corpse and wreckage on the surface of earth and goes someplace off world that looks homley. Tali is on her planet with geths doing geth things off in the distance like a figurative olive branch passing with the quarrians and she takes off her helm. Garrus goes off to batman again, Wrex has a son and however survives gets a 5 second cut scene (I don't actually know). You see the crew meeting up and shep smiles as something new comes up and then it breaks to credits and rock and roll music. Simple and took 10 minutes tops to think it up.

 

[Thomas Knapp]

All this article proves is that even people who write for The Escapist can be entitled little brats.

You are NOT the editor. You are NOT the director. You are the PLAYER. You are no different than the reader of a book, or the viewer of a movie. You own the right to play the game you purchased. Nothing more.

I don't care how many hours you played all three games. For every hour you put in, Bioware's developers put in a hundred, if not more.

They made every character sketch and biography. Not you.

They shaped every plot arc. Not you.

They programmed every mission, every texture, every map, recorded every line of dialogue. Not you.

THEY decide how, where, and why the story ends. Not YOU.

Whether the ending sucks or not is irrelevant (because it does). If they decide to change it, that's their business. But at the end of the day, that's their decision, not yours.

If you don't like their story; write your own, and stop complaining. You are NOT the owner, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

 

[I.Muir]

All this article proves is that even people who write for The Escapist can be entitled little brats.

You are NOT the editor. You are NOT the director. You are the PLAYER. You are no different than the reader of a book, or the viewer of a movie. You own the right to play the game you purchased. Nothing more.

I don't care how many hours you played all three games. For every hour you put in, Bioware's developers put in a hundred, if not more.

They made every character sketch and biography. Not you.

They shaped every plot arc. Not you.

They programmed every mission, every texture, every map, recorded every line of dialogue. Not you.

THEY decide how, where, and why the story ends. Not YOU.

Whether the ending sucks or not is irrelevant (because it does). If they decide to change it, that's their business. But at the end of the day, that's their decision, not yours.

If you don't like their story; write your own, and stop complaining. You are NOT the owner, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

The part about the devs having all the power is true but way to lump everybody in the same basket there. Far as I know most of the escapist writers have criticized the fan uproar or taken the side of the devs "artistic" rights. However it makes sense to at least tell the devs that their ending was poorly done. Since most other reviewers don't want to seem to overly critical of such a large corporate entity however it is left to the "fans" including the insane ones to take their place.

It would be unrealistic to assume we own the product but that doesn't mean that bio ware should not listen to their fans. A bunch of crusty old greedy men own the product. If what you're saying is that people have no right to complain or criticize them then what are we supposed to do. Are we to allow a much loved company to steer down a path slowly making more and more mediocre games until finally the only thing they make are blatant cash grabs.

 

[Thomas Knapp]

The part about the devs having all the power is true but way to lump everybody in the same basket there. Far as I know most of the escapist writers have criticized the fan uproar or taken the side of the devs "artistic" rights. However it makes sense to at least tell the devs that their ending was poorly done. Since most other reviewers don't want to seem to overly critical of such a large corporate entity however it is left to the "fans" including the insane ones to take their place.

It would be unrealistic to assume we own the product but that doesn't mean that bio ware should not listen to their fans. A bunch of crusty old greedy men own the product. If what you're saying is that people have no right to complain or criticize them then what are we supposed to do. Are we to allow a much loved company to steer down a path slowly making more and more mediocre games until finally the only thing they make are blatant cash grabs.

The intent was not to lump everyone into any basket. It was a response to the writer of this article, who tried to compare his experience with Mass Effect 3 as akin to a director or an editor... and thus claim "ownership" of the story.

There are many things that went wrong with the ending to Mass Effect 3. For example, Hudson and one other writer (I can't remember the name offhand) put it together, with no review from the rest of the writing team. Everyone else was completely in the dark. That in and of itself is a recipe for disaster... and that's not even getting into the disjointed elements of the ending itself.

The "entitlement" I refer to is not those who criticize the ending; because it deserves every bit of critique. The "entitlement" comes from articles such as this, from players who try to somehow claim some stake in the IP itself because they paid the money and invested the time playing it.

The question posed in the title of this article, "Who Really Owns Mass Effect 3?" can be answered simply; Bioware and Electronic Arts, and no one else. Any suggestion otherwise should be summarily discarded for the nonsense it is.

 

[I.Muir]

The intent was not to lump everyone into any basket. It was a response to the writer of this article, who tried to compare his experience with Mass Effect 3 as akin to a director or an editor... and thus claim "ownership" of the story.

There are many things that went wrong with the ending to Mass Effect 3. For example, Hudson and one other writer (I can't remember the name offhand) put it together, with no review from the rest of the writing team. Everyone else was completely in the dark. That in and of itself is a recipe for disaster... and that's not even getting into the disjointed elements of the ending itself.

The "entitlement" I refer to is not those who criticize the ending; because it deserves every bit of critique. The "entitlement" comes from articles such as this, from players who try to somehow claim some stake in the IP itself because they paid the money and invested the time playing it.

The question posed in the title of this article, "Who Really Owns Mass Effect 3?" can be answered simply; Bioware and Electronic Arts, and no one else. Any suggestion otherwise should be summarily discarded for the nonsense it is.

Not to be confused with the pseudo make your own adventure that is one of the selling points of bio ware, making you the author in the sense of several ultimately meaningless big decisions.

I can't understand personally how you may claim ownership of a series just by playing it. Sure it feels like you may have become a part of it but the big picture was it was always owned by the company itself. To think otherwise is well something I can't understand so I tend to assume it's not supposed to be taken literally. I could understand a feeling of not getting what you payed for or what was promised and therefore owed. However it is unfortunately true that ultimately we can't force them to do a damn thing. In the end I'm very pro fan argument so I tend to support them regardless of what the initial thinking was so that an ends might even be achieved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbO5S3Fv53Q
EA could make something like this and we would be powerless to stop them.

Also my apologies, I missed the 'even' in your first sentence making it sound completely different.

 

[RaNDM G]

[link]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbO5S3Fv53Q[/link]
EA could make something like this and we would be powerless to stop them.

For the record, I would totally buy a Kinect dancing game with Commander Shepard.

 

[I.Muir]

[link]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbO5S3Fv53Q[/link]
EA could make something like this and we would be powerless to stop them.

For the record, I would totally buy a Kinect dancing game with Commander Shepard.

 

[Dennis Scimeca]

Just so things don't get (or remain) twisted - discussion of the IP is utterly irrelevant to what this column was about.

We're talking about "ownership" of the narrative, not the intellectual property. And you're taking "ownership" way too literally. We're discussing how the player relates to the game, not how one would adjudicate literal ownership.

One is a business question, which I'm utterly unconcerned with. The other is a question about how narrative is created in video games, and it's not really an argument anymore that the player creates narrative. Mass Effect 3 mostly limits the player to an editorial function which is why we can approach discussion of the ending this particular way, but games like Fallout: New Vegas more overtly support "player as storyteller" by mostly providing systems, and staying away from more strictly-constructed story.

Check out the Plot vs. Play panel at PAX East last weekend for more on that.

In any case, foisting an ending on the player that makes as little sense as the ending of Mass Effect 3 is absolutely a valid complaint, and we're also beyond the point where the idea of changing a game's ending is ridiculous. It's already happened. It will happen again. It's part of the gaming landscape. Time to get over the idea that asking for changes to an ending is unreasonable. It's how things are, and I don't see us ever going back.

I posted something on my blog about how we're not discussing WHY the ending of Mass Effect 3 makes no sense. It's difficult to do so without spoiling, and maybe that's the greater "why," but I have links to some places where you can find some good breakdowns as to why:

http://www.punchingsnakes.com/?p=600

The ending of Mass Effect 3 makes no sense whatsoever. If you don't believe me, read those posts and watch the video I link to in that blog post.

It suspect the upcoming Extended Cut was in the works prior to the fan reaction to the ending, because someone at BioWare realized they had a problem. That holo-terminal before the final battle? Utterly preposterous that the Alliance would be able to get com-links specifically to ALL the people Shepard wanted to speak with. It felt hokey and shoehorned in...and more dollars to donuts that was thrown in late in the process to account for the acknowledged weaknesses of the ending.

 

[Big Paja]

Babylon 5! About damn time someone mentioned that. Too many people think sci-fi is only either Star Trek or Star Wars.

 

[Thomas Knapp]

Just so things don't get (or remain) twisted - discussion of the IP is utterly irrelevant to what this column was about.

We're talking about "ownership" of the narrative, not the intellectual property. And you're taking "ownership" way too literally. We're discussing how the player relates to the game, not how one would adjudicate literal ownership.

One is a business question, which I'm utterly unconcerned with. The other is a question about how narrative is created in video games, and it's not really an argument anymore that the player creates narrative. Mass Effect 3 mostly limits the player to an editorial function which is why we can approach discussion of the ending this particular way, but games like Fallout: New Vegas more overtly support "player as storyteller" by mostly providing systems, and staying away from more strictly-constructed story.

Doesn't matter, because the answer is the same. Bioware and Electronic Arts, and no one else.

You are NOT the editor, no matter how much it may have felt like you were. The narrative of all three games was set in stone long before you put the disc in your drive. Narrative, I may add, that was put together without ANY work from the player.

You weren't really even offered choice through any of the three games; merely the ILLUSION of choice. If you think to the first two games, this should not come as a surprise. Both of those games ALSO narrowed all the choices you made into a handful of different endgame scenarios with minor variations. Because that was narrative already determined long before you got your hands on the game disc, and that's the direction you wanted to go.

I'm sorry, but you are 100% wrong on your take. You own NOTHING pertaining to the Mass Effect series, no matter how you try to rationalize it.