The Big Picture: Mutants and Masses

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NEXT
 

This whole thing has gone completely insane. People think Sonic fans are insane, this whole Mass Effect 3 outrage doesn't even compare.

Jman1236:
This whole thing has gone completely insane. People think Sonic fans are insane, this whole Mass Effect 3 outrage doesn't even compare.

Mass Effect 3 fans: We were promised a dynamic, non-standard ending and it turns out we were lied to!

Sonic Fans: His EYES are the wrong colour!

...Yeah, it doesn't compare. But not for the reasons you're purporting.

While I'm not in a position to comment on the broader meaning of what has, or has not, been done to TMNJ reboot I do want to address something that was mentioned in the video about that franchise as a whole and relate that to ME3. Quoting what I'm respond to for clarity.

"Thus lacking the tired ass, pre-destination bull****"

Too true. To a point that, and that more than anything else, is why the ME3 ending is a complete departure from their (BioWares) established ethos and has solicited such a strong reaction from the fanbase.

From a plot development perspective the entire thing began a massive downward spiral the moment when, on Thessia in the build-up towards the ending, the various back-ground plot points regarding the Prothean interaction with the evolution of various species who were around during their time were suddenly dragged into the foreground and essentially formed the basis of the entire plot preceding that moment and largely changed the direction, in storytelling terms, of the entire series.

It threw prophecy into the mix and almost verbatim repeated the phrase "All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again" from Peter Pan however, having established a cyclical pattern as the primary impetus for the entire plot, that isn't necessarily a bad thing nor is it totally outside the realm of possibility. But that kind of pre-determination, while accepted as an inevitability within the construct of the plot, runs contrary to the way that the entire series has been played thus far.

To put it another way, if the ending was predetermined from the beginning and nothing the player did with one character across three games over five years was ever going to change it (I actually would have been fine with that, if the Reaper's winning had been the inevitable result, rather than the sudden edition of a whole new set of repeating patterns to explain away everything) then why did they ever bother allowing us the illusion of control?

Do I agree with the fans that the ending should be "changed"? No, as much as it was a slap in the face, it was an ending.
Do I agree with the demonisation of those fans as the harbingers of doom for artistic license? No, because I'm reasonably certain that no one is in a position to have any kind of moral high ground on this topic.

I didn't care too much for the ending, similarly I don't care too much for the way that some people have reacted. That said the fact that those fans have raised more than 50,000 dollars for charity, largely reacted in a semi-unified and reasonable manner, notable exceptions aside, and taken this will evident good humour by quickly donating to a drive to have cupcakes delivered to BioWare... can't be a bad thing.

You argue that the fanboys are being immature, I say that while some of them are, the majority of those involved seem to be comporting themselves with a kind of respect and civility that should be encouraged, not just on the internet, but everywhere in life.

Really wish Bob had broken this into two different Big Picture episodes instead of lumping them together into one video.

If you feel like talking movies instead of video games you have to do a lot of digging to find the posts that are about the Turtles movie instead of Mass Effect 3. Given the uproar over Mass Effect 3 it's really had to have any sort of discussion about anything else when you know it's going to dominate almost the entire thread.

Reason number 4 is why, I, personally am disappointed with the ending.

http://www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-hatred-5-reasons-the-fans-are-right/

Samarith:

Fwee:
Just so you know:
Bioware and EA don't owe you a goddamn thing. They came out with a game and you bought it, played it, finished it, and either walked away from it or started crying all over my internet.

Internet quotes and press releases from anyone working on the Mass Effect series are not legally binding.

You should have rented it and saved yourself $55.

Plus you're detracting from real issues in modern entertainment, such as DRM control, DLC flooding, and mandatory Origin signups.

So gamers cannot express their ire at the shoddy ending of a series and we should get over it?

Well then to address your 'burning issues' in the same vein. If you don't like the DRM control attached to a game..don't buy it. If you don't like DLC flooding...don't buy the DLC and if you don't want to patronise the distributor then don't buy from them..even if that means you don't get the game.

Gaming as art is much like food as art. Certainly a chef is an artist but the eating experience is interactive; which means the customers appreciation of the chef's art is a key part of the experience.

If a restaurant's menu has 90% of it's customers throwing up, then they would probably see lawsuits...would likely offer refunds and almost certainly would change the menu. Assuming said restaurant wished to stay in business.

The idea that consumers have no right to complain because it's art is rediculous. The artist can of course stand by their creative vision but the consumer has the right to a refund if unhappy and they can also inform other potential consumers about the poor quality of the work.

Exactly. Don't buy their DLC, don't buy their games.

Games aren't art. They're a product. And if someone's unhappy about a product they have a right to voice their concerns. And they have a right to start petitions with the FTC and BBB and harass the employees hourly and start raising funds to somehow "Take Back" what they don't even own in the first place, right?
Amazon's offering a pretty good deal for anyone who's not happy with their copy of ME3. I'd suggest anyone who doesn't like the game go to them for at least most of their money back.

What I don't understand is how so many people could enjoy a game up until the ending and then turn around and demand changes. To use your restaurant analogy (and I hate analogies), if you sit down and eat a three-course meal you don't get to stand up and demand to get your money back and an entire three-course meal because the dessert wasn't up to your expectations.

And please keep getting me warned for trolling, because someone who doesn't agree with a cowardly opinion should be silenced. I should be constructive in my writing in a thread that's full of nothing but bitching? Fuck that.

And with that I'm done wasting my time with you children. All of you, not just the guy I'm quoting. You seem alright, although I wish you wouldn't use analogies to bolster a flimsy argument. Don't argue what things should be like; argue what things are.

Sentox6:

Frozengale:
So please forgive me oh wise internet guru, I will now go scourge myself because obviously in your eyes misusing a term is a horrible sin.

1. Person A says something stupid.
2. Person B highlights Person's A stupidity.
3. Person A adopts excessively defensive posture, trying desperately to cover their stupidity with sarcasm and barely-veiled insults directed at Person B.

Tragically, this is a true story.

Yes misusing one word is stupidity. Let us forget the fact that words are nothing more then abstracts to convey meaning, and the point of my little rant was to convey meaning not define words. Just because I misuse one term does not make me stupid. I'm tired of silly internet people that have to jump on someone for one simple mistake, misspelling, or misuse. How about you kindly tell them they are wrong instead of insulting them.

If there's one thing the Re-Take ME3 debate is teaching me it's that games are not and will never be art as gamers will continually refuse to treat them as such despite the vast potential of the medium.

Patrick_and_the_ricks:

370999:
So once again Bob doesn't understand the difference between games and movies. And misrepresents the retake ME movement. Standard stuff from him them.

Bob just does shit like that, he doesn't like first person games or macho stuff, and because of that tried to say Halo was evil by saying it had Nazi undertones to it.

Every time I have seen Bob dislike something, he pics the most manipulative way of expressing it.

If I remember right it seemed like he was just trying to fit more stuff into the time-limit. So he kinda just pulled it out of his ass. It wasn't to make it seem evil just kinda to throw out that it was weird.

keinechance:
Maybe if more Movie-fans "whined and bitched" about the substandard products that they are sold, the Movie-industrie would start making better movies?

Strangely, he suggested doing just that. If we recall back to one of his reviews where he talks about how since Scott Pilgrim didn't do well in the box office there wouldn't be a In the Mountains of Madness movie, and that it was all to blame on the people who liked the Expendables. I can't remember what he said exactly on this but it was to some degree that people who liked it were stupid and should basically whine and bitch to get the movie made.

zefiris:

Please, don't assume you deserve special treatment just because Bioware managed to string you along for a full series before shitting in your bed.

Actually, you're the only one asking for someone to get special treatment. In your case, you want videogame companies to get special treatment by your weird demand for them to be excempt from what EVERY OTHER COMPANY faces.

Fans here are actually waking up and noticing that, as customers, they have some pretty basic rights, including returning products that did not meet the advertized standards, and/or demanding a fix to the problem.

It's that simple. Videogame companies are no special snowflakes. Deal with it.

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?

Well shit. There goes all the respect I had for mister Bob Chipman. I thought he was pretty interesting to listen to, and I loved his talk about the green lantern's darkest night series. But this is just insulting.

He obviously has not even played the series in question, he has done no research, he hasn't even bothered to listen to the people who are complaining, he has instead simply decided to hide behind the 'GAMES ARE ART AND YOU SHOULD NEVER EVER EXPECT TO BE SATISFIED FROM ART' standpoint.

I'm sorry Mister Chipman that you are burdened with being so much better than the masses. there is however, a difference between the origin story about a bunch of cartoon turtles, and a three game spanning epic that has every time had a major selling point of being able to choose what happens throughout the game, and having those choices have weight and meaning. To do my best to make an analogy that you might better understand.

You have heard that this upcoming movie is going to be made and directed by the *best* director out there, you're told that he is going to ensure every part of it is absolutely perfect to the best of his ability. And it is an amazing and epic tale, striking almost all key notes a movie has to touch and instill in its viewers. Then, at the very end, at the last fifteen minutes, the director apparently had a job to do elsewhere, so he turned the ending over to his very good friend Uwe Boll. So this grand epic of a movie is ended by having some of the stupidest decisions imaginable, causing them to act totally out of character because the director lied and didn't keep his promise.

Wouldn't you be pissed off? Wouldn't you demand your money back? Hell, wouldn't you get royally pissed because this was all set to become a masterpiece of cinema, when the director decided to knock off and give the creative reigns to some idiot who thinks he's a director?

Well, guess what. Gamers can't demand their money back. If you buy a game nowadays, that's it. You own it, and nothing you can do will get you your investment back. In the world of CD-keys, online activation, and the like, returns are a thing of the past. Amazon is taking returns, which I think is hilarious and awesome. But can we take it back to walmart? No. Can we return it on Origin? No. We're stuck with it, and that's all there is to it.

The argument of 'BUT ITS ART' doesn't fly when the company creating it, isn't out to make art, they are out to make money. If you want to throw that statement around, point at some of the indie creators who are taking more chances and acting less like corporate whores. EA and Bioware are in it for the money. They may enjoy it, they may think they're doing awesome things, but ultimately they're in it for the dosh. There's nothing particularly wrong with this, some amazing things have come out of being in it strictly for the money. But if you're in it for the money, and you promise, throughout the entire game's development, and the major selling point is that all the choices you made in Mass Effect 1 and 2 are coming together to make a major impact on the ending.... And its all a load of bullshit.

Then I think you have a right to tell them that this is bullshit, and if you want us to buy another thing from you again, you have to make it better.

Ashley Blalock:
Really wish Bob had broken this into two different Big Picture episodes instead of lumping them together into one video.

If you feel like talking movies instead of video games you have to do a lot of digging to find the posts that are about the Turtles movie instead of Mass Effect 3. Given the uproar over Mass Effect 3 it's really had to have any sort of discussion about anything else when you know it's going to dominate almost the entire thread.

You could try, rather than complaining.

It would be nice if the issues were separate episodes, though, since attempting to tie them together is either ignorant or dishonest.

Fwee:

Games aren't art. They're a product.

They're both, and people need to stop treating video games like they have to be one or the other. This is a scrutiny that other media does not have to deal with. People aren't suing to restrict R rated movie or explicit music arguing "it's not art."

Commerce and art are not mutually exclusive.

And to use Moviebob's example, of course he's not going to file an FTC complaint. There's no grounds. "Because things didn't turn out the way I wanted" or "Because Michael Bay is raping my childhood" are not valid reasons to file an FTC complaint.

"Because they grossly misrepresented their product" is.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is, as far as I know, not beholden to any promises or claims thus far that would impact it in a purely mercantile sense. It's probably going to suck, but we know that going in. But that alone does not translate into an FTC complaint. It's a shame that Bob is misrepresenting the Mass Effect controversy (intentionally or not) to equate the two.

But games and movies are both entities that have commercial and artistic elements. Even bad art is art, but when you sell it, you're acting in a commercial venue. And if you don't like a commercial product, you have recourse. And if you are lied to, you have different avenues. Even if Mass Effect 3 sucked, it's art. It's an artistic endeavour and a storytelling one at that. It's also a product. Regardless of it being good art or bad part, it's a product as well, and people lied about that product. This is beyond artistic license, and as such, the argument of "artistic integrity" does not apply.

But that does not mean games are not art. Nobody should claim that.

The "ME3 is art and immune to criticism" argument loses a lot of ground when the very last thing you see at the conclusion to the epic trilogy is a message telling you to buy DLC.

albinoterrorist:

You can't rewrite Mass Effect, because it is Bioware's product!

It is not biowares product.. all rights to the series and every little bit of data, lore and creative or future creative idea of its employees belong to EA

Dont believe me? Go check out some interviews about former Bioware employees here on the escapist.

And yeah.. just as you said: Its a product, a product that is tailored to rake in as much cash as possible... it is not "bioware expressing themselves"

EA told them to construct a product that would see large sales numbers and EA doesnt give a shit about Artistic integrity... why do you think the game ended on "Oh btw BUY MORE DLC PLZ!"

Put a kork in it with the steady claim that somehow because bioware focuses more on story then any other studio suddenly their product can be called art.

Madden isnt "art" and its also a game.

This whole fiasco is just EA cutting of the real ending to sell more DLC... has been the entire time.

370999:
So once again Bob doesn't understand the difference between games and movies. And misrepresents the retake ME movement. Standard stuff from him them.

And on that note you cannot criticize movies anymore, because after all in your mind if you criticize movies for a living you can't criticize games at all.

To me stories are stories weather they be interactive or not.

Relaver:

370999:
So once again Bob doesn't understand the difference between games and movies. And misrepresents the retake ME movement. Standard stuff from him them.

And on that note you cannot criticize movies anymore, because after all in your mind if you criticize movies for a living you can't criticize games at all.

To me stories are stories weather they be interactive or not.

Yeah they are. However different mediums use different conventions to tell their stories. I don't know a lot of Ballet, I did some when younger but that's it. I am completely unqualified to discuss some controversial issue in the ballet world.

Now a key part of this whole discussion concerns the ME games themselves (which Bob has admitted he hasn't played) and the western RPG at large (I do believe Bob has given a statement about western games having worse stories compared to Japanese games leading me to believe he is not very familiar with this genre) of which a crucial element is player agency and meaningful (And that is a key to this) choice.

ME 3 was promised to have that and didn't. If you can't understand this concept, not through an intellectual lack, Bob isn't a morn, but a lack of research then you position on this is going to be inherently flawed. Which is my whole problem with Bob here, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

So, if we have lots and lots of money, we can own everything and spoil it whatever we like.
However, if we have not that much money, we just have to accept it and shut up?

Is this what MovieBob offering?

By the way, no, I am not against changings and adaptations. Batman movie is awesome, Batman Animated series is awesome, Batman Beyond is awesome, Batman Begins is awesome, Batman Arkham Asylum is awesome. They have their own styles for Batman. However they didn't change the "core" of the main story we love.

However, Transformers movie series is not like this. Transformers G1 cartoon is awesome although they are "marketing" cartoon for toys. Transformers comics (I especially like Dreamweave series) is awesome. Transformers War For Cybertron is also awesome. I think they have different kind of tastes, but give you same core feeling.
Transformers movie is on the other end, was just a pile of explosion effects.
Yes, I know I don't own Transformers franchise, I am not a multimillioniare. If I was, I wouldn't give the movie rights to Michael Bay.

But, Movie producers should listen the "general" thoughts of "core" fans.
Look at those Batman Begins and The Dark Knight movies.
They could achieve appealing both Batman fans and the audience which knows nothing about Batman.
But, Transformers movies just focused on second group. They told to the fans "we don't care".

I am against Michael Bay to direct, produce or doing anything related with comics or cartoons. Just step away from the franchise, please.

By the way, I am a Batman, Transformers, TMNT fan since 1990,
And I loved Batman Arkham City game, Transformers War For Cybertron game and TMNT Cgi movie.

albinoterrorist:

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!

No but they can and should if they want to remain profitable. As I said a page ago people do this all the time. The fact is that with the DLC model of game production you can in fact modify stuff mid performance to work better. Arrival changed the ending of Mass Effect 2. Fall Out 3 already changed the ending so the fans liked it better cause it was stupid.

If the only result of this is 50K to charity and game industry figures don't lie quite so much as they used to then it will be a good thing.

Aprilgold:

keinechance:
Maybe if more Movie-fans "whined and bitched" about the substandard products that they are sold, the Movie-industrie would start making better movies?

Strangely, he suggested doing just that. If we recall back to one of his reviews where he talks about how since Scott Pilgrim didn't do well in the box office there wouldn't be a In the Mountains of Madness movie, and that it was all to blame on the people who liked the Expendables. I can't remember what he said exactly on this but it was to some degree that people who liked it were stupid and should basically whine and bitch to get the movie made.

I know, but I guess that is different because movies are not art, therefore they can be changed because of "whining and bitching", right ;)

Karadalis:

albinoterrorist:

You can't rewrite Mass Effect, because it is Bioware's product!

It is not biowares product.. all rights to the series and every little bit of data, lore and creative or future creative idea of its employees belong to EA

Dont believe me? Go check out some interviews about former Bioware employees here on the escapist.

And yeah.. just as you said: Its a product, a product that is tailored to rake in as much cash as possible... it is not "bioware expressing themselves"

EA told them to construct a product that would see large sales numbers and EA doesnt give a shit about Artistic integrity... why do you think the game ended on "Oh btw BUY MORE DLC PLZ!"

Put a kork in it with the steady claim that somehow because bioware focuses more on story then any other studio suddenly their product can be called art.

Madden isnt "art" and its also a game.

This whole fiasco is just EA cutting of the real ending to sell more DLC... has been the entire time.

Loved your entire post.

Cannot agree with the last statement, it seems contrary to real world events and excuses. There is no real ending, the ending is the ending, the narrative is to blame, along with the retconning of Shepard to give him PTSS and Cassandra Syndrome, to foist some Trojan Horse, thing on us... maybe... in a slap dash attempt to be edgy and meta...

No boss fight, to game'ie

so have a god to talk to... that's original

There is no alternate ending... cause they screwed around so much, they never got around to resolving the story they did have. Which caused more holes than a cheap block of Swiss.

To top it off, it is likely the Prothean was stripped from the original game and sold back as DLC, which further crippled the game, and had to be addressed before release. That being said, the statement that he was DLC made after the game was "in the can" is a complete lie.

Because it is.

There is no more game. That's the game. - Meta... see what I did there?

At best there is an aria DLC or some crap 'maybe'... the narrative is to blame, from beginning to the end, the problem is in the narrative, not just the ending... the ending is just the ass of the elephant in the room, starring you in the face...

*Sigh* Bob, I thought you already did an entire video saying you wouldn't comment on things you don't really know about.

You may have experience with traditional story telling (ala your movie reviews) but since your response to interactive story telling is basically "it's too hard let's just give up" and it seems your "Citizen Kain" of video games has a story that amounts to a footnote in an instruction manual you probably lost over a decade ago. When you ask things like "how can you have a compelling story without it moving to a specific ending" it really shows your ignorance in this subject.

You should check out Extra Credits. http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-role-of-the-player

Respectfully
~Disthron

I agree with him for the most part I suppose. We don't really own the ME series (well, maybe the physical copies or whatever.) At the same time... Bioware pretty much dropped the ball with this one. That was a really shitty, half baked ending. An ending I think was intended to be so... because DLC. I mean Shepard did become a legend right? And now that he is a legend we can enjoy him through further DL- fuck you EA.

albinoterrorist:
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!

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.

Frozengale:
I'm tired of silly internet people that have to jump on someone for one simple mistake, misspelling, or misuse. How about you kindly tell them they are wrong instead of insulting them.

Generally speaking, if someone makes a "simple mistake" I'm not going to make an issue out of it. We all do it.

Still, if someone makes a mistake in the middle of an argument that I find utterly ridiculous, I'm going to consider addressing it more aggressively. Furthermore - and here's where our opinions diverge - I don't consider the use of "social contract" a simple error. It's a fairly specific philosophical and political concept. I'd wager the vast majority of internet users have never even heard of it. Consequently I find it hard to believe that someone would just accidentally 'typo' it into a completely erroneous context. You'll forgive me if I naturally suspect that it's just someone trying to lend more gravitas to their argument than it deserves; it's not exactly unheard of on the internet.

1.If TMNT movie will be just slightly better than Transformers 1st movie it will be success already
2.Michael Bay may not know much about material yet. He still has time to educate himself.
3.I don't understand outcry of ME3 ending. Anyone played Dreamfall? In the end of the game I was screaming "NOOOOOOO" to monitor (and I'm calm and adequate guy), so horribly sad and wrong was the ending. But was it worth it? Yes and yes. Same with ME3. I'm still in the middle of that game (just got Ash back from hospital), but even if it ends with "Pay 800 Bioware points to download ending DLC"-screen it still will be worth it. So chill out guys (and girls).

P.S. Anyone knows approximate demographics of Escapist visitors? Gender, age, geography, etc.? Would be interesting to read.
P.P.S. Also, while "alien" is often used in place of "extraterrestrial", it also have other meanings, like something unusual, out of place, that doesn't belong here, and green humanoid turtles with ninjutsu training are pretty unusual.

Sentox6:

Frozengale:
I'm tired of silly internet people that have to jump on someone for one simple mistake, misspelling, or misuse. How about you kindly tell them they are wrong instead of insulting them.

Generally speaking, if someone makes a "simple mistake" I'm not going to make an issue out of it. We all do it.

Still, if someone makes a mistake in the middle of an argument that I find utterly ridiculous, I'm going to consider addressing it more aggressively. Furthermore - and here's where our opinions diverge - I don't consider the use of "social contract" a simple error. It's a fairly specific philosophical and political concept. I'd wager the vast majority of internet users have never even heard of it. Consequently I find it hard to believe that someone would just accidentally 'typo' it into a completely erroneous context. You'll forgive me if I naturally suspect that it's just someone trying to lend more gravitas to their argument than it deserves; it's not exactly unheard of on the internet.

social means relating to interactions between people. Contract means an agreement between two parties. All contracts are social when you think about it. Even if you don't consider "social contract" a simple error, it still is. Stop thinking that every should know what you know. Terms a abstractions we use to define meaning. Just because I didn't use the term the way that you know it to be doesn't mean that it is wrong, the meaning is what matter. So stop getting hung up on something so simple. I should have looked up social contract online before I used the phrase, but your the one that is blowing it out of proportion.

albinoterrorist:

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.

What you fail to understand, Bob, is that in the realm of Video Games, the player is also a participant in the game; and in Mass Effect in particular, the whole POINT of the series is that the player tells half of the story themselves.

Unlike movies, the player is not a passive entity. They make their mark upon the world, and moreso in Mass Effect than in most series.
In addition, this is a medium that gets content added afterwards quite often; the game even says after you finish it: "Buy some DLC, bro".
Your argument that the game can't be changed in DLC and shouldn't be changed is false. They do it in comics all the time! It's called a Retcon.
You yourself were praising the Retconning of Hal Jordan becoming Parallax in comics as a spirit possession, because it undid the work of hack writers in the 90's trying to make him edgy.
This isn't even unique in games! When Fallout 3 made you kill yourself at the end for no adequately justifiable reason, people complained; and it was fixed in Broken Steel. They changed the ending! Oh NO! It's disrespect for the creators!

Please.

Auteur theory may be heavily pushed in film school, but it's inadequate at best to explain things like this, and you have no business getting self-righteous on behalf of writers failing at their trade. You might as well defend Michael Bay for screwing up the Transformers franchise because he's a auteur and therefore beyond reproach.

The bigger problem with Mass Effect is that there is signs that they made the endings weaker with the full intent to release DLC as a more complete ending.

This would be one of the most outrageous stunts by a developer of a so beloved property that it deserves outrage.

Click here for a more fan-friendsly view of the Mass Effect problem: http://www.fishandcherries.com/?p=262

I love you for showing me that these videos still exist. Missed my weekly fix and I have to catch up

phlegethonic:
What you fail to understand, Bob, is that in the realm of Video Games, the player is also a participant in the game; and in Mass Effect in particular, the whole POINT of the series is that the player tells half of the story themselves.

See, here`s the thing: players were *never* writing even an ounce of the story themselves. They were choosing from a series of pre-scripted, predetermined options that were written by the folks at Bioware. You are participant only as far as your choices and actions fall within finite parameters, parameters that you had no hand in defining. And it`s been that way since day one, no matter how good BioWare was at disguising that fact from you. The idea that Mass Effect fans have a right to claim any amount of ownership over the property is entitlement, pure and simple.

So, as loathe as I am to agree with Bob, he`s right.

Dansen:
That was fucking brilliant, reposting so that more people can see this.

Static Jak:
That was actually pretty good.

FelixG:
That was a very good video

mfeff:
A guy on YouTube, who is saying he is smug, a guy on the Escapist, that lives at home with his parents

FedericoV:
Moviebob is not only a soldout like all the bloggers who get paid to write serious shit about games and stuff.

Unlike some gaming websites, like say Gamespot, the Escapist has a firewall between advertisers and their staff. So does Screw Attack. So does Destructoid. Content creators are free to "bite the hand that feeds" and regularly do. There is nothing special about early screenings or early review copies. Neither is there anything special about "blackout dates"... hardware vendors like AMD and nVidia always do that. It's not censorship.

Mr. Infestig8ve Gurbulism is little more than a troofer with a hardon for Jim Sterling, someone who regularly proves his "the reviewers and commentarors are all bought out by the conniving publishers!" theory absolutely false.

An earlier poster said it far better than I can:

Revolutionaryloser:
Yeah. This guy really knows what he is talking about. He says it straight. Like when he told Jennifer Hepler she was a fat cow who had to lay off the cakes and stop writing yaoi fanfiction. That taught the bitch. This is one really mature and intelligent individual and we could really gain from listening to his wise opinions.

Murmillos:

albinoterrorist:

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.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here