The Big Picture: Mutants and Masses

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

Most gamers, especially the fanboys, and presumptuous arrogant morons who will sulk whenever they get something that isn't perfect. I've especially noticed this with Mass Effect fans who want everything to be exactly as they imagined it and nothing less. Seriously, just grow up and get over it, there's no use crying over a video-games, and a rather mediocre one as far as I'm concerned at that.
Bioware don't owe you anything. If an ending to a game is seriously the worth complaining about than you need to seriously consider a brain transplant. If I thought it would do any good I'd march on over to heaven and ask for Edd Gould back but I know that sometimes life just isn't fair and you can't complain about every little problem because the universe doesn't revolve around you.

Quoting this from another thread I posted in, adding to it as well.

The problem is that one of Bob's favourite mediums is comic books, which logically are art since they contain tons of artwork... comic books also get stuff retconned all the time with a plotline does something stupid or a character gets derailed. I don't hear him bring that up, so in others words it's either hypocrasy and double standards here. It's pretty easy to change a film or a comic or a game by doing a retcon, releasing a version where events happen differently, and with games it's easy to release something online and update it, since the internet has improved accessibility a hundredfold.

Looking at Mass Effect 3 find it hard to call it "art" when it completely invalidates the entire story and plot built up over three years, and somehow introduces tons and tons of plot holes which can't be explained at all and make no damn sense. Even if we accepted the choices we had to make in the ending, it still doesn't explain how Joker was able to fly down to earth, pick up all your party members, then decide he needs to flee the battle for no reason when he or the crew would never abandon Shepard. Then somehow survive a Mass Relay explosion which are supposed to wipe out everything in the system it's in. Not to mention that Earth now has to suppose millions of aliens somehow, hard to call that "art". I don't think it's unreasonable for fans to call for a change when the last 20 minutes flew off the rails and completely invalided characters and the whole damn story. We want to see that the hours and choices we made in the game mattered. Rather then seeing a confusing mess that gives us very little in the way of sense and closure.

And for that record, Bethesda changed the ending to Fallout 3 and it didn't hurt the game! I don't recall people coming to defend their so-called artistic integrity! Ebert judged that games were not art, we all complained and got him to change his opinion (similar to what happened to Fallout 3, hint hint) so why are we suddenly using "Games are now art" as a crutch to defend everything? Games have changed before after release and they will do again.

Bob saying people can't take risks is stupid as while people are entitled to do so, it becomes hard to swallow if it has completely disregarded anything it was built on for no reason whatsoever, we were lied and misled regarding how ME3 would wind up and people are surprised at Bioware coming under fire?

Ok, first of all, I'm a fan, or at least I'm normally are, and I never played any mass effect game, I found them pretty boring and a very plain character creator (also I hate shooters) but I find curious that you criticize the fans just to expressing their feelings, be they whinning or not, when you did the transformer's reviews, the most loud nerd RAGE video I've found of the internet, and that made them so funy and interesting.

Please, don't be one of the douchebags you talk about your reviews.

Seriously Bob, don't be an elithist nerd, looking down all other nerds like you were the geek messiah. The internet is FULL of people like that, and most of them fall into oblivion (not the game, but where everyone goes when noone remembers you)

So that's it. I'm whinning? probably. My english is bad? it is possible not being american and writting at 2AM. It would have any use? no, but i had nothing better to do.

Bob I am disappointed with you on this weeks Big Picture. True, I'm not as up in arms about the ending as some folk are, mainly cause the ending didn't matter to me as much as the relationships Shepard made along the way.

And I hate to sound like a broken record here, but the whole reason this Mass Effect 3 stink happened is because Casey Hudson and Mike Gamble said in several interviews that the endings would be widely different depending on choices and that that the wouldn't force a "one size fits all" ending on their fans.

All of which got tossed out the window somewhere in the production cycle. Maybe because it's difficult to do an ending that is "widely different" if not impossible. Whatever the reason, they didn't do it. They promised something they were unable to deliver. And that is why fans are upset.

Had they not said anything and refused to comment about the ending there still might have been a stink, but a lot less of a sink then there is now.

Food for thought for your next vid.

evilthecat:

bringer of illumination:
Bioware lied about Mass Effect 3's functionality by claiming that your choices throughout the game would have impact on the ending, when really your choices had absolutely no impact.

One more time.

Saying that Mass Effect 3 would cure cancer or enlarge your penis, or making a quantified statistical claim about its effect, would have been a 'lie'.

Some marketing people making a vague assertion that it would "reflect your choices" is not a lie. It's an implication, at best. Advertisers and marketers do that all the time by telling you that if you use a certain product your skin will appear visibly clearer or your hair will be up to 15% shinier.

The purpose of advertising is actually to imply things while saying absolutely nothing legally binding. Bioware was not the first company to do this, they will not be the last.

This is grounds for being disappointed in a product, it's even grounds for asking Bioware to change it, but it's absolutely not grounds for believing that you have an inherent consumer right to have it changed to meet your expectations because you bought the original product. That's the line Bob is talking about which you don't cross.

Sorry for not getting back to you before now.

Let me show you some quotes from Bioware made about Mass Effect 3, it's ending and the Importance of choices:

Official Mass Effect Website
http://masseffect.com/about/story/

"Experience the beginning, middle, and end of an emotional story unlike any
other, where the decisions you make completely shape your experience
and outcome."

Interview with Mac Walters (Lead Writer)
http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/02/28/mass-effect-3-mac-walters/

"[The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass
Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers."

Interview with Casey Hudson (Director)
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/10/mass1525-effect-3-cas5ey-fdsafdhudson-interviewae.aspx?PostPageIndex=2

Interviewer: [Regarding the numerous possible endings of Mass Effect 2] "Is that
same type of complexity built into the ending of Mass Effect 3?"
Hudson: "Yeah, and I'd say much more so, because we have the ability to
build the endings out in a way that we don't have to worry about
eventually tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is
coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot
more different. At this point we're taking into account so many
decisions that you've made as a player and reflecting a lot of that
stuff. It's not even in any way like the traditional game endings,
where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got
ending A, B, or C.....The endings have a lot more sophistication and
variety in them."

"We have a rule in our franchise that there is no canon. You as a player
decide what your story is."

None of the quotes are true, even in a nebulous "marketing" sense, they were not made by PR or marketing people they were made by developer who KNEW that they were lying.

Bioware LIED, and bold-facedly so.

bringer of illumination:
snip

That's not advertising, it's hype.

A lot of the time during hype, people are still working on an unfinished product. They're often talking about what they'd like to put into it, or their opinion on it, rather than what they actually can put in it or what the fans can expect to see.

The biggest example ever here is undoubtedly Peter Molyneux. He "lies" constantly during development and we accept it because we understand it's just hype, he's just spewing random bollocks about what he'd personally like to put in the game, and yet when it comes from Bioware suddenly it's all official and shit!

Since this is coming out exactly like the last thread I just made, I may as well repeat the story. I pre-ordered Sword of the Stars 2 because I absolutely loved the original game. The day before it went live, Kerberos' head of PR wrote a huge press statement saying basically how proud they were of the finished product and how much they hoped the fans would enjoy it. The game wouldn't even play on my computer for two weeks. Nearly half a year later, despite regular patches, it is at best barely playable, and now costs 1/3rd of the price I paid for it.

That is lying, that is the kind of outright bullshit which people demand their money back for and actually get it. I personally forgave Kerberos because it was clear they had real problems, although I resolved never to listen to their PR material again.

Basically, don't think I don't understand how much it genuinely hurts to feel like you've been lied to just to get access to your wallet. It's a sucky feeling. However, this isn't even close to being a bad example.

Giving interviews which hint at the ending of a game being this beautiful non-linear experience and then not delivering on that is not really even a thing. It's like Peter Molyneux saying that the Fable games would have real time growing trees. It's something which probably sounded great right up until the point someone actually had to implement it, or the time and money ran out, and then it got scrapped. That happens quite a lot. Don't even get me started on cliched bollocks like "you as the player decide what your story is", of course you don't. That's patently rubbish, you and I had no input into making the game at all. That's hype-speak for "we think we have a player-focused design policy".

Basically, I think the thing we all need to learn is don't believe hype. Hype doesn't have to reflect the finished product, it isn't a "promise", and breaking it isn't a "lie", certainly not on behalf of the developer.

It's basically people who are incredibly biased and have a huge interest in selling you a product giving you their personal "opinion" on it.

evilthecat:

bringer of illumination:
snip

That's not advertising, it's hype.

A lot of the time during hype, people are still working on an unfinished product. They're often talking about what they'd like to put into it, or their opinion on it, rather than what they actually can put in it or what the fans can expect to see.

The biggest example ever here is undoubtedly Peter Molyneux. He "lies" constantly during development and we accept it because we understand it's just hype, he's just spewing random bollocks about what he'd personally like to put in the game, and yet when it comes from Bioware suddenly it's all official and shit!

Since this is coming out exactly like the last thread I just made, I may as well repeat the story. I pre-ordered Sword of the Stars 2 because I absolutely loved the original game. The day before it went live, Kerberos' head of PR wrote a huge press statement saying basically how proud they were of the finished product and how much they hoped the fans would enjoy it. The game wouldn't even play on my computer for two weeks. Nearly half a year later, despite regular patches, it is at best barely playable, and now costs 1/3rd of the price I paid for it.

That is lying, that is the kind of outright bullshit which people demand their money back for and actually get it. I personally forgave Kerberos because it was clear they had real problems, although I resolved never to listen to their PR material again.

Basically, don't think I don't understand how much it genuinely hurts to feel like you've been lied to just to get access to your wallet. It's a sucky feeling. However, this isn't even close to being a bad example.

Giving interviews which hint at the ending of a game being this beautiful non-linear experience and then not delivering on that is not really even a thing. It's like Peter Molyneux saying that the Fable games would have real time growing trees. It's something which probably sounded great right up until the point someone actually had to implement it, or the time and money ran out, and then it got scrapped. That happens quite a lot. Don't even get me started on cliched bollocks like "you as the player decide what your story is", of course you don't. That's patently rubbish, you and I had no input into making the game at all. That's hype-speak for "we think we have a player-focused design policy".

Basically, I think the thing we all need to learn is don't believe hype. Hype doesn't have to reflect the finished product, it isn't a "promise", and breaking it isn't a "lie", certainly not on behalf of the developer.

It's basically people who are incredibly biased and have a huge interest in selling you a product giving you their personal "opinion" on it.

Molyneux creates hype about features, Bioware lies about writing and story.

There is a HUGE difference.

The reason Molyneux is unable to deliver on his promises is because of restraints that pertain to either budget, time or technology.

There are no such hurdles for writing.

Some of the quotes I gave you are from 2011 (And I have more if you want), I refuse to accept the idea that the script for Mass Effect 3 was not finished half-way through 2011.

Again, Bioware lied, and they knew they were lying.

People need to LISTEN to Bob's video instead of immediately becoming defensive. What he's saying, and what many others are saying, is that the problem is not that ME fans are complaining. That happens all the time. Sure, people not in the same boat are going to get tired of it after a while if it goes on for too long, but the issue isn't that fans shouldn't be able to speak their mind.

The problem is that those on the extreme fringes of this issue have taken it too far, and are starting to delve into some pretty murky water. Plus, this level of outrage is outsized for what it really is. Despite all the claims of "misrepresentation," "false advertising," and "defective product," what their outrage really boils down to is disappointment. They're disappointed that ME3 failed to live up to their expectations. That sucks, but it happens a lot, and claiming that there's some sort of corporate malfeasance going on is just a psychological tool to justify what they want. I think most of these fans wouldn't advocate for these kinds of actions under normal circumstance. But given their disappointment, they feel justified in trying to force BioWare to change their game.

Also, please stop using the "Broken Steel" DLC for "Fallout 3" as a premise for your conclusion that BioWare should change its ending. [SPOILER FOR A 3 YEAR OLD GAME] I beat F3, and if you chose the heroic ending to that game, your character died and the game ended. You couldn't complete more side missions or explore unless you had the foresight to keep a save before you played the final mission (I failed to do this personally). That kind of sucked, but I enjoyed the game so I didn't get all irate about it. "Broken Steel" simply changes this: instead of dying, your character goes into a coma for a few weeks (there's also a higher level cap and a few extra missions). That's it. The extra mission are just mop-up missions that don't really alter the ending in any way. They don't REALLY add anything to the ending of the story, so the only thing that really changes is that you get the chance to keep playing after the final mission. Not the same thing as what you're asking for ME3.

bringer of illumination:
Some of the quotes I gave you are from 2011 (And I have more if you want), I refuse to accept the idea that the script for Mass Effect 3 was not finished half-way through 2011.

Again, Bioware lied, and they knew they were lying.

The deadline for completion was probably set then too.

Look, in all types of media there are times when deadlines are looming and features, scenes or elements which haven't yet been implemented have to be cut. It's not a case that you just write a script and stick to it above all else like Moses just handed it down from Mount Sinai.

Scripts are rewritten all the time. Screenwriters on films or even TV will sometimes write 30 or 40 drafts of a single script throughout production to keep up with whatever changes are called for by the budget or the director changing his mind or whatever.

Actually, video games are kind of infamous for this. It's why there's such a tradition of great games having mediocre or even bad endings. The majority of work in a video games, oddly enough, doesn't ever go into writing the story, not even for Bioware. It goes into writing the mechanics and the actual shitwork of making those mechanics happen on screen.

But let's assume they consciously lied and they actually just wanted to piss into your upturned face to ruin your day and make you sad.

They still only lied in hype.

And you shouldn't have believed it.

shoddyworksucks:
The problem is that those on the extreme fringes of this issue have taken it too far, and are starting to delve into some pretty murky water. Plus, this level of outrage is outsized for what it really is. Despite all the claims of "misrepresentation," "false advertising," and "defective product," what their outrage really boils down to is disappointment. They're disappointed that ME3 failed to live up to their expectations. That sucks, but it happens a lot, and claiming that there's some sort of corporate malfeasance going on is just a psychological tool to justify what they want. I think most of these fans wouldn't advocate for these kinds of actions under normal circumstance. But given their disappointment, they feel justified in trying to force BioWare to change their game.

Also, please stop using the "Broken Steel" DLC for "Fallout 3" as a premise for your conclusion that BioWare should change its ending. [SPOILER FOR A 3 YEAR OLD GAME] I beat F3, and if you chose the heroic ending to that game, your character died and the game ended. You couldn't complete more side missions or explore unless you had the foresight to keep a save before you played the final mission (I failed to do this personally). That kind of sucked, but I enjoyed the game so I didn't get all irate about it. "Broken Steel" simply changes this: instead of dying, your character goes into a coma for a few weeks (there's also a higher level cap and a few extra missions). That's it. The extra mission are just mop-up missions that don't really alter the ending in any way. They don't REALLY add anything to the ending of the story, so the only thing that really changes is that you get the chance to keep playing after the final mission. Not the same thing as what you're asking for ME3.

I listen to Bob all the time. When he uses the term "fanboy crybabies" in his Twitter, he's crossed a line from reasonable disagreement to namecalling.

Also, we're going to keep using Broken Steel because it's a legitimate argument that defeats the notion that changing a game's ending is either unprecedented or would ruin the game. The fact that it doesn't match up nice and neatly with what may be required for ME3 is irrelevant. But thanks for asking nicely.

Also also... didn't really alter the ending really? YOU DIED. Or someone else dies in your place. I don't know about you, but that's a big deal in my book.

shoddyworksucks:
"Broken Steel" simply changes this: instead of dying, your character goes into a coma for a few weeks (there's also a higher level cap and a few extra missions). That's it. The extra mission are just mop-up missions that don't really alter the ending in any way. They don't REALLY add anything to the ending of the story, so the only thing that really changes is that you get the chance to keep playing after the final mission. Not the same thing as what you're asking for ME3.

Except for the fact Broken Steel also added the option of not dying at all. You could send one of your radiation immune companions in there and not die. The game called you a dick and a coward for doing it (becuase the writer believed marching to your death needlessly is 'brave' rather than 'dumb' I guess...) but it closed up one very major loophole in the plot, why the hell do I have to go in there and die when I there are three companions I could have do it that wouldn't die and in the case of the one I'm most likely to be with at this point, he owes me his life?'.

While Bethseda did say Broken Steel was so they could add an Epilogue to the game and leave it as a sandbox, do you really think that if people had LOVED the original ending of Fallout 3 it would have been changed? It hardly would have been difficult to say that in Broken Steel you were playing a new character. ME3 on the other hand, opens up huge plot holes in the last five minutes of the story of a trilogy. How did anyone think that was a good idea even if they were planning a sequel?

Chris Avellone, the lead writer on the last Fallout game, said this when talking about this current furore on the ME3 ending, "game development is an iterative process. Our goal is to entertain our players. No one knows more about what they consider "fun" than the player themselves. While you can't please everyone, there are iterations that make sense to do in DLC content and sequels."
The rest of his comments and a bunch of other game designers thoughts can be found at http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/03/23/mass-effect-3-ending-what-do-game-writers-think/ .

Also, IIRC doesn't Broken Steel include the final destruction of the Eastern Enclave (or the Capital Wasteland BoS if you are a dick)? That's not really a mop-up IIRC.

K.

Looks like everyone rampages about Mass Effect 3. I am with you Bob about the author being in charge of his work. But what bugs me was your comment about "artistic integrity".
If you make a movie from a book/comic/game you should stick to the story as much as possible. That's how you honor the author. Especially if the authors can't speak for themselves anymore. You don't change things, you don't take the names of characters from the books/comics/games and make something else.

If you make such a movie then you are there to show the art of someone else not how you would want it to be. And the only way to do that is to stick to the story as much as possible.

There are only a few movies which stuck to the story, but most of them were a success. When will Hollywood see that's the path it should go? I am an author myself (obviously in another language) and I know I wouldn't sale my work whiteout having a word in the script. I know there a changes when you adapt a story from a book/comic/game, but that's even more reason to stay truth to the story as much as possible, even in the little things which don't need changing. Because once you begin to change thing you don't stop.
Its true people can enjoy (even me) movies which have almost nothing to do whit the book/comic/game but such movies shouldn't call themselves an adaptation. Now that I think about it they should have a separate label.

And, as always, bob misses the point and makes himself look like a pretentious idiot.

I was watching the outrage to the ME:3 ending for weeks now, and like Bob, I thought it was ridiculous. And then I played the game... I'm now completely pissed at Bioware.

My outrage has nothing to do with rejecting the fact that an artist has control over his art. It's not about having MY way, or conforming to MY expectation. It's about staying true to your own storytelling ability and previously demonstrated quality.
For example, since we're all nerds here: I would hate to see an ending to Star Wars in which Luke Skywalker turns to the dark side in the end, but I would accept it. What I wouldn't accept is an ending in which the emperor pulls out a accordion and the last 15 minutes of the movie are a polka dance number.

told status for all the fanboys who have ruined the forums on this site:
[] told
[] not told
[x] stone told steve austin playing knights of the told republic while collecting Told McFarland made toys in the city of Toldsville in the state of Told Island.

Bravo Movie bob for putting them in their place.

Yvressian1:
I was watching the outrage to the ME:3 ending for weeks now, and like Bob, I thought it was ridiculous. And then I played the game... I'm now completely pissed at Bioware.

My outrage has nothing to do with rejecting the fact that an artist has control over his art. It's not about having MY way, or conforming to MY expectation. It's about staying true to your own storytelling ability and previously demonstrated quality.
For example, since we're all nerds here: I would hate to see an ending to Star Wars in which Luke Skywalker turns to the dark side in the end, but I would accept it. What I wouldn't accept is an ending in which the emperor pulls out a accordion and the last 15 minutes of the movie are a polka dance number.

I know, if you told me before this whole controversy that I would take the side of being so completely dissatisfied with an ending to request it's rewrite, I would of laughed. But it just seems so disappointing, so lackluster and outright lazy of Bioware to do this that I feel compelled.

It's not about the ending not being what I want, but it completely failed.

I liked what MovieBob said regarding life in general.

If your greatest source of stress is the Mass Effect 3 ending, you're probably doing pretty well in life.

Truth.

Orcboyphil:
but stop having such a bitch whinefest over it.

Wait...did you just tell someone to stop having a bitch whinefest over a bitch whinefest?

Wicky_42:
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?

Bob ragged on a lot of stuff, but I don't remember him ever demanding that someone change their work because he was unhappy with it.

Saviordd1:
And, as always, bob misses the point and makes himself look like a pretentious idiot.

I thought he was pretty spot on, changing the Mass Effect 3 ending because people are unhappy with the ending, no matter what your reasoning for being unhappy, is objectively bad for games. All people do is whine and complain about how the games market is flooded with generic FPS games and then when someone takes a risk and stumbles, consumers get so upset that they demand an ending to be changed, which causes everyone else to go, "Gee guys, we better play it safe, don't want to end up like Bioware. They screwed up and were eaten alive for it. Better go make another generic FPS."

Elamdri:
no matter what your reasoning for being unhappy, is objectively bad for games.

I see everyone saying this but i've yet to see someone explain why?

Elamdri:

All people do is whine and complain about how the games market is flooded with generic FPS games and then when someone takes a risk and stumbles, consumers get so upset that they demand an ending to be changed, which causes everyone else to go, "Gee guys, we better play it safe, don't want to end up like Bioware. They screwed up and were eaten alive for it. Better go make another generic FPS."

This is where I couldn't disagree more.

I can't understand how people think the fan base asking the creator to "change/fix" the ending is WORSE than the fan base loosing trust in the creator and not buying any of their creations ever again.

In the former the creator has a second chance to create something that truly resonates with their fans, reinforcing future loyalty. In the latter the creator dies off, their talent wasted.

The way I see it, having your fan base beg for a new ending, is more likely to empower creators to explore strange and risky concepts, as it shows that even if you screw up you can still make amends.

shoddyworksucks:
People need to LISTEN to Bob's video instead of immediately becoming defensive. What he's saying, and what many others are saying, is that the problem is not that ME fans are complaining. That happens all the time. Sure, people not in the same boat are going to get tired of it after a while if it goes on for too long, but the issue isn't that fans shouldn't be able to speak their mind.

The problem is that those on the extreme fringes of this issue have taken it too far, and are starting to delve into some pretty murky water. Plus, this level of outrage is outsized for what it really is. Despite all the claims of "misrepresentation," "false advertising," and "defective product," what their outrage really boils down to is disappointment. They're disappointed that ME3 failed to live up to their expectations. That sucks, but it happens a lot, and claiming that there's some sort of corporate malfeasance going on is just a psychological tool to justify what they want. I think most of these fans wouldn't advocate for these kinds of actions under normal circumstance. But given their disappointment, they feel justified in trying to force BioWare to change their game.

Also, please stop using the "Broken Steel" DLC for "Fallout 3" as a premise for your conclusion that BioWare should change its ending. [SPOILER FOR A 3 YEAR OLD GAME] I beat F3, and if you chose the heroic ending to that game, your character died and the game ended. You couldn't complete more side missions or explore unless you had the foresight to keep a save before you played the final mission (I failed to do this personally). That kind of sucked, but I enjoyed the game so I didn't get all irate about it. "Broken Steel" simply changes this: instead of dying, your character goes into a coma for a few weeks (there's also a higher level cap and a few extra missions). That's it. The extra mission are just mop-up missions that don't really alter the ending in any way. They don't REALLY add anything to the ending of the story, so the only thing that really changes is that you get the chance to keep playing after the final mission. Not the same thing as what you're asking for ME3.

Yes, but I'm pretty sure that neither Todd Howard, nor the rest of the staff at Bethesda, ever made any pre-release comments about the ending to Fallout 3. Probably because Todd is very hesitant to talk about anything that hasn't been 100% confirmed to be in. For good reason.

The very reason that Casey Hudson shouldn't have said ANYTHING about the ending prior to release, it was still in development. The game is STILL IN DEVELOPMENT, and anything that is in "the discussion" phase should be left at that, and not further commented on. Hudson and several others failed to do so, bit off more then they can chew, and are now paying for it. And no I'm not going to say "they lied" because at the time somewhere deep down they thought they could deliver on it. I think this is more of a case of overconfidence then duplicity.

If you advertise a specific feature in your product that is not in the actual product. Then the consumer is going to be irate about it, or at the least annoyed, and they have a right to be so.

In the end this should be a cautionary tale of what not to do when it comes to PR and dealing with the media. Keep your answers short, and only comment on that which has made into the final production.

wulf3n:

Elamdri:

All people do is whine and complain about how the games market is flooded with generic FPS games and then when someone takes a risk and stumbles, consumers get so upset that they demand an ending to be changed, which causes everyone else to go, "Gee guys, we better play it safe, don't want to end up like Bioware. They screwed up and were eaten alive for it. Better go make another generic FPS."

This is where I couldn't disagree more.

I can't understand how people think the fan base asking the creator to "change/fix" the ending is WORSE than the fan base loosing trust in the creator and not buying any of their creations ever again.

In the former the creator has a second chance to create something that truly resonates with their fans, reinforcing future loyalty. In the latter the creator dies off, their talent wasted.

The way I see it, having your fan base beg for a new ending, is more likely to empower creators to explore strange and risky concepts, as it shows that even if you screw up you can still make amends.

Because "fixing" something is expensive and gaming companies are a business. A company like BioWare certainly could probably fix the ending of Mass Effect without really cutting hard into the bottom line. But what about other companies?

What happens when it comes time for them to create a game?

"Well guys, should we try something risky and innovative?"
"Well what if we screw up? Look what happened to BioWare. They messed up and people forced them to make a new ending to their game. We couldn't do that. No, we better just make Gears of Halo: Modern Combat 5. "

Elamdri:
[quote="wulf3n" post="6.358098.14182946"]
[quote="Elamdri" post="6.358098.14182717"]
Because "fixing" something is expensive and gaming companies are a business. A company like BioWare certainly could probably fix the ending of Mass Effect without really cutting hard into the bottom line. But what about other companies?

What happens when it comes time for them to create a game?

"Well guys, should we try something risky and innovative?"
"Well what if we screw up? Look what happened to BioWare. They messed up and people forced them to make a new ending to their game. We couldn't do that. No, we better just make Gears of Halo: Modern Combat 5. "

It's cheaper than losing business. Imagine the amount of revenue they'll lose out on from consumers who return their games or don't buy it at all. How about the DLC they desire to put out but that many fans won't buy because they know it all ends BADLY?

Also, I call BS on this reasoning. You're basically saying "Don't complain, you might scare them off."

Either they have the balls to try new things, or they don't. Silence is consent. They make mistakes, we say nothing, they keep making the same mistakes. And it's a big one - endings matter, especially with a game as story driven as Mass Effect.

you seem to be getting most of your info from second hand sources and the name of the group as opposed to the group.

Elamdri:

Because "fixing" something is expensive and gaming companies are a business. A company like BioWare certainly could probably fix the ending of Mass Effect without really cutting hard into the bottom line. But what about other companies?

Is it? what is the "fix"? how much does the fix cost?

Elamdri:

What happens when it comes time for them to create a game?

"Well guys, should we try something risky and innovative?"
"Well what if we screw up? Look what happened to BioWare. They messed up and people forced them to make a new ending to their game. We couldn't do that. No, we better just make Gears of Halo: Modern Combat 5. "

umm no ones "forcing" Bioware to do anything. The decision of "fixing" the ending is entirely theirs, even when fans "DEMAND" an ending that means about as much to Bioware as beg.

And you still haven't addressed the issue of "how is this WORSE than the current state of things?"

How many game companies have gone under because the consumers didn't like their game? Westwood, Troika, Iron Lore, Factor 5, Shiny Entertainment etc.

"Well guys, should we try something risky and innovative?"
"Well what if we screw up? Look what happened to Westwood, Troika, Iron Lore, Factor 5, Shiny Entertainment. They messed up and went out of business. That could happen to us. No, we better just make Gears of Halo: Modern Combat 5. "

Mass effect 3's endings were disappointing because they were all the same (and crap), the fact bioware lied about having very different endings based on choices throughout the three games is what has caused a lot of the out rage.

Also I doubt I or anyone I know will bother with another Ninja turtles movie.

In the same idiotic and nearsighted fashion as Colin Moriarity of IGN, Bob misses the point as to why people are mad over the ending by equivocating two completely different mediums who received fan backlash.

One involving zero user input in the new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film.

One involving a huge amount of user input/ player choice in Mass Effect 3 (and the trilogy on the whole).

The lack of understanding how Mass Effect has worked as a player-driven story is unbelievably ignorant and the condescending "How to be a fan and a grown-up" was completely ridiculous.

Considering Bob has made countless videos lashing out at films in a fanboyish and at times acting in a flat out childish manner, the sheer hypocrisy in his moronic judgment call of Mass Effect's fanbase is unbelievable.

Clearly this video was made without understanding any of the issues as to why anyone was upset with the game (ex. the ending effectively making all your person choices null and void, the ending lacking any form of closure, the countless plot holes the game creates, the recoloring of one ending instead of an aforementioned 16 different endings, etc. etc.)

I don't expect anything out of IGN. But I expected better out of Moviebob.

Go read the Forbes articles by Erik Kain if you want an accurate and respectable analysis of the ME3, and not some pompous tool telling the people to "grow up" and hiding behind the blatant strawman argument of games being "art".

I imagine Bob took the ME3 scandal as just another case of "nerd rage" or something, and simply decided to speak down to everyone (once again) and lash out at "geek culture" (as if the term "geek" or "nerd" mean anything in today's technologically and internet driven society).

He really should have done a bit of research before making this video. It would have helped him not look like an idiot.

This video is perhaps even more hypocritical considering a film I've seen Bob champion by the name of Blade Runner, which was famously re-released as a Director's Cut, and is now generally seen as the superior version of the film and a complete improvement on the original ending.

What's that about "artistic integrity"?

Oh that's right. It's a bullshit strawman argument.

Games are products. Films are products. Music is a product. Books are products.

They can all be re-released and improved by going back to the original and improving on what's there, whether it's tweaking the sound quality in a minor fashion or flat out changing the ending.

Retake ME3 sounds like a grand idea. I'd love to re-play the game without encountering countless plot holes, my eyelids disappearing every other cut scene, and having some semblance of closure to the trilogy.

MovieBob:

wootsman:


This best explains the whole Mass Effect 3 controversy.

Ye. Gods. The sheer level of smugness in that video is STUNNING - and please keep in mind who's saying that.

Auteur theory can't apply to video games because they're team-efforts? So is film, which is where the medium the phrase "Auteur Theory" was originally coined for. "Staff of fan-fiction writers?" The same tired "these people have no qualifications!" trashing of game journalists? "You're just praising 'art games' to sound smarter?" Give me a break.

And even with smug comments in hand, and a flimsy auteur theory argument, he plainly depicts the on-going problems with Bioware, legitimate shortcomings of Mass Effect 3 (ending and the game itself), and the strawman arguments used by the gaming press to defend Mass Effect 3's ending.

He made an argument 100 times more convincing than your pompous and infinitely more smug "grow up" rant for the sake of "art".

He also clearly did his research when making that video.

You should try that before opening your mouth and spouting nonsense.

Stick to movies Bob.

Squidbulb:
Most gamers, especially the fanboys, and presumptuous arrogant morons who will sulk whenever they get something that isn't perfect. I've especially noticed this with Mass Effect fans who want everything to be exactly as they imagined it and nothing less. Seriously, just grow up and get over it, there's no use crying over a video-games, and a rather mediocre one as far as I'm concerned at that.
Bioware don't owe you anything. If an ending to a game is seriously the worth complaining about than you need to seriously consider a brain transplant. If I thought it would do any good I'd march on over to heaven and ask for Edd Gould back but I know that sometimes life just isn't fair and you can't complain about every little problem because the universe doesn't revolve around you.

Sounds like trollbait to me.
That or you like trying to take a non existent superior higher ground.

(Semi related)
Also it's odd that people bothering to defend bio ware/ ea in this conflict tell the fans to grow up because it's just a video game.
Whilst at the same time others or even the same people claim that the company has a right to keep their artistic integrity which would mean that it's not just a video game.

In case you hadn't noticed, your posting on a website devoted to the idea that games are not just trivial pastimes for kids. If they can be considered art and they are, then it is understandable people might be as offended at what was obviously a cheap, last second attempt at being meaningful. The very idea that this obvious mistake can be defended on the ground that it is art is insulting. I might not have even cared so much about such a bad ending if it was not for the ridiculous way in which the devs themselves were directly insulting their own fans. I'm still suspicious though that it's all just a sinister plan to make an even bigger cash grab on the part of EA. As if we people were not being ripped off enough by paying more than the price of a DVD and having day one DLC on top of that.

Masterdebator:

I imagine Bob took the ME3 scandal as just another case of "nerd rage" or something, and simply decided to speak down to everyone (once again) and lash out at "geek culture" (as if the term "geek" or "nerd" mean anything in today's technologically and internet driven society).

That's likely exactly what he did. He has come out and said before that he has practically ZERO experience with the Mass Effect Franchise in general, and probably wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between a Geth and a robot.
Yet instead of sticking to the age-old system of "Speak of only that which you are knowledgeable of", he jumps ass-first into the situation.

Which, of course, makes it oh so easy for him to just throw away any comment about it in favor of his own. Worst yet, is he's pretty much the same way with Nintendo over, oh say, Sony. If it isn't swaying under Nintendo's crotch, he'll more than likely hate the crap out of it for no real reason whatsoever.

I hate to play the broken record about Mass Effect 3. Yet I'll say it as it has been said other times. Taken as a whole series (like it should be), the ending doesn't line up with everything else. Throughout the first two games, you were able to shape the endings to a satisfactory conclusion, with the endings having just enough to ensure you feel as though your choices mattered.
Mass Effect 2 and it's final hour or so of gameplay is a shining paragon of this. Every choice you made, the quests you taken on, it all culminates into one final set piece. Characters live or they die depending on what upgrades you've made, whose loyalty you worked to gain, and how quickly you reacted to the threat.

Mass Effect 3 shuffles even all illusions of player-choice aside by sweeping everything under one generic rug. Did you save this or alter that? Well it doesn't matter because either the Reapers had a spare in their pocket, or either way they all join right up in the end (even if your choice was supposed to be guaranteed protection from that). Any little thing that may help you, no matter how big or small, is reduced to a simple statistic.
You honestly can't tell me that in those final moments, you weren't wanting to see everything come together like it did in ME 2. You can't tell me that, when that final assault begins, that you didn't want to see all the races you chose to help or sided with coming together for a final ditch effort to take out a galactic threat.

cursedseishi:

Masterdebator:

I imagine Bob took the ME3 scandal as just another case of "nerd rage" or something, and simply decided to speak down to everyone (once again) and lash out at "geek culture" (as if the term "geek" or "nerd" mean anything in today's technologically and internet driven society).

That's likely exactly what he did. He has come out and said before that he has practically ZERO experience with the Mass Effect Franchise in general, and probably wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between a Geth and a robot.
Yet instead of sticking to the age-old system of "Speak of only that which you are knowledgeable of", he jumps ass-first into the situation.

Which, of course, makes it oh so easy for him to just throw away any comment about it in favor of his own. Worst yet, is he's pretty much the same way with Nintendo over, oh say, Sony. If it isn't swaying under Nintendo's crotch, he'll more than likely hate the crap out of it for no real reason whatsoever.

I hate to play the broken record about Mass Effect 3. Yet I'll say it as it has been said other times. Taken as a whole series (like it should be), the ending doesn't line up with everything else. Throughout the first two games, you were able to shape the endings to a satisfactory conclusion, with the endings having just enough to ensure you feel as though your choices mattered.
Mass Effect 2 and it's final hour or so of gameplay is a shining paragon of this. Every choice you made, the quests you taken on, it all culminates into one final set piece. Characters live or they die depending on what upgrades you've made, whose loyalty you worked to gain, and how quickly you reacted to the threat.

Mass Effect 3 shuffles even all illusions of player-choice aside by sweeping everything under one generic rug. Did you save this or alter that? Well it doesn't matter because either the Reapers had a spare in their pocket, or either way they all join right up in the end (even if your choice was supposed to be guaranteed protection from that). Any little thing that may help you, no matter how big or small, is reduced to a simple statistic.
You honestly can't tell me that in those final moments, you weren't wanting to see everything come together like it did in ME 2. You can't tell me that, when that final assault begins, that you didn't want to see all the races you chose to help or sided with coming together for a final ditch effort to take out a galactic threat.

I hope movie bob got paid for that bad decision, otherwise he just lost the respect of a lot of the people that watch his videos for no damn reason. How it a good idea to lash out at the geek culture who he caters to with most of his videos?

I.Muir:
I hope movie bob got paid for that bad decision, otherwise he just lost the respect of a lot of the people that watch his videos for no damn reason. How it a good idea to lash out at the geek culture who he caters to with most of his videos?

I've always respected Bob as a pretty educated guy. A bit overzealous with his feminist ideals, but he's a good critic of films nonetheless.

However, the constant bashing of "geek culture" (which I'd argue doesn't exist and is just Bob showing his age) and making huge judgment calls about groups of people (be it frat boys or fanboys) has always irritated me.

He gets away with it because Bob works for a supposed "geek" website and I imagine considers himself to have some geek like tendencies and interests, but regardless, the bashing has long past being funny and now comes off as an act of Bob stroking his own ego as he supposedly puts the "geeks" in their place (while displaying them in a perpetually dogmatic fashion with the fanboy picture from Freakazoid).

With this video, however, the sheer level of condescension crossed from merely being annoying to rude and insulting.

Probably because Bob failed to address any of the actual reasons behind why people were mad, and used the ME3 outcry to stroke his own ego and regurgitate the same flawed "artistic integrity" argument the shills of the gaming press have been vainly spouting.

I don't Bob should ever cater to his audience (he'd stop being a critic if he did), but he clearly needs to think before he opens his mouth.

You'd think Bob would be old enough to know that by now.

Kinda goes against that little line about people complaining about ME3's legitimate flaws needing to grow up, when Bob clearly needs to take some of his own medicine.

Not to mention get his ego checked.

Elamdri:
Bob ragged on a lot of stuff, but I don't remember him ever demanding that someone change their work because he was unhappy with it.

Because it's a film and the audience of a film has no input on how the narrative operates.

Mass Effect as a franchise is a special case in the sense that it's narrative is entirely driven by player choice, so when that choice is inexplicably taken away at the finale of ME3, when it never had been during ME1 or 2, people should be understandably confused and upset, even more so when the ending delivers no sense of closure and makes all there "difficult decisions" and every single choice throughout the trilogy irrelevant.

The fact that Bob didn't bring this up shocks me.

Comparing being upset with a film's ending to ME3's ending is absolutely redundant and does not fly.

Jegsimmons:
Bravo Movie bob for putting them in their place.

Bob only managed to show he knows diddly fuck about Mass Effect 3's flaws and is entirely ignorant towards people's complaints. And its kiss ass fanboy posts like these that destroy forums.

He didn't put anyone in their place. You can't when you're entirely clueless to the issue at hand.

Masterdebator:

Elamdri:
Bob ragged on a lot of stuff, but I don't remember him ever demanding that someone change their work because he was unhappy with it.

Because it's a film and the audience of a film has no input on how the narrative operates.

Mass Effect as a franchise is a special case in the sense that it's narrative is entirely driven by player choice, so when that choice is inexplicably taken away at the finale of ME3, when it never had been during ME1 or 2, people should be understandably confused and upset, even more so when the ending delivers no sense of closure and makes all there "difficult decisions" and every single choice throughout the trilogy irrelevant.

The fact that Bob didn't bring this up shocks me.

Comparing being upset with a film's ending to ME3's ending is absolutely redundant and does not fly.

Jegsimmons:
Bravo Movie bob for putting them in their place.

Bob only managed to show he knows diddly fuck about Mass Effect 3's flaws and is entirely ignorant towards people's complaints. And its kiss ass fanboy posts like these that destroy forums.

He didn't put anyone in their place. You can't when you're entirely clueless to the issue at hand.

you know what buddy, i disagree with half of what bob says at the time, but i can see he is right on this issue, you fan boys will bitch about anything mass effect related and think it should appease you, guess what, april mother fucking fools.
if you dont like the ending, fine, bitch about it with your friends. but dont expect anybody else to even remotely give a shit. i wasnt fond of the ending to watchman (comic or movie), now was i fond of the ending to 'to kill a mockingbird' my all time favorite movie. but i still enjoy them because i know nothing will fit to every ones code of perfection.
you dont own the series, bioware or who ever does, and if they wanted to make shepard eat a bowl of zebra jizz, then they can make him, you have a right to be pissed off and criticize it, but dont expect to not experience backlash from complaining to much when you fucking bought it.
Deal with it. i put up with the star wars prequels and moaned about them. i didnt start 50 god damn threads over it. i just said "welp, its happened, might as well hope it improves" (it did).
really i think bob nailed it right on the head. you people are going apeshit
over
a
lack
luster
rpg.

Thats right i said it, the mass effect series was never godly to begin with, its average. its nothing that new. yes it is fun, yes it kills time, yes its well written. But is isnt return of the fucking king.

How about complementing the good on mass effect 3 instead of bitching about the thing everyone bitches about. let them know what they did right as opposed to wrong. and if you are truly pissed.....
DON'T
FUCKING
BUY
IT.

 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