The Big Picture: Mutants and Masses

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 18 NEXT
 

stickmangrit:

are you in any way familliar with the indoctrination theory? i won't bore you with the details, but it's got quite a bit of evidence behind it and pretty much posits that BioWare and EA's plan was to
SELL US THE F^&*ING ENDING AS DLC.

and if this is true, what kind of precedent does that set? and where does that put folks like Bob who are valiantly flocking to defend the developers and publishers in theire experiment to see how incomplete a game they can sell for $60 before the fans burn down the headquarters?

I saw the entire lineup of releases this winter as one giant DLC content ransom. I saw titles that pretty much doubled it's original price with the amount of withheld features. And I responded the only way I knew would be effective:
I didn't buy any games. I didn't buy any DLC. If companies want to try to sell me half a game at full price then good luck to them. But they never forced me to give them money. And they never had a legal contract with a satisfaction guarantee. At least Amazon tried to offer money back on ME3 so upset fans could get most of their money back.
Sometimes something you love gets turned into shit, and it's usually done so by upper management trying to get more money. Don't buy any DLC. Don't buy new games. Rent, trade, borrow, steal, or pirate. Until the companies sell you what you want for a reasonable price they'll only laugh while they screw you.

I am finding it rather hard to take you seriously bob when you do not even do the research.

CAPTCHA: Vice Versa. I wonder what this is implying.

hermes200:

Wicky_42:

hermes200:
...
To bow to public pressure is something no one that creates something should aspire to.

Under those terms, why can't we have Romeo and Juliet 2? or Kill Bill Vol 3? I believe the end of Fight Club was not epic enough, so we should all force Palahniuk to make a sequel. I also believe Indiana Jones wasn't clear enough, so George Lucas should work on a 5th one. Why not? It worked great with us fans clamoring for a better ending for Watchmen. Someone already mention how this public lynching was getting close to the villain of Misery, which sounds like a fair comparison too...

1) Romeo and Juliet had a strong, if tragic, ending.
2) Kill Bill Vol 2 wrapped up the story conclusively, with almost all the characters dead.
3) Fight Club had said its piece; the character's arc had reached an end.
4) George Lucas has already taken liberties with his Star Wars films - I think he was the wrong person to invoke with your strawman-ship
5) Watchman's ending was changed from the comic, and as far as I can see was the better for it for the purposes of the big screen.

If you notice, none of those (well, maybe bar the Watchmen thing - some comic fans did want to see a giant psychic squid, but then that's comic fans for you) do actually have any sort of public support; they are mostly examples of things that ended well.

Mass Effect 3 is not one of those.

You may also notice that all the example you chose are non-interactive films.

Mass Effect 3 is not one of those.

Your strawmen are weak, your protestations weaker. As has been posted and re-posted before, history is full of creative decisions being aided and directed by feedback; why should Bioware be any different?

1 to 5- "It wasn't fulfilling enough. I want it changed !!!" That is by far the logic most posted here.
4- George Lucas is the perfect example to invoke. He is one of the best (if not the best) creators that measures his visions in terms of merchandise, money and profitability. He is the one that hates his previous work (THX and American Graffiti) because "they didn't make any money". He is the one that added Jar Jar Binks because it ranked high in kids test audiences. He is the epitome of what you want Bioware to imitate: a creative person directed by audience feedback.

I must point out that your opinion on "Mass Effect not ending well" is just that, an opinion. I am not claiming mine is more than that, but based on the people that supported the author of the games, I believe its far from unique.

You are free to express your dislike about an ending. I have posted in this forum before how I deeply dislike the endings of Metal Gear Solid 4 and Borderlands... but that is only my opinion and I treated like it... That is all.

I fear you may have missed my point - if one person isn't happy with the ending of a film, so what? That's one person. However, if you leak the ending to your most anticipated game of the year and receive outrage and shock at how bad it seems to be from thousands of fans you don't stick your fingers in your ears and make weak noises that it all makes sense in context, you respond to the valuable feedback you're getting from the people who care about your product. You can also not be surprised when there are even wider-spread complaints when you press on with the leaked ending in your final product.

You make an interesting point about Lucas - but notice that he didn't test-screen to fans; he wasn't interested in what his fans thought, and he ended up burning them with a film aimed a kids. And notice how despite fan feedback he continues to mess around with the original trilogy? As I've just said, Bioware had fan feedback, they ignored it and the fans are now angry. The opinions of one matter little, but the outcry of the many is something wise people take notice of. Unless they are Lucas and have already made all the money they want and can do whatever they want and fuck the people who care.

Ukomba:

Frank_Sinatra_:
Bad move Bob, very, very, very, very bad move.

It's apparent that you really haven't researched into the whole Mass Effect 3 debacle, so be prepared to hear that the Mass Effect series is a special case, BioWare didn't deliver on ANY of their promises, and they pretty much slapped their own IP in the face in the last 5 minutes of their game.

Remember: BioWare has stated that their fans are equal creators in the story along with their actual writing staff.

EDIT: Before you go crying about how you're sick of people complaining, I think I should point you to THIS.

That's funny.

You know who disagrees with you? http://extra-credits.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2008

It's worth pointing out that Dan does the talking, not the writing.

Taunta:

Blatherscythe:
Even in his own Game-Overthinker show he stated he has not played the games, nor does he know what the endings are. THAT'S THE FUCKING PROBLEM BOB! You lack context and investment and can easily stand on your damn soapbox and act as a superior spewing pretentious dribble.

So Bob, shut up, play the games, see the endings and then voice your opinion, otherwise your input is worthless on the matter.

You're missing the point. Whether or not he would like the ending doesn't matter. It's not about liking the ending, it's about crossing that boundary between creator and audience and feeling like you DESERVE a new ending.

That's what the entire segment about TMNT is about. He knows he's probably not gonna like the new treatment of it, but is he going to fly into a rage because this is not the movie that he is entitled to? No. The artist isn't here to please you.

There is a line between being displeased with the ending and feeling like you deserve something else.

I can think of one major difference between the TMNT situation and ME3 situation. You got to discover what you'd hate about TMNT before you paid for it. It's a lot easier to be equanimous about a failed IP when you haven't already paid a great deal of money on it based on false promises. If you haven't paid any money for a product, then you are not a consumer and thus can obviously not claim consumer rights. Once you've paid for something, the artist does have an obligation to you. You can argue whether they should or not (I'd be interested in seeing that debate) but according to the current legal code, they do.

Would I have liked the Green Lantern movie (I never saw it)? Nope. The difference was they showed us the crappy CGI and stupid costume before I had to pay for a movie ticket. And yet Bob complained about that movie ad nauseam (I don't mean to pick on Bob, but I'm using this as an example). Why when the creators show you their product is crap and you pay for it, are you allowed to complain about it being crap, but when the creators lie to you and hide the crap in a box and you buy it, to complain is to be a petulant child?

evilthecat:
Sorry, but I'm totally with Bob here. This is not a "controversy", you got sold a perfectly functional product which you didn't like. You can express that you didn't like it until you keel over and die, but you have absolutely no right to demand that it be changed.

I'm not one of the people up in arms about it. I got over it within an hour or two. I simply resolved to never buy another Bioware game again and moved on with my life.

That said, there may well be a valid case for false advertising. The game's director and lead writer are both on record, during the pre-release publicity push, saying that the end of the game would not be exactly what it was. For example (and this is one of several), in an interview in January, Hudson said:

Casey Hudson:
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

Source: http://www.oxm.co.uk/37677/mass-effect-3-citadel-is-bigger-than-ever-endings-will-be-more-sophisticated/

Yet the game as released has endings "A, B or C" with very little difference between them.

As mentioned before, I have no idea if that's enough for a successful lawsuit, but it is certainly solid enough ground that it wouldn't surprise me if it wins. Advertisements promised one thing and delivered the exact opposite. The only question is if it's egregious enough for the court to think it warrants action, and that's what I'm unsure of. We'll find out whenever the FTC gets around to dealing with it.

Finished Deus Ex:HR the other day, the ending was so-so. So I started a petition to get it redone, and added a few other games on their that I didn't like the ending as well. Also started picketing outside of their local game head quarters.

The above notion is rediculious.

So is the Mass Effect 3 cries of outrage. Yes, you were promised a different kind of ending. I was also promised Fable 1 would redefine video gaming in Jr. High.

Sup?

Well said, Bob. This reply is a drop in the ocean, but I can't remain silently complicit while a vocal minority brings so much negative attention to the gaming community as a whole. In so many of these arguments about ME3, defenders of Retake Mass Effect try to discredit opponents and/or elevate off-the-cuff comments about a game that is IN AN UNFINISHED STATE to the level of official advertising or some sort of legally binding agreement (FTC & BBB complaints, Amazon.com refunds? Really?), rather than address the issues that folks like you bring up.

The thing that really baffles me is that outside of professional reviews, I haven't heard what the community at large feels about the actual -game- portion of the game. Is the ending honestly so terrible that it makes 10/20/30/etc. hours of gameplay not fun?

Well said. And I'm sure most people will agree once six months has passed and they've had time to cool down.

What made the Mass Effect ending into a controversy is this need for everyone on both sides to have their word be the final one, and thus Bob having an irresistible urge to ruin a perfectly good episode of The big Picture by saying nothing we haven't heard already dozens of times.

Were this video just about TMNT, I would actually watch it, as I've been a fan of Bob's for a long time now.

However, I don't need anymore of him basking in his elitist ignorance on the subject of Mass Effect and art. He's like the goddamn Old White Men in the US Senate forming uninformed arguments against women's birth control rights.

Taunta:

Wicky_42:

Taunta:

I disagree that players are within their rights to petition, etc, to have the ending changed. Well, maybe not "within their rights", because they always have the choice of doing so, but do I think it's okay to do? No.

Bob wasn't saying that you had to be okay with the ending, which was what that entire segment about TMNT was about. He's saying that you're perfectly okay to complain and bitch and moan all you want, but as soon as you start writing angry letters to the developer and signing petitions to the artist to change their work, that's when you cross the line. There's a line between "not being happy" and "entitled".

Anyways, while yes, gaming is an interactive medium, I'd argue that the player's actual freedom in the game is limited. The creators are still telling you a story, interactive or not, and you don't have complete freedom in how that story goes. Now it may be a choose your own adventure story, but the artist is still in control. You only have freedom insofar as choosing the options that the artist gives to you. The only games I can think of that the player has complete control over the story are games like The Sims, and even then you're limited by the tools the artist gives you and what you are and are not allowed to do within the rules of the universe.

First of all, something like the Infamous 2 model is a relatively minor change and has nothing to do with the actual story.

But as long as you're giving me good examples of changes, let me show you a few more bad ones.

The movie I Am Legend originally had an ending that was more faithful to the book. But after showing it to test audiences, they didn't like it, so the movie's ending was drastically changed. Now the movie ending has nothing to do with the book, and the entire message that the author was trying to get across in the book is gone.

Inuyasha was reportedly supposed to end a long time before it actually did. But fans demanded that they have more Inuyasha and Rumiko Takahashi bowed to pressure. So the overall quality of the anime went down the drain continuing and continuing and continuing until it finally ended with a giant middle finger to all of the fans.

Blade Runner is a poor example. First of all, it's an adaptation of the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? The original ending has the main character willingly do something knowing that she will die for it. It was sad, it was poignant, it had a message. The movie adaptation changed that, feeling that it made the movie "too bleak". They added a narrator to explain everything for the audience in case they wouldn't get it, and then who continued to explain that the main character actually lived happily ever after and there goes the poignancy point of the story.

So you're saying that Bioware was right to stick to its guns in the face of fan protests and mass complaining on their forums when the endings were leaked prior to release? That there wasn't a more poignant ending that actually took into account your actions through the series rather than wrapping everything up in one of three nihilistic explosions?

People are well within their rights to call for a better ending, and if Bioware had listened the first time maybe they'd all be talking about how awesome the ending was and what sort of future they'd managed to carve for their galaxy rather than the seas of rage that we have now.

There's artistic merit in nihilistic endings in the right places - sometimes that's the perfect way to end - but I don't think that the Mass Effect ending honoured the series. Apparently that's a sentiment that many share.

You missed the point of ME3 outrage. It's not because the ending was shit (which it was). It's because of all the lies. Bioware promised 16 DIFFERENT ending, no "choose your end" button (hello DeusEx) and many more things. They essentially did everything that they promised not to do. Beside, you can feel that the game was cut significantly, same enemies, almost no side quests, no impact what so ever was made by your army.
P.S. I really think that Bioware is the victim here, i think that they were rushed by EA to meet the release date.

Brian Hendershot:
There is one thing we can add (or more likely reiterate). Everyone needs to calm the fuck down because it is just a game.

Anyhow, how could Dick Cheney even get a heart transplant when he doesn't have a heart. Because ya know...he is one of Satan's minions..ha...ha.

On a serious note, it just seems like another Steve Jobs thing. More then likely he applied to multiple organ transplant lists and one of those lists had a short waiting time. He could only do that because he has money and power. I think that's kinda sad.

Well put Brian. What would MST3K say? "Just repeat to yourself it's just a show (or game), you should really just relax."

lol Oh he had a heart... and it was desperately trying to kill him. Cheney must be threatening the new one's family or something.

It is sad, and its kind of repulsive too. The rich are harvesting organs, that's the high and low end of it. Some twenty-year old with a faulty valve hoping to get into college will have to keep waiting now, because Darth Cheney fixed the books. Why? Because he used to be vice prez? So friggin' what? He's not a priority patient anymore, hasn't been for four years.

rickthetrick:
Yeah but not everyone can have a wing added on to a hospital for getting that heart.
It's all about money power and connections my friend. Is it fair? Of course not, but we can't really do anything about it.....kinda like mass effect three lol.

Oh I think we can. Just spreading the word about how despicable this is should be enough. No, it won't get the heart back, the damage has been done. Now we just make him regret every single hour that heart gives him.

Fandom is not ownership but buying a game SHOULD mean you get the whole game. Not have two parts of the story cut out for DLC.

Hmm, Creators should be free to work on their creations and the consumer should mostly be left out as giving them "exactly" what they want gives them nothing they want...

Sorry Bob,
MLP:Friendship is Magic beat you to the punch on that message with Suited for Success

Taunta:
long snip...

In short: Yes.

Because "desire" and "want" have different connotations than "demand". Demand implies a sense of urgency and anger, that you feel injustice because you DESERVE a new ending. Desire implies "Meh, I wish the ending would have been better, but oh well. That's how it goes."

Maybe the fans did deserve a better ending? I think people deserved a better ending that the third Matrix film brought about, but where-as films tend to be a finished article, games are more mutable and there's the prospect that things can change. That aside, attacking a host of people because they used the wrong verb (or were merely assigned said verb) seems to be kinda petty when you agree with the source of the complaint.

Klitch:

Taunta:

Blatherscythe:
Even in his own Game-Overthinker show he stated he has not played the games, nor does he know what the endings are. THAT'S THE FUCKING PROBLEM BOB! You lack context and investment and can easily stand on your damn soapbox and act as a superior spewing pretentious dribble.

So Bob, shut up, play the games, see the endings and then voice your opinion, otherwise your input is worthless on the matter.

You're missing the point. Whether or not he would like the ending doesn't matter. It's not about liking the ending, it's about crossing that boundary between creator and audience and feeling like you DESERVE a new ending.

That's what the entire segment about TMNT is about. He knows he's probably not gonna like the new treatment of it, but is he going to fly into a rage because this is not the movie that he is entitled to? No. The artist isn't here to please you.

There is a line between being displeased with the ending and feeling like you deserve something else.

I can think of one major difference between the TMNT situation and ME3 situation. You got to discover what you'd hate about TMNT before you paid for it. It's a lot easier to be equanimous about a failed IP when you haven't already paid a great deal of money on it based on false promises. If you haven't paid any money for a product, then you are not a consumer and thus can obviously not claim consumer rights. Once you've paid for something, the artist does have an obligation to you. You can argue whether they should or not (I'd be interested in seeing that debate) but according to the current legal code, they do.

Would I have liked the Green Lantern movie (I never saw it)? Nope. The difference was they showed us the crappy CGI and stupid costume before I had to pay for a movie ticket. And yet Bob complained about that movie ad nauseam (I don't mean to pick on Bob, but I'm using this as an example). Why when the creators show you their product is crap and you pay for it, are you allowed to complain about it being crap, but when the creators lie to you and hide the crap in a box and you buy it, to complain is to be a petulant child?

No one is trying to take away your right to complain about it. You are perfectly able to complain about it without being a petulant child. It's the difference between "Well that sucked" and "Well that sucked, do it again! And better this time!" It's like figuratively being the antagonist from Stephen King's Misery.

Anyways, popular opinion is that the entirety of ME3 was not crap. Just the ending.

laserwulf:
Well said, Bob. This reply is a drop in the ocean, but I can't remain silently complicit while a vocal minority brings so much negative attention to the gaming community as a whole. In so many of these arguments about ME3, defenders of Retake Mass Effect try to discredit opponents and/or elevate off-the-cuff comments about a game that is IN AN UNFINISHED STATE to the level of official advertising or some sort of legally binding agreement (FTC & BBB complaints, Amazon.com refunds? Really?), rather than address the issues that folks like you bring up.

The thing that really baffles me is that outside of professional reviews, I haven't heard what the community at large feels about the actual -game- portion of the game. Is the ending honestly so terrible that it makes 10/20/30/etc. hours of gameplay not fun?

I'm not so sure about us being the minority here (Poll 1)(Poll 2).

As to your last question, unfortunately I would say yes. The defining point of the entire Mass Effect trilogy was that you got to shape the galaxy with your actions and choices. This is literally THE driving force behind the game right up until the last 10 minutes of a 100+ hour journey where every decision you have ever made is rendered moot and you push one of three buttons to get one of three differently colored, but otherwise identical, cutscenes with no closure, no explanation, and no resolution (not to mention numerous newly-introduced plot holes).

To be clear the first 99% of ME3 is, in my book, one of the greatest games I've ever played, but I literally can't bring myself to go back and play any of the trilogy again knowing that nothing that I do matters in the slightest and every mystery and plot arc that I start will forever remain unfinished. This is a sentiment I've heard reflected in many places. I don't want a new ending; you can't un-write what has been written. I'm disappointed that this is how what is arguably the greatest RPG series ever made had to end, but I can deal with that. The lies, though...

Made it to 3:24, when it became clear that rather than actually looking into your mistakes, and apologizing for them, you simply doubled down on them.

Bob, I know you've received at least 2 pieces of fanmail that have explained how wrong you are about the reasons behind the "Retake Mass Effect" movement; and how erecting and attacking this Strawman is despicable. Glad to see you paid attention Bob...

Well, Bob, until recently your shows seemed fine but now you've made it utterly clear that you aren't worth a damn. Thanks for the videos that have entertained me for the last 2-1/2 years, because I for one won't be continuing watching your shows.
It's amazing that someone who has a show called "The Big Picture", could miss it so thoroughly.

BlueHighwind:
On Mass Effect 3, and the debate that's going on: I'm not a Mass Effect fan, I don't play those games, I don't really know what the ending is. But I can sympathize. I played FFXIII-2 a few months ago, and that ending WAS WORSE. So I'm going to play devil's advocate here, and stand by the fans against the game company. If they're pissed, they might actually have a legitimate reason.

You know what? Screw the rights of the artist, especially when it comes to video games.

For centuries now its been assumed that the creator has total control over his universe and that the audience just has to sit back and take it. And that's fine for a book, you're basically being read the story about other people doing other things. So you might care deeply about those characters, but you aren't actually those characters. If Tony Soprano's story doesn't end in a satisfying manner, you can pissed about it, but like your own life just ended without meaning.

Video games, however, are the newest form of storytelling. They're a radical departure of most kinds of fiction that we've seen. This isn't just the artist feeding the audience in a one-way street. Its the audience making their own choices in the story. Both the artist and the audience are collaborating on final outcome. For example, if the player gets bored of a game, the plot of Super Mario 64 will end in an anti-climatic whimper as Mario falls down a hole and dies, never to come back. In Mass Effect, this is even more pronounced, since the player makes choices actively during the course of the three games. You get to choice who your true love is, you get to choose who to save and what missions to take, and probably other things. Then when suddenly at the end of the game, all those levels of choice are RIPPED AWAY, you're going to get mad.

I don't see why they didn't let players actually design their own ending. Since there were multiple endings, you could have Bad, Good, Horrible, Bittersweet. That's what makes multiple endings an interesting feature. Maybe the Bad ending is the most artistically interesting, but that shouldn't be forced on people. You should let the audience discover that for themselves.

And you can babble about how the game company is creating "Art", but I still haven't heard ONE SINGLE argument as to how Mass Effect 3's ending is artistically meaningful. What does it represent? I honestly don't know, if somebody can argue that, maybe the Artist's side of this debate has more legitimacy. I have no idea what Mass Effect 3's ending was supposed to be, and it doesn't like many others do either. If they did understand, then they would have accepted it and wouldn't be up in arms about this.

So this is actually an interesting turn of events, I think. If the players of Mass Effect 3 get the ending changed, it would be a remarkable turn of events for fiction. Yeah, artists are geniuses, but its not like the mass collective of viewers and players aren't creative people either. It would be interesting to see collaboration between the audience and artist in the creation of the story, not just a one-way street of "take it or gtfo". Artists seem too often to get God Complexes, suddenly get filled with endless arrogance, assuming that since they first created the universe, they better than everybody else. Maybe that's not true.

Why does the player have to be a slave to the developer?

You do know the implication of your suggestions right?

This is just censorship by the popular majority.
Do you really want that?

Wicky_42:

Taunta:
long snip...

In short: Yes.

Because "desire" and "want" have different connotations than "demand". Demand implies a sense of urgency and anger, that you feel injustice because you DESERVE a new ending. Desire implies "Meh, I wish the ending would have been better, but oh well. That's how it goes."

Maybe the fans did deserve a better ending? I think people deserved a better ending that the third Matrix film brought about, but where-as films tend to be a finished article, games are more mutable and there's the prospect that things can change. That aside, attacking a host of people because they used the wrong verb (or were merely assigned said verb) seems to be kinda petty when you agree with the source of the complaint.

And I say fans don't deserve anything. The artist(s) doesn't/don't exist to please the fans. They're there to tell a story, and if they don't like that story, then tough. You take it, you complain about it a little bit, and then you move on with your life.

This is probably personal bias as a Creative Writing major, but I don't think diction choice is petty at all. In writing anything, the tone changes entirely based on what kind of diction you choose. It's like how the tone of your voice can change a joke into a rude remark, except it's the tone of your words. I think perhaps there wouldn't be so much backlash towards how "entitled" some people are if their tone was less defiant and self-important.

Anyways, I'm probably not going to change your mind though, so I can agree to disagree. (:

Every time I come back to this topic, I finding myself respecting George Lucas even more. Mass Effect 3 creators cowtowed after a few weeks of protests, no matter how justified. Lucas has been hearing this Han Fired First bullshit for 15 years and he has not budge an inch. It feels like Lucas has an artist's integrity and makes his vision all the more credible.

As for the rest, Retake Mass Effect 3 people need to stop this whiny 4-Chan nonsense with everyone that disagrees with them. The debate is over because Bioware cowtowed and acquiesced to your whiny demands. You keep forgetting that you won this particular argument and everytime you go after someone that disagrees, you taint your victory.

In other words, quit being Sore winners. Quit being one of those people that complain about winning.

Klitch:

Negatempest:

Klitch:

So nobody pre-ordered Mass Effect 3? For some reason I seem to remember doing that...

At no point did I say that consumers should get final say over artistic content (or any product for that matter), but let's continue with the da Vinci analogy. Say he was commissioned to paint the Mona Lisa and behaved like a modern game company. He would triple his agreed-upon time frame after being paid (pre-orders for Duke Nukem Forever?)...well he actually did that one, paint a picture of a a different woman (false marketing), give you the "finished" painting and then charge for him to finish drawing the face (DLC), and then make you re-purchase the painting after you have seen it three times (DRM). The man would have been lynched.

I'm sorry but no amount of "get over it" or "move on" or "geez put your energy into something important (by my definition of the word)" is going to make me feel like it's alright for game companies to hold 100% of the rights for their content. They cannot flat-out lie to us and then not expect us to take it personally.

My gamer friend, you are still missing the key point I made. You are not the comissioner. You did not put in money for the creation of the product. You put in money for the copy of the product so the real commissioner (EA) can make a profit from the artist. EA paid Bioware X sum of cash, credit, etc. to make a video game. Bioware made the video game so consumers would purchase it and EA would get X amount of cash from it. At no point in time have you, the consumer, put money directly into Bioware to make their games....unless your a stock-holder.

Where exactly do you think money from pre-orders goes if not into development costs? So if I own a single stock in Bioware/EA (I don't) I'm allowed to dictate how the game should be made but if I don't have any stock, I just have be resigned with being worked over and mistreated and be satisfied? What kind of logical sense does that make? What about this consumer-funded Double Fine game, should the fans get complete creative control just because they paid the development costs (I say hell no). I'm sorry but whether you paid your money before or after the game was put in stores is not the sole deciding factor that determines if you have any rights to the product you pay for.

And consumer rights is a real thing. There is no medium where the producers/developers have complete control over their products and actions. As I've said before, my big hangup is the outright lies in the advertising. Consumers are protected by law from crap like that. From any legal standpoint the FTC complaint is justified, though I think it's more of a publicity stunt than a real motion.

Producer-consumer relationships are just that, relationships. Producers have an obligation to provide their consumers the product that they promise and consumers have the obligation of paying an agreed-upon sum. This doesn't change just because somebody shouts "art." Am I allowed to pay Bioware $30 instead of $60 because I didn't like the ending? No. Are they allowed to make explicit promises (with full knowledge of their falsity) about the game and then not keep them? For some bizarre reason, yes. This is wrong.

Your "say" in the whole thing is to never purchase from them again. It is that simple and your power with other people's power would prove how bad their choice was. Again, your pre-order, was nothing more than the real compnay that commissioned the art to get his/her money from the consumer faster. The money you pay as the consumer is to purchase a copy of the art/product so that the "artist/maker" does not lose money from their creation. In no way do you the consumer lose anywhere near the same amount of money as the artist or commissioner if a product does not sell well.

The Doublefine Kickstarter is one of the hand-full of examples of a product that is being commissioned by the consumers. EA, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Activision, Sega, Konami, all of those producers are not putting in money into that project, the consumers are. This is an example of consumers being the ones commissioning a project.

In no way 99.9% in the making of ME3 did a consumer commission ME3, that was all done by EA and possibly Bioware themselves.

While Bob may be completely right on the legal side of things, he is definitely missing the big picture here.

1. Videogames are not movies, they're not books. DLC set the precedent for games to change and divert from their original form.

2. What I am arguing as a fan is that this is no the ending that the series deserve. And given the precedent of DLC, Bioware could very well go back and revisit it. I'm not asking for Bioware to do exactly as I want, but for them to meet their own standards.

3. Good or bad Bioware and ME3 is getting an unprecedented amount of publicity over this. This is something that's making them money, money they wouldn't have made otherwise if they had gone a more conventional way. Even Bob's benefiting from standing on this side of the debate. How can you divorce this from the decision to make the ending so inflaming?

If authorial intent is sacrosanct, what intent can we derive from the endings as a whole? Once you realize that all the permutations amount to killing off all the major players as well as the galaxy around them?. Is it not to leave the invested audience with a gaping wound?

In a movie this would be fine, after all it wasn't you who shaped the main character, all the characters and the world around them under the author's control. Even if you identify with the character,it's easier to let go. This is not the case with Mass Effect.

It may be unprecedented, but once you look at all the forces involved, what Bioware did is not unlike an author holding a beloved character hostage for publicity, larger monetary gains and getting the invested readership to pay ransom.

How can you not find that despicable I do not know.

Frank_Sinatra_:
Bad move Bob, very, very, very, very bad move.

It's apparent that you really haven't researched into the whole Mass Effect 3 debacle, so be prepared to hear that the Mass Effect series is a special case, BioWare didn't deliver on ANY of their promises, and they pretty much slapped their own IP in the face in the last 5 minutes of their game.

Remember: BioWare has stated that their fans are equal creators in the story along with their actual writing staff.

EDIT: Before you go crying about how you're sick of people complaining, I think I should point you to THIS.

Pretty much this.

It's not that the ending was bad and fans are upset, it's the fact that BioWare blatantly and outright lied about what was going to happen, as late as January of 2012 when they would have clearly known that what they were saying wasn't in the game. Added with the fact the last ten minutes of the game just shit all over three games, three books, and several comics worth of lore and choices, and you're going to get some miffed people.

Fans are just asking for what they were promised and paid for.

I'm not afraid of Micheal Bay changing the origin story of the turtles.

I'm afraid of him having the turtles being chased around the rest of the movie by the army and explosions. And the concept of Japan, martial arts, foot soldiers and ninjas being ignored altogether.

3:15 - 3:30 I call BULLSHIT bob, you DID complain several times in your reviews about how things were and how/to what they needed to be changed.
That aside, it's not an expectation when they tell me something will be in the game, and then I buy it, to find out that it isn't in there.

Warachia:
3:15 - 3:30 I call BULLSHIT bob, you DID complain several times in your reviews about how things were and how/to what they needed to be changed.
That aside, it's not an expectation when they tell me something will be in the game, and then I buy it, to find out that it isn't in there.

He's just playing the audience, as is Bioware. *sigh*

Bob, you will whine, complain, and demand them to fix it to your expectations. Do you know why you will? Cause its what you've done with every movie based on things of your fandom ever since you started your shows here. You're not above the nerd-rage, you're the embodiment of it.

malestrithe:
Every time I come back to this topic, I finding myself respecting George Lucas even more. Mass Effect 3 creators cowtowed after a few weeks of protests, no matter how justified. Lucas has been hearing this Han Fired First bullshit for 15 years and he has not budge an inch. It feels like Lucas has an artist's integrity and makes his vision all the more credible.

Doesn't just changing it in the first place after he finished it already taint his "artistic vision"? I find it a little odd how you're perfectly fine with Lucas doing these things, yet not fine with other people, if we kept it specifically to how Lucas wanted the movies some would be surprisingly different, as some of the actors lines were added by the actors themselves, and the director (who wasn't george lucas) decided it fit better.

Aisaku:
While Bob may be completely right on the legal side of things, he is definitely missing the big picture here.

1. Videogames are not movies, they're not books. DLC set the precedent for games to change and divert from their original form.

2. What I am arguing as a fan is that this is no the ending that the series deserve. And given the precedent of DLC, Bioware could very well go back and revisit it. I'm not asking for Bioware to do exactly as I want, but for them to meet their own standards.

3. Good or bad Bioware and ME3 is getting an unprecedented amount of publicity over this. This is something that's making them money, money they wouldn't have made otherwise if they had gone a more conventional way. Even Bob's benefiting from standing on this side of the debate. How can you divorce this from the decision to make the ending so inflaming?

If authorial intent is sacrosanct, what intent can we derive from the endings as a whole? Once you realize that all the permutations amount to killing off all the major players as well as the galaxy around them?. Is it not to leave the invested audience with a gaping wound?

In a movie this would be fine, after all it wasn't you who shaped the main character, all the characters and the world around them under the author's control. Even if you identify with the character,it's easier to let go. This is not the case with Mass Effect.

It may be unprecedented, but once you look at all the forces involved, what Bioware did is not unlike an author holding a beloved character hostage for publicity, larger monetary gains and getting the invested readership to pay ransom.

How can you not find that despicable I do not know.

Counterpoints
1: By the choice of the original creator only.

2: if you are only arguing that the ending is bad, then you got no problem with what Bob said. Critique wasn't a problem. An entitled sense of ownership over the story was the problem.

3: Deal with that as it is. That Bioware is being at an advantage because of possessive fanboys doesn't mean that the possessive fanboys arn't acting like spoiled children.

Side note:
That you shaped this char makes no difference. You were still only shaping him within the bounds and limits setup by the original artist. It is a misunderstanding I have seen dragged out as an argument again and again. Only real choice you have outside the artists creation is to Play or not to.

You do not get ownership over the chars or the setting just because you like them very much. You can call it holding a char hostage all you want, but it isn't a real person. It is their work.

Caramel Frappe:

MovieBob:
Mutants and Masses

MovieBob goes into detail about the difference between artists and fans.

Watch Video

Really, the fans aren't mad or outraged because the ending isn't living up to the hype.. it's just a very hollow, poorly written, plot hole everywhere ending that even asks for you to buy more of their DLC at the end.

Also Bob- when we do state our concerns and give criticism to Bioware.. guess what? They shut their forums on us. Closing the threads so we can't state how we feel overall, our opinions being shunned and ignored. So overall we not only get a bad ending to where it defiles everything Mass Effect stood for but Casey Hudson makes excuses and Bioware doesn't want any feedback like they said they'll be happy to receive.

Why does nobody listen to you, why are there still people on this very forum still defending this trite when all the facts are in front of them... Are we all taking crazy pills or what?

I wish they would stop saying "SunshineandRainbows", "butt-hurt" and "fan-boy's", these people run words into the ground faster then an episode of HIMYM.

Anyway let me weigh in on this since unlike everyone here defending the rights of artists I actually am one... See your our meal ticket you own us like any boss, if you go these lengths to demand something it's my duty to oblige, we need you and you don't need us... It's just that simple, stop defending expendable pawns. Also to say this will somehow kneecap our creativity is very wrong mainly because YOU DEMAND THAT WE BE CREATIVE!

Creators should be free to work on their creations and the consumer should mostly be left out as giving them "exactly" what they want gives them nothing they want makes no sense when dealing with the fact that exactly what they want in this instance is anything but what they got.

OH LOOK, MORE INTERNET PERSONALITIES MISSING THE POINT

Seriously, I would say "I am dissapoint" but Bob, your better than us, really? You act like a grown up Bob, you don't demand things change to your specifications? Explain your passive-aggressive obsession with the new Spiderman flick and how you knock it at every reasonable and unreasonable chance you get - you have such an axe to grind for that movie i'd be amazed if you hadn't carved it a coffin yet.

Lets not even start on you and the transformers movies.

And before you whip out that tired critic THIS IS ART YOU CAN'T CHANGE ART bullshit - no. You do change art. That's how art gets made. It goes through editors, it goes through focus groups, it goes through notes. This is true for movies, this is true for books, the only thing it's not true for (MAYBE) is paintings. So unless you want to argue that the only true art is the visual kind you paint on an easel, maybe you should step on back and slow your roll.

Moreover, video games as an art form - because I do acknowledge them as an art form - require FAR more investment, both financially chronologically and intellectually then your precious movies do. Films are passive, games are interactive. Films cost 8-12 dollars, Video games cost 30-60 dollars. Films last 1 and 1/2 to 2 and 1/2 hours. Video games are considered rip-off short if they come in under 6 hours.

This is apples to oranges, no comparison. They're both fruit, but they're not the same KIND of fruit.

Faerillis:
Made it to 3:24, when it became clear that rather than actually looking into your mistakes, and apologizing for them, you simply doubled down on them.

Bob, I know you've received at least 2 pieces of fanmail that have explained how wrong you are about the reasons behind the "Retake Mass Effect" movement; and how erecting and attacking this Strawman is despicable. Glad to see you paid attention Bob...

Well, Bob, until recently your shows seemed fine but now you've made it utterly clear that you aren't worth a damn. Thanks for the videos that have entertained me for the last 2-1/2 years, because I for one won't be continuing watching your shows.
It's amazing that someone who has a show called "The Big Picture", could miss it so thoroughly.

wow this is exactly what the problem is

its the exact same thing, letting a minority part of a game, (or in this case bobs series) ruin the rest of it for you.

Just wow really.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 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
Registered for a free account here