MovieBob's thoughts on the ME3 ending controversy

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 20 NEXT
 

I have mixed feelings about this. One the one hand, companies shouldn't buckle to the demands of fans. On the other hand... the endings suck. From what I can tell, anyway.

...Does this count as a dilemma? 'Cause I get the feeling that if Bioware hadn't screwed up the endings we wouldn't be in this mess...

BloatedGuppy:

Falcon123:
I addressed this point with another person here, but the Fallout 3 ending change was different because the developers saw a problem with it and changed it of their own accord so that the story may continue. These changes would have happened regardless of player feedback. Would the ending have changed if people hadn't been so demanding and vocal about it? I'm not sure. Should the ending be changed? I don't think so. They should have gotten it right the first time so that none of this ever happened, but since it did happen, they should work within the parameters they created instead of changing the ending.

It's irrelevant why they didn't or didn't do it. Bioware can just as easily lay claim to the same reasons. If something is broken, fix it. Games give an almost unprecedented ability to the creator to alter their existing work with minimal impact. To not take advantage of that would be foolish in the extreme. As for getting it right the first time, I'm afraid that milk has been spilled.

Falcon123:
As far as games being art, you and I believe that place is written in stone but... I don't think we can say that for the majority of people. To this day, the question of "Are Video Games Art?" is one of the biggest and toughest to answer in the industry. I can't say with a straight face that the artistic merit of games is cemented regardless of what happens here because I've had plenty of people in my life who refused to believe games could be art before this happened.

Well, I'm sorry to tell you this, but people can be stupid and cling to anachronistic world views, but it doesn't change what something is or isn't. New mediums always go through a period of time where they struggle to gain acceptance, and they always eventually gain that acceptance when the generations that rejected them GET OLD AND DIE. This isn't a "big question" that is "tough to answer". They are unquestionably art, unless you're playing around with an incredibly esoteric notion of what art is.

Falcon123:
I get what you're saying; IF games are art, then this won't affect their artistic status with those who love the medium. But what about everyone else? What happens with the perception of gaming in the minds of those who are not so ingrained in gamer culture?

I think the easy answer to that question is "I don't give a shit, and neither should you". As I've said elsewhere, it's probably because gaming originally put down roots in the already impossibly insecure geek culture, but there is absolutely no reason why your hobby or passion needs to be respected by, understood by, or embraced by the world at large. At least half the people I know hate professional sports with ardent passion, and somehow, impossibly, said sports continue to exist and flourish. There will always be people who deride and misunderstand the things you love. Just accept it, and move on.

Falcon123:
I believe there will be aftershocks to this, both on the business and social levels in terms of artistic acceptance, and by refusing to stand by their vision whether it was right or wrong, those who pointed to Mass Effect as a great example of games as art (I know I did) no longer have any ground on which to stand.

What fucking VISION? The problem wasn't their VISION. If the only issue here was their questionable vision we wouldn't be having this discussion. That ending was RISIBLE. They cut every corner that was available for cutting. They backfired on promises, they copy-pasted their shitty, confusing cinematic, they screwed up their characterizations, they botched their continuity. If there was something to fuck up, they fucked it up. The art isn't getting compromised because there wasn't any fucking art there to begin with.

Let's say it again...if they FIX their ending, THEN we can start calling it art. Right now it's just a goddam mess.

Sadly, I'm about to get on a flight, so I can't give your response the dignity it deserves. I'll just have to say that it saddens me that we've reached the day in which WE decide the standard all art should meet, and that the artist is not allowed to fail unless they are willing to change everything to what WE want. Art can be bad sometimes, and you have to accept it and move on. To me, that people are unwilling to do that is the far bigger mess

Falcon123:
Sadly, I'm about to get on a flight, so I can't give your response the dignity it deserves. I'll just have to say that it saddens me that we've reached the day in which WE decide the standard all art should meet, and that the artist is not allowed to fail unless they are willing to change everything to what WE want. Art can be bad sometimes, and you have to accept it and move on. To me, that people are unwilling to do that is the far bigger mess

This isn't about any artistic failure. I thought I made that clear. If it was just a question of failure on purely artistic grounds it never would've reached this level of critical mass.

I like the way Bob presents his stuff, but he is way off with this one. When Arthur Conan Doyle wrote Sherlock Holmes back to life, did it set the artform back 10 years? (well technically yes, it had been ten years since he killed him, but shhh.)

Look, a medium can produce ART or it can produce PRODUCT. If games can be changed at the whims of fanboys, then they are just product and we have no right to demand that Ebert etc take them (or US) "seriously."

This is just bullshit. Is Twilight art? Transformers? Human Centipede? A medium can have art and product at the same time. A film can be both art and product. If these things weren't product, they wouldn't get such massive budgets. Look at Star Wars. Infinite numbers of spin-offs and toy lines just to make money. Tell me that isn't a product.

To be honest, this isn't fans asking Bioware to lose their artistic integrity, it's them asking Bioware to get it back, to make an ending that fits the story, that makes sense, that is true to what they told the world about their game.

Falcon123:

Devoneaux:

Falcon123:

So you don't believe video games are art? I ask because I've spent a 30 page research thesis defending games as art, so that aspect matters to me. Either way, you're paying them more money to give you what you deserved all along. If you don't believe games are art, you can at least admit the business practice is shady at best, no?

So just because I state that ME 3's ending as being a stylistic choice is not an adequate defense for the failure in basic writing mechanics and execution, all of a sudden, you think you know my entire viewpoint on the "games are art" subject?

No, I don't know your entire viewpoint. That's why I asked if you believed video games are art. Question marks tend to indicate uncertainty, last time I checked.

I love having intelligent conversations about things like this; please don't ruin it by trying to attack me personally. If you'd like, I'd love to hear your answer to the question so that we can proceed with the discussion.

I answered your question with a question of my own. Because yours came off as though you believed I thought as much and wanted verification for that.

At any rate, who is attacking you personally? Answering a question with another question isn't the same as a personal attack.

Falcon123:

Sadly, I'm about to get on a flight, so I can't give your response the dignity it deserves. I'll just have to say that it saddens me that we've reached the day in which WE decide the standard all art should meet, and that the artist is not allowed to fail unless they are willing to change everything to what WE want. Art can be bad sometimes, and you have to accept it and move on. To me, that people are unwilling to do that is the far bigger mess

But then what are the limits between protecting artist merit and delivering a paid product?

BioWare made certain promises about the ending (quite recently) to which was not delivered on. It wasn't a promise 2 years go, but just mere months, just as the game was going into certification that would have prevented any additional changes, save for any future DLC's.

There is no problem with the ending if BioWare never made any promise about the ending in the first place. If they had only said "The end will be what it is.", then we as fans would have nothing to hold them to. Even being crap-tastically bad, they would have not had to own up to any given promises.

Over all, regardless of artist merit, it was just purely bad business in the first place to end the series as they had done so.

Falcon123:

BloatedGuppy:

Falcon123:
As a gamer that really cares about the integrity of video games as an art form, that saddens me. But let me make this clear: you're right in that if it wasn't Bioware and it wasn't ME3, it wouldn't be as big of a deal. But it is. This is one of the most popular franchises of all time in gaming run by one of the three most influential developers in the industry. Everything they say and do influences the rest of the industry whether they want to or not, and the long term effect is that all the developers watching this will learn that as long as they follow through on their promises with DLC (which gets even more money out of the consumer than simply doing their job the first time around), they can get away with something like this. And since video games are hardly firmly established as an art form, this doesn't help any of us who really do care about its place in the artistic world

I would argue that Bethesda is every bit as big a mover and shaker in the RPG world as Bioware, and they already did this exact same thing with Fallout 3, and the earthshaking ramifications of that decision amounted to absolutely nothing at all. There was a problem, and they fixed the problem, and everyone said "Yay" and went on about their business. For whatever reason, THIS problem got caught up in the shit storm of social media, so every talking head has decided to wade in with their opinions, and suddenly everyone thinks they're fighting the last battle for the integrity of art in video gaming when the precedent for this already came and went without anyone noticing or caring.

You don't need to worry about video games suddenly ceasing to be art. They can't stop being art any more than a banana can stop being fruit. And some of that art will be banal and juvenile, and some of that art will be profound and extraordinary, much as the case is with art everywhere. What happens with this one game, in this one incidence, is not going to set the course for generations. They fucked up their ending. The only thing that stands to get changed forever from all this nonsense is that very same fucked up ending. And it NEEDS CHANGING.

I addressed this point with another person here, but the Fallout 3 ending change was different because the developers saw a problem with it and changed it of their own accord so that the story may continue. These changes would have happened regardless of player feedback. Would the ending have changed if people hadn't been so demanding and vocal about it? I'm not sure. Should the ending be changed? I don't think so. They should have gotten it right the first time so that none of this ever happened, but since it did happen, they should work within the parameters they created instead of changing the ending.

As far as games being art, you and I believe that place is written in stone but... I don't think we can say that for the majority of people. To this day, the question of "Are Video Games Art?" is one of the biggest and toughest to answer in the industry. I can't say with a straight face that the artistic merit of games is cemented regardless of what happens here because I've had plenty of people in my life who refused to believe games could be art before this happened.

I get what you're saying; IF games are art, then this won't affect their artistic status with those who love the medium. But what about everyone else? What happens with the perception of gaming in the minds of those who are not so ingrained in gamer culture? I believe there will be aftershocks to this, both on the business and social levels in terms of artistic acceptance, and by refusing to stand by their vision whether it was right or wrong, those who pointed to Mass Effect as a great example of games as art (I know I did) no longer have any ground on which to stand.

WHO GIVES A FUCK if people who don't play video games don't consider video games to be art?!
The whole "gaming is art" argument was started by a bunch of professional game journalists who wished they were film critics.

To me the fact that everyone is working so hard to prove to Roger Ebert e co. that games should be taken "seriously" as art just shows how insecure gamers are about themselves and their choice in entertainment.

Video Games have nothing to prove to other mediums, and I think the sheer amount of money the industry makes every year supports this.

The only people who need to consider video games as an art form are the people who FUCKING PLAY THEM!!

They can kill everyone of importance in the series, literally everyone, and it wouldn't be that bad of an ending. No ending gives any sort of closure...

Tanakh:

MrLumber:
The point of his comments put simply are that by ret-conning, and literally deleting old content (which is why comics don't count... sorta), in demands to THE CONSUMER (this is why star wars doesn't count) after the final product has been released (this is why focus groups don't count), which is an unprecedented action in terms of an artistic medium, completely ruins the prospective artistic recognition afforded to ME as a whole, and even to games in general.

But he is wrong, utterly wrong. I agree with Chipman on some stuff, but this is a factual error that derives from the modern naive view of "art" as an

- uncompromising opus radiating integrity -.

Art has always been both a medium of expression AND a product, both aren't at odds with each other; see Ruben's work, Goya, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Puccini, just of the top of my head all of them redid parts of released works to FIT THE FUCKING AUDIENCE, because art IS a product.

It is nice to live in ivory castles though... i guess.

First things first, the line that I pseudo-highlighted doesn't actually fit the definition of art very well, but whatever. If you don't feel that an artists word is his own thats your deal, also I'm unsure how thats naive (or even a viewpoint in general), but again thats neither here nor there.

While I was simply trying to explain what Bob's point actually was, which as far as I could tell is VASTLY misinterpreted by the good majority of this thread, I do see where your coming from. I actually somewhat agree with you that art is not exclusive from being a product, but you still seem to be hooked upon the thought that changes designed to make a more appealing entity equates to changes made purely at the behest of the consumer. There is a fundamental difference between those to courses of action, as one (usually) maintains the authors original intent for the material, while the other is forced compromise, which can easily ruin the intended message or narrative. I sincerely doubt that any of the artists you mentioned were ever requited with such bile that they might change their, original or edited, works. For one, because its downright silly to begin with, and two, the level of communication and unification then is infinitely less than it is today.

Unfortunately I doubt that this thread is really going to deal with the actual ramifications of the prospective change, though, and will instead just be a place for a bunch of people to keep being pissed that ME3 wasn't what they wanted.

Really if the story can't stand up on it's own without an artistic statement to shield it from criticism, then the artistic statement deserves neither my respect or recognition. So if the artistic integrety has to go to make the story make sense, then so be it, don't care. You want your message to remain in tact; I want what I paid for. Guess who takes precedence?

I think the majority of people agree that the ending was terrible. Bioware clearly think that it's big enough of an issue to change it. They have also said they are going to work within the boundaries of the existing ending but make it less vague. I personally think that will make it a lot better.

It's no different to Arthur Conan Doyle bringing Sherlock Holmes back from the dead due to his fans complaining. Books are still a valid art form last time I checked.

Conan Doyle wrote the first set of stories over the course of a decade. Wanting to devote more time to his historical novels, he killed off Holmes in "The Final Problem," which appeared in print in 1893. After resisting public pressure for eight years, the author wrote The Hound of the Baskervilles, which appeared in 1901, implicitly setting it before Holmes's "death" (some theorise that it actually took place after "The Return" but with Watson planting clues to an earlier date). The public, while pleased with the story, was not satisfied with a posthumous Holmes, and so Conan Doyle revived Holmes two years later.

Yeah we wouldn't have the renowned classic ' The Hound of the Baskervilles' if not for those dastardly entitled readers!

MarxonSR1:

I agree absolutely.

Where part of your art is to please a certain group of people; if the vast majority of people vehemently deride your work you(r) art has failed, in it's most basic essence.

As far as I was concerned Mass Effect was intended to entertain me first and then, make any artistic/philosophical statements it wished. Both of these can certainly contribute to entertainment value.

Aye, I found myself thinking and feeling along those lines, too.

To me, it seems like too many 'creative minds' were involved in concocting this half-baked conclusion, starting with n writers and ending with putting that compound vision into animated 3D. I think Mass Effect 3's ending(s) is seriously flawed, a proper botched job.

Should they change it? No, because the huge and expensive mistake was decided upon, created, made, crafted, produced long before us unlucky consumers got it shoved in our faces. Should they try and explain it? Well, if you're seriously going for a mystery element, having to explain it and setting things straight is just as sad as having to explain a joke to your confused and non-laughing audience.

It's clear that something as ridiculously big/bloated as Mass Effect would inevitably lead to ad hominem attacks to anyone daring to criticize it, even if they just pointed out the obvious and well established deficiencies in the final product.

While I intended to stay the melonfarming farm away from Mass Effect, I did feel that it would help me better define my criticism and dislike if I actually played it through at least once. That, I did. I did not want to be bothered with being forced to play the multiplayer, I did not want to play other, crap games on mobile platforms, I just wanted to see for myself how they handled and presented that thing for which they've been hailed as a modern, compound hive mind borg incarnation of Charles Dickens - and I was already confused and put off a bit when confronted with a multiple choice at the very beginning. How did I want to play the game? Are you serious? The very moment you attempt to please everyone, you risk pleasing no one in the very end.

I read a lot about the indoctrination theory after I was done with my attempt to squeeze some fun and sense out of the much anticipated and hailed in advance end and - hopefully - closure to the Mass Effect trilogy. I know it is rather improbable any publisher would properly kill off an established, milkable franchise these days... they just keep coming back, some getting just sillier and more twisted in the process.

Still... the ending of Mass Effect 3 genuinely managed to annoy me, even though I decidedly did not really care. But - and this is a big issue, I think - if you build up the series finale as the be-all end-all to everything, and you got a critical mass of followers, sympathizers and buyers built up over years, I think it qualifies as a proper failure if, instead of bringing closure, you confuse and annoy the crap out of the many hands that really wanted to keep on throwing money your way.

As I said - I don't really care about the Mass Effect franchise, I have my very own issues with anything Bioware ever since wanting to be nice to people had me going down and dirty with way too many characters, making me a friendly whore when my intentions were to experience an adventure well beyond carnal pleasures.

So, yeah, I think I am just not compatible with what Bioware considers to be a good game, but I ended up feeling sorry for all the folks that really looked forward to Mass Effect 3. And that's hardly a good thing. Do I agree with everything Moviebob says? Nope. But I think it qualifies as a rather special occasion when, after five years and three titles, someone manages to mess up so severely on their golden cash cow, seeing their fan following confronted with an ending a majority of them didn't get and just about all of them didn't like. I don't intend to troll around on this one, but it really looks like a major failure to me.

xXxJessicaxXx:
I think the majority of people agree that the ending was terrible. Bioware clearly think that it's big enough of an issue to change it. They have also said they are going to work within the boundaries of the existing ending but make it less vague. I personally think that will make it a lot better.

It's no different to Arthur Conan Doyle bringing Sherlock Holmes back from the dead due to his fans complaining. Books are still a valid art form last time I checked.

Conan Doyle wrote the first set of stories over the course of a decade. Wanting to devote more time to his historical novels, he killed off Holmes in "The Final Problem," which appeared in print in 1893. After resisting public pressure for eight years, the author wrote The Hound of the Baskervilles, which appeared in 1901, implicitly setting it before Holmes's "death" (some theorise that it actually took place after "The Return" but with Watson planting clues to an earlier date).[50][51] The public, while pleased with the story, was not satisfied with a posthumous Holmes, and so Conan Doyle revived Holmes two years later.

Yeah we wouldn't have the renowned classic ' The Hound of the Baskervilles' if not for those dastardly entitled readers!

Not the same thing. We wouldn't be bitching just cause Shepard died (Mostly). We're bitching because the actual story itself is crap. Rife with plot holes, inconsistencies, contradictions, Deus ex machina and the ending isn't even a real ending because it makes no attempt to actually explain what happens after my choice. It plays out like for the last ten minutes of the plot, they just pulled in one big fan to finish the plot and without even bothering to double check his draft, just went with it. Expecting the last ten minutes for the end of the series to be up to par with the rest of the series is not being entitled. It's expecting what should come natural. Really the whole "Choose your color" Ending is just the final insult.

Devoneaux:

Not the same thing. We wouldn't be bitching just cause Shepard died. We're bitching because the actual story itself is crap. Rife with plot holes, inconsistencies, contradictions, Deus ex machina and the ending isn't even a real ending because it makes no attempt to actually explain what happens after my choice.

My point was that the public have changed things before and it hasn't had medium ending consequences, not the whole death issue. Sorry if that was unclear.

xXxJessicaxXx:

Devoneaux:

Not the same thing. We wouldn't be bitching just cause Shepard died. We're bitching because the actual story itself is crap. Rife with plot holes, inconsistencies, contradictions, Deus ex machina and the ending isn't even a real ending because it makes no attempt to actually explain what happens after my choice.

My point was that the public have changed things before and it hasn't had medium ending consequences, not the whole death issue. Sorry if that was unclear.

Ahh, alright that makes more sense then.

Here's the thing: if you look at the core of the ideas contained in the endings, they're not all that bad. It's just the way they're presented that is awful. If Bioware were to modify things to remove the plotholes, provide a little bit more explanation, and add some closure, the choices we were given would become far more palatable. They can fix many of their problems without having to sacrifice their artistic vision.

Pontifex:
Here's the thing: if you look at the core of the ideas contained in the endings, they're not all that bad. It's just the way they're presented that is awful. If Bioware were to modify things to remove the plotholes, provide a little bit more explanation, and add some closure, the choices we were given would become far more palatable. They can fix many of their problems without having to sacrifice their artistic vision.

Correct. It's not like I'm thrilled with the "vision", but it's the least of the many crimes on display.

I agree with Movie Bob. If I go to a restaurant and order a steak, but the waiter comes back with a little spoon and some apple sauce because the chef feels that I should get apple sauce, I will not feel mad or cheated. I will not send the apple sauce and demand my steak, even if that's what I paid for. If the chef want's there to be apple sauce instead of steak simply because he wants it to be that way, let there be apple sauce! Who ever said you should have input about what you want? It's the chef's restaurant and profession. You THINK you want steak, but the chef KNOWS you want apple sauce! Why should you, the consumer, have a voice? If you send back the apple sauce, then the chef's artistic integrity will be at risk! Culinary Art will be at risk!

That was sarcasm by the way.

The whole "defending Bioware's artistic vision" excuse falls apart when you take into account that this ending goes against the entire artistic premise of the series and most likely WASN'T Bioware's actual vision. There is NO WAY the writers intended for the series to end this way, something must have happened to force them into this conclusion.

It was a rushed cop-out, despite what anyone speaking from a PR filter says this ending wasn't supposed to exist. It goes against everything the writers stand for, and I'm sure most, if not all of Bioware's writing staff would take it back if they could.

BloatedGuppy:

Pontifex:
Here's the thing: if you look at the core of the ideas contained in the endings, they're not all that bad. It's just the way they're presented that is awful. If Bioware were to modify things to remove the plotholes, provide a little bit more explanation, and add some closure, the choices we were given would become far more palatable. They can fix many of their problems without having to sacrifice their artistic vision.

Correct. It's not like I'm thrilled with the "vision", but it's the least of the many crimes on display.

Honestly, I think the destroy and control endings could be just fine, if they would deal with the aforementioned issues. Synthesis is a bit trickier, since it seems to rely heavily on Space Magic, but I would be willing to bite the bullet and accept it if they would just fix everything else.

Have Hackett say something like "The Crucible is firing, all ships fall back" to explain why the Normandy is leaving. Edit a few variables, so that the people on the ground with you don't suddenly show up on a different planet. Let Shepard argue against the Star Child, even if said arguments are ultimately futile. And give us something afterwards to show that while having everyone trapped in a devastated Sol system is grim, there is still hope for the future.

Gigatoast:
The whole "defending Bioware's artistic vision" excuse falls apart when you take into account that this ending goes against the entire artistic premise of the series and most likely WASN'T Bioware's actual vision. There is NO WAY the writers intended for the series to end this way, something must have happened to force them into this conclusion.

It was a rushed cop-out, despite what anyone speaking from a PR filter says this ending wasn't supposed to exist. It goes against everything the writers stand for, and I'm sure most, if not all of Bioware's writing staff would take it back if they could.

Also, it should be mentioned that Bioware is not a single person, with a single vision. ME3 had around eight writers. From everything I've heard, the ending was written by only one of them, with little to no input from the rest of the team. I have trouble buying the "Artistic vision" excuse from something like that.

BloatedGuppy:

War Penguin:
But gamers are also gonna look bad for raging, incoherently yelling, and, hell, even accusing of reviewers of being bribed. That... that's just too far, guys. That's not okay.

Uh...

I don't know how to tell you this, but...

Look. It's not a question of "bribes", necessarily. I don't think developers are sauntering up with thick envelopes full of cash. But if you can't see the incestuous nature that exists between game developers/publishers and game critics, then you're not looking hard enough. Game magazines, gaming review sites...they exist almost ENTIRELY off the revenue gained from advertising, that comes almost ENTIRELY from game developers and publishers. That is not a healthy relationship. Did you read about the Kane and Lynch debacle over at GameSpot? That's the kind of thing that happens. Only 95% of the time, the guy doesn't write an unflattering review of an advertising product and get fired. 95% of the time, the guy writes a puff review of an advertising product, which is why virtually every single AAA game released lives in the 8-10 range of review scores, and why you're seeing more "perfect" scores than ever before. It's like being asked to write a performance review for your boss, and if he doesn't like it, there's an unspoken threat that he might yank your paycheck. Think about that situation, and tell me you don't think there's a problem with the state of games journalism. Tell me you don't raise an eyebrow when gaming sites IGN and GameSpot go on the attack for Bioware, calling their audience "entitled crybabies", while non-gaming related site Forbes strangely takes up an entirely different position.

Canadish:

War Penguin:

DustyDrB:
I'm gonna do something crazy and say...I understand both points of view and am pretty conflicted about it myself.

I'm gonna say something that either gonna comfort you or make you even more scared: I feel completely the same way.

Maybe not counting Bob's view, specifically, (I like the guy and all, but I feel that he's not too much in touch with the gaming scene right now) but I feel that the people who say that things have gone too far are right... but only to a certain extent.

I don't think there's going to be a "right side" at the end of all of this controversy. Both parties will look bad. EA/Bioware is gonna look bad for the lack of promises they kept and for the inevitable over priced DLC. But gamers are also gonna look bad for raging, incoherently yelling, and, hell, even accusing of reviewers of being bribed. That... that's just too far, guys. That's not okay.

I'll have to argue that last point.

It's a major, well known problem with gaming "journalism" and media.

Some of the outright accusations with no direct evidence behind them, I can understand dismissing.
But there is nothing wrong with being skeptical and mentioning that.

I assume you know about the Gamespot story with Kane and Lynch?

Here is an article discussing another similar incident:
http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=6228583&publicUserId=5379799

I've actually read another two this month, but I didn't save those, but just spend 5 minutes on google, I'm sure they'll turn up.

edit: I should note, "Bribed" seems to be the wrong word to use. But there is a conflict of interest. Threats about Advertisements and Early promo's being cutoff from a magazine are the real issues (not big sacks of money being dumped through any letter boxes).

I use "bribed" because I've seen people use that exact word, accusing reviewers of that exact thing. I do see your point, though. There does seem to be a suspicious connection between publishers and reviewers. However, you have to admit, there's a better way to handle this as a gamer.

Quite frankly, the way people have been handling this is just immature. You can't just accuse anyone of accepting money, or lowering themselves to blindly give 8-10 scores to AAA games, or anything like that without any proof to those claims. You can't just yell whatever you think will sting publishers and reviewers and type any incoherent garbage of cursing and raging. We have to handle this in a much more mature manner. Now, I'll admit, I'm not sure what that would include. Would that be keeping calm and not resort to name calling? I'd be surprised if it wasn't that. Would it be noting your skepticism and mentioning that to the reviewer? Well, that's a pretty slippery slope to go down, but as long as you don't insult the person you're accusing and stay level headed, then it might be acceptable. But that's something that I haven't been seeing, and that concerns me.

However, that's not to say that the other side isn't guilty of these same exact things (Colin Moriarty, I'm looking straight at you).

Like I said before, neither side is gonna look good at the end of this.

SilentVirus:
I agree with Movie Bob. If I go to a restaurant and order a steak, but the waiter comes back with a little spoon and some apple sauce because the chef feels that I should get apple sauce, I will not feel mad or cheated. I will not send the apple sauce and demand my steak, even if that's what I paid for. If the chef want's there to be apple sauce instead of steak simply because he wants it to be that way, let there be apple sauce! Who ever said you should have input about what you want? It's the chef's restaurant and profession. You THINK you want steak, but the chef KNOWS you want apple sauce! Why should you, the consumer, have a voice? If you send back the apple sauce, then the chef's artistic integrity will be at risk! Culinary Art will be at risk!

That was sarcasm by the way.

As EDI would put it: That was a joke. :)

I agree with you wholeheartedly. If I was the Catholic Church and asked Michaelangelo for a painting of God in Heaven for the Sistine Chapel and see the devil painted nailed on the cross....yeah...my input wouldn't matter at all...

OFF WITH YOUR HEAD.

Vault Citizen:

Savagezion:

Sentox6:

Well, at least that explains why he isn't GamerBob.

Me and him disagree most of the time, so its no surprise I think he is wrong yet again. I don't care about a poor movie critics view on the subject. It isn't shocking he has nothing new to add to the discussion, just recycled statements of gaming site articles playing up to Bioware's PR that coincidentally have motive to protect their ad space.

He isn't just a movie critic, his gaming blog has been going for a while now and I think he spends about an equal time talking about gaming as he does movies.

I forgot he does that Nintendo heavy fanboy show I don't care for. I don't care for Bob's game journalism so much I forgot he even did that show. If you watch his one about Gamestop being a "monopoly" (He uses that terms at least 30 time) he will go on to tell you to shop at other gaming retailers which even sell used games. He defends instigator arguments like the Arkham City was sexist issue and such. He rarely looks at things from both sides and then rambles on and on from one side until he reaches what he thinks is an epiphany that is actually just a really deluded perspective. I rarely agree with him about animation and comic issues as well. I can count on one hand the times I have. It honestly amazes me he has a following and I am not saying that to be mean. I see him as just one or two steps above Kenji from Katawa Shoujo. Think maybe Mel Gibson from conspiracy theory, but he is never right.

boag:
No one is holding them at gun point, they are free to not change anything and tell customers to fuck off, but in doing so they will probably get less repeat customers.

And they didnt seem to give to many fucks when they canned Karpyshyn, when his artistic integrity became a bother to them.

No, they are just blowing everything out of proportion, going on a whine-crusade for the better part of 3 weeks now. They only tried to use child's play as a vehicle for their own selfish ambitions and to shame people who actually called them out on their bullshit with "Oh, you must not like CHARITY".

Shrugging all of the sudden and saying "We didn't do anything" doesn't cut it.

EDIT: Okay, I read up on this Karpyshyn guy and apparently he left because of *gasp* his own personal project (something called Child of Fire), also that he is going to write a TOR novel. Meaning that he probably wasn't canned because of his artistic integrity, considering hes still pursuing projects for Bioware.

Hyper-space:

boag:
No one is holding them at gun point, they are free to not change anything and tell customers to fuck off, but in doing so they will probably get less repeat customers.

And they didnt seem to give to many fucks when they canned Karpyshyn, when his artistic integrity became a bother to them.

No, they are just blowing everything out of proportion, going on a whine-crusade for the better part of 3 weeks now. They only tried to use child's play as a vehicle for their own selfish ambitions and to shame people who actually called them out on their bullshit with "Oh, you must not like CHARITY".

Shrugging all of the sudden and saying "We didn't do anything" doesn't cut it.

EDIT: Okay, I read up on this Karpyshyn guy and apparently he left because of *gasp* his own personal project (something called Child of Fire), also that he is going to write a TOR novel. Meaning that he probably wasn't canned because of his artistic integrity, considering hes still pursuing projects for Bioware.

You know, not everybody is raging and warring against Bioware, most are likely just saying "Hey, you'll fix it or you'll lose money in the future." Can we move past this misconception that the people who didn't like the ending and vocalizing their dislike, are raging and screaming and ranting and raving?

At any rate, vocalizing your dislike for something by making a donation in the name of your dislike is slightly retarded, yes.

Oh man, some video game ending was disappointing and not what we expected. That never happened before. Welp, I better go sign some petition right the fuck now

RedEyesBlackGamer:
I look forward to The Big Picture episode where he gets on his soapbox and starts hurling insults at us.

He used his other show The Gme overthinker to do that or at least I'm assuming that's what he did since you need an advantage account on screwattack to see the video until it gets officially released on Sunday, but the advantage program is a different rant for a different time.

Oh for fuck sake. Mass Effect isn't art, its not even a coherent story other than fan wank with a different skin.

All Bioware stories are the SAME every single time. The only difference is what kind of women they put on screen, but use the same tired archetypes.

Saying Mass Effect's ending is the worst thing to happen is like saying "the expendables" was the worst thing to happen to movies. Mass Effect is a product, and was marketed like one. Games like "dear Esther" are art, with some games in between. Gaming doesn't have to solely follow Mass Effect no more than COD. Consoles are no longer the only game in town for gaming. Demographics are changing, PC is gaining ground with alarming speed. Developers are finally tearing off their shackles. If Bob cannot understand the difference of how gaming has changed, he might as well live under a rock and write about the latest news... from 1987...

Gaming can STILL be art if we move out from the shadow of the dumbed down, popular games. Art is NEVER mainstream. Pop culture doesn't care for art, and it never has. The population cares for overblown rehashed shit. As long as a collect few make and consume art games, gaming is art. Period.

Trying to make art into mainstream pop culture is like bringing the Mona Lisa to a frat house party and asking them "how does this painting make you feel?"

Falcon123:

Ticonderoga117:

Falcon123:

*snip*

While I can't speak for everyone of course, I can say that I myself am not demanding a change. I really, REALLY, hope they do, but sadly, at the end of the day I'm not the head-honcho making decisions. However, is just saying "To hell with it" at the end of the day the best course of action? Personally, I don't think so, at least not here.

To keep this short, putting Bioware in the spot light for this disregard of their own promises and standards is much more effective than just shipping the game off. At least, in my opinion it is.

In the short term, you may be right. It sets a dangerous precedent though, especially given Bioware's prominence. That's what scares me, really. If Bioware is able to come out of all of this with massive DLC sales despite failing to deliver on their promises until they wrangled even more money out of us, I'll feel worse as a gamer as a whole, and there will be nothing stopping other companies from following in their footsteps

This is a VERY good point, and I agree that it would sicken me to see game developers make a good game with a crap end just so they can make even more money with a fix. However, considering certain publishers *cough*EA*cough* already seem to be gunning towards a "We're going to milk the money out of you anyway possible" through something like this, I can't say if this will hurry things on.

However, what this does set a good precedent for though is that if you seriously anger gamers, woe to the company that thinks they can do whatever they want. Ok, maybe not such a good idea, but I think it adds some balance into the relationship between us and them, which is a good thing.

Busard:
Oh man, some video game ending was disappointing and not what we expected. That never happened before. Welp, I better go sign some petition right the fuck now

.......Seriously?

10 pages of discussion about the issue in this thread ALONE and you still manage to miss the point so hard that the point is now so embarrassed for you that its gone home quietly weeping to itself.

Impressive.

anthony87:

Busard:
Oh man, some video game ending was disappointing and not what we expected. That never happened before. Welp, I better go sign some petition right the fuck now

.......Seriously?

10 pages of discussion about the issue in this thread ALONE and you still manage to miss the point so hard that the point is now so embarrassed for you that its gone home quietly weeping to itself.

Impressive.

I seriously do not care.

I tried for a while, answered some stuff in other threads, got interested for a while, but now I just don't.

After seeing the gajillion thread about the same video game, I just decided to go full troll mode until the weeping masses find some other VIDYAGAEM to be outraged about.

Pretty sure exactly the same thing happened with the novel Mass effect: deception. The novel didn't fit with the universe they had created and fan feedback got them to change it. What's so bad about that?

RedEyesBlackGamer:
I look forward to The Big Picture episode where he gets on his soapbox and starts hurling insults at us.

Just wait a few more days and watch his Game Overthinker episode.

I knew once Bob got wind of this, he would of course come out swing at the people complaining. Its going to be like his Escape to the Movies for The Expendables, or any other movie that he feels sets back civilization as a whole.

Busard:

anthony87:

Busard:
Oh man, some video game ending was disappointing and not what we expected. That never happened before. Welp, I better go sign some petition right the fuck now

.......Seriously?

10 pages of discussion about the issue in this thread ALONE and you still manage to miss the point so hard that the point is now so embarrassed for you that its gone home quietly weeping to itself.

Impressive.

I seriously do not care.

I tried for a while, answered some stuff, but I don't.

After seeing the gajillion thread about the same video game, I just decided to go full troll mode until the weeping masses find some other VIDYAGAEM to be outraged about.

Soooo we can go ahead and report you for trolling now. cool!

I love Moviebob, but I couldn't disagree more.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 20 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked