MovieBob's thoughts on the ME3 ending controversy

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NEXT
 

Apparently MovieBob has never seen a director's cut movie.

How many years was the movie industry set back when the Blade Runner director's cut came out and really screwed with your mind on the whole "Harrison Ford is/isn't a replicant" thing.

Or how about the Highlander 2 directors cut, which removed all references to Aliens and actually turned it into a decent movie. (debating whether or not to link Aliens meme guy .... nahhh)

Video games need an avenue by which "directors cuts" can be released. Maybe call it "dev cuts." : 'This is the game that the developers WANTED to deliver, before the Chairman of the Bored told us to screw it up for DLC.'

Orthon:

Kasurami:
'It's art!' is the most pathetic defence for anything ever. So what? Just because it's 'art' doesn't mean it's not open to criticism or challenge or God forbid revision. I guess Charles Dickens rewriting the ending to Great Expectations threw literature back a decade too? Jesus Christ. The word 'art' is the most transparent shield imaginable.

Few things are examined as closely, or criticised as thoroughly as art. Art isn't or shouldn't be a defense to criticism or inspection. If anything, it's an invitation. If people use it as a shield, they're wrong.

However, art is dictated by the authorial mandate of its creator(s). Admirers of a piece of art should not possess editorial power over it. The problem with this whole ME3 debacle is that instead of people saying more reasonable things such as "We though the ending was bad, because of this or that.", they are saying things like "Jesus Christ, this ending is so horrendous, we want you to change it, and you should because you owe us because this is a product, we're the customer, and we don't like it."

This is also why it's disappointing to see Bioware potentially cave in. What's happening is that if they decide to change the ending, they are not doing so based on a discussion with the fans in which the fans demand nothing. Instead, they're changing it because of an incredibly vocal part of the community that outright demands changes to the ending.

If they change it, it is because it will make business sense, as it made business sense to them to make promises that they could not deliver in the first place.

What people fail to understand is that in the moment Bioware chose to hype the ending with false statements the integrity speech seems way out of place. People felt deceived and, honestly, remake, add or explain the ending is an easy way out for Bioware because people love the product - if the rest of the game were that bad, people would be demanding their money back.

Also, you might think it is hideous to alter something due to popular demand, but it is actually quite common in the entertainment industry and it happened before with videogames (Fallout 3) and with Bioware (book Deception).

This indignation is late to the party.

I understand that the word "demand" must cause some chills but the truth is that this is a hyperbole much more smooth than "this whole thing is setting back the debate of games as art a decade!"

Reasonably, Bioware will probably maintain much of this ending, if not all and will just add or explain things better. No big deal. I understand the fan that felt betrayed being hyperbolic and exaggerating things, this is the Internets after all, but the same behavior from a journalist is out of place. Nobody even knows what Bioware is going to do.

Don't get me wrong, what you are saying is right in principle, but the ME3 endings are not in a vacuum. They must be seen in the proper context: false advertising, EA pushing for DLC (removing content from the original game) and a developer that said once and again that the game was co-created with the fans.

Probably will never understand why people have to be sore winners. Mass Effect Crybabies, you won. You complained enough that you got the ending you think you wanted. Now, even though this debate is over, now you have to use the anonymity of the Internet to "silence" any criticism that you think is coming your way.

Grow the hell up.

I now give Lucas a lot more credit with Star Wars for not listening to the outrage of the most vocal of his fans.

Everyone forget Fallout 3 did this same thing about 4 years ago and nothing happened, and it in fact made the game a more complete experience.

Despite everything ME3 is overall probably the best in the series and serves as a fitting entry minus the already infamous finale.

And even though the ending to ME3 is lazy, unstructured, and artistically barren; the fans really don't care. What the fans want is closure; they could have killed Shepard and done anything else that they wanted, but as long as they put closure to the other characters and conflict of the story this would be a different. The first thought after beating the game for most was that DLC was sure to come, but for most that just makes the situation worse. The thing with the ending with ME3 is that it fails in it's dénouement of the three part story structure. In the dénouement conflicts are supposed to be tied up and the audience should be clear of any threat at the ending. This is basic story writing 101 that I learned in High School, and that was apparently lost at this point in the game's writing. I myself was not cleared of my questions I just had more, and I was curious of what happened to the characters I spent so long training and traveling with.

The scary thing is that it appears that the closure was avoided just to turn the consumers into a cash cow for something they were already invested in. That wouldn't be shocking from some other companies, but this is Bioware a name that may from now one carry a warning depending on what happens in this situation.

And sole complaining fans are one thing but this ending debacle has created an entire organized community to complain about this and the organization is currently at about 50k+ members. That in itself is an accomplishment, and something that has yet to be seen in this medium that should serve as a sign that there is a problem here.

Everything else aside the game is a commodity and at the end of the day the creators must listen and rely on what the fans want. They do not have to give in but it would be bad business practice not to, and that is what they are is a business. Otherwise if Bioware chooses to not listen they would lose trust with the fans; a longstanding trust built over 10 years and several amazing games.

I don't see how that which is commercial, popular or "a form of entertainment" is immediately disqualified from being art. If it is disqualified then the standards to which "artness" holds itself must be so lofty, I wonder how any mortal has ever achieved anything resembling "art."

Not that I think games are art. I don't feel Roger Ebert's views on the subject have been effectively countered. I just wish gamers wouldn't think that "art" automatically equals "good" or "superior quality." "Art" is neither the most important, nor the highest obtainable status a medium can get.

Kasurami:
'It's art!' is the most pathetic defence for anything ever. So what? Just because it's 'art' doesn't mean it's not open to criticism or challenge or God forbid revision. I guess Charles Dickens rewriting the ending to Great Expectations threw literature back a decade too? Jesus Christ. The word 'art' is the most transparent shield imaginable.

boag:
wow, movie bob can be very near sighted sometimes.

Please someone tell me that this is not the first time such a thing was put down in print.

My own two cents: I like what Jim Sterling said a lot better. Also, I am one of those "crybabies" and had this been any other game developer I wouldn't have bothered saying anything at all. I only did because I'm under the impression that Bioware has a more intimate relationship with its fanbase than most and recognizes that we are also a fundamental part of their art. Games, their games, give and take. That is simply how it works. When a player finishes a game and ultimately feels nothing, feels that they have given nothing and taken nothing to or from a game, the art has failed in its purpose. We babies cry because we babies know that they are better than that failure. We cry because our contribution to the art has been overwritten.

SmarterThanYou:

dragonswarrior:
Eh. I usually like what MovieBob has to say, but he has always been way to into objectivism for my tastes.

Objectivism, and the idea of "an artists work is sacred and solely their own!!" is silly to begin with.

It's even sillier when applied to an interactive medium.

Here's a thing I don't understand. How does 'an artists work isn't their own', which is a false statement, relate in any way to 'interactive mediums'? Last I checked, stories were created the same way.

Why don't you explain that to me. That's a good little boy. Or rather, don't. :)

Tcha tcha tcha!! Of course you miss the point.

First of all, a work of anything (doesn't have to be art) will always be built off of inspiration gleaned from the works of others. This happens simply because of life. There is no such thing as originality, there is merely skill. I shouldn't have to explain any further, if you actually are Smarter Than Me then you should get all the implications of the above statements within five minutes of solid thinking.

Secondly, frequently an artist designs their work with the idea that once it is completed, the person enjoying the art wont be able to affect it in any way shape or form. There will be criticisms of course, but aside from turning the pages of a book or pressing the play button on your dvd player there will be no audience involvement in whatever medium. Except video games of course... So... Implications... The artist has to go into designing a video game with the idea that the audience will have some level of control or another over said game. This already changes the artist/enjoyer of said art dynamic. Which results in a change in the creation of the art itself. It's not merely writing a story or designing a beautiful setting. You have to go into making a game knowing that the player will be in control of a character (because that's how we do it) that will be moving through and interacting with said story and setting.

*sighs* You know, it's late, and as I said earlier, I have given you enough to understand if you actually decided to think about it. I don't feel like actually trying to drag these ideas into concise sentences that won't bore you. You can figure it out on your own.

I don't think you will. So I am going to dare you. That's right, I DARE you to take the time out and actually think about what I just said. You won't. But I dare you anyway.

Ebert may have been out of line talking about a medium he doesn't understand (which he admits), but I'd expect better from MovieBob, despite his sometimes baseless opinions and stances. And, for the record, Ebert is 100x the film critic Bob will ever be.

Don't know if anyone has seen this or really cares anymore but here you go anyway.
http://www.reddit.com/r/masseffect/comments/rcbta/dialog_cut_from_the_ending_spoilers/

I don't get the whole games are art thing. I've been playing since the 80's and they were toys then, and they're toys now. I think that people want to make them into a narrative/emotional experience has made them worse. There were similar discussions back in the early 90's when FMV/full motion video was first being incorporated into games and there were plenty of folks who referred to it as "garbage." Twenty years later, it looks better, it's prettier garbage, but that's about it.

If games are more interested in their story than being played, then i'm not interested in playing the game. Which is why my experience with the mass effect trilogy can sum 1, 2 and 3 up as neat, uh huh... and meh.

Saying that changing a product under fan reaction would somehow "Violate" it as art would mean that BioWare are, in fact, incapable of producing art. Since their artistic vision factors in the reaction of their audience.

Therefore, since they cannot produce art but have attempted to and have, in fact, changed it based on outside reaction (Because good artists NEVER listen to critique), they have inadvertently created a rip in space time that will rewind their respective medium one decade and the cycle will begin again so that the new organ- artists can be harvested by the fans and preserved in fan-fic form.

Bob now has 3 options
1) Destroy all fans, including critics. This will ultimately result in artists becoming fans of other artists, and new fans will thus be created.
2) Control the fans to ensure that they never attempt to hurt the artists with their stupid, smelly ideas ever again. This will result in Bob becoming a Mass Effect fan, and he too will eventually grow to despise the ending and attempt to change it himself, thus the industry will be destroyed. Because that's how multi-million dollar corporations work, when someone changes something in one of their products they just kind of crash and burn into obscurity and everyone starts hating them and FOX news and other associated idiots (And therefore everybody who matters) refuses to take them seriously
3) Fuse all artists and fans together... somehow. That way nobody can demand that art be changed because they themselves are all artists, and therefore totally identical and at complete peace, the artists that demanded Mass Effect 3 be changed before don't count LALALALA everything is happy forever!

But to assert such a thing would make you seem close-minded and entrenched in binary, single minded ideas that circle themselves more then marry-go-rounds. Glad nobody's doing that

I think the thing people aren't getting is that while games are defiantly art (By dictionary definition they factually are), they're not like any other work of art, and we shouldn't assume that they function the same way.

"To assume all races are like your own is racist" - Legion, Mass Effect 2

Even though other industries all have self destruct buttons that go off when something is changed after the magical time known as public release (Which NEVER happens, EVER!), games might not. This is why films and books are such underground and interdependently funded works, because corporations and sales projections have no hand in them whatsoever. If they did they would be rewinded so much that they would simply cease to exist. Oh the things they can teach us!

In all seriousness, art doesn't just die for no apparent reason when it gets changed. To suggest that art, literally defined as a product of human creativity, just ceases to be when someone else has a hand in it is totally arbitrary. What's even more arbitrary is to suggest that the entire industry will just change it's game plan because of this particular indecent. It's happened before, and not just in gaming. People might be more vocal this time but the fact remains that no one can force BioWare to do anything. The final say still rests where it always has. Everyone else in the industry will go about their business, fans will keep buying, critics will keep prophesying doom, and games will be no closer to or further from receiving the respect they deserve.

I doubt even BioWare will change when the smoke clears, if they really believe in themselves as artists, it's going to take more then one mistake, some lost fans, and an imaginary "Death of all art!" to stop them.

If that's all it takes they can't care that much.

lowkey_jotunn:
Apparently MovieBob has never seen a director's cut movie.

How many years was the movie industry set back when the Blade Runner director's cut came out and really screwed with your mind on the whole "Harrison Ford is/isn't a replicant" thing.

Or how about the Highlander 2 directors cut, which removed all references to Aliens and actually turned it into a decent movie. (debating whether or not to link Aliens meme guy .... nahhh)

Video games need an avenue by which "directors cuts" can be released. Maybe call it "dev cuts." : 'This is the game that the developers WANTED to deliver, before the Chairman of the Bored told us to screw it up for DLC.'

Something like what Bethesda does with it's GOTY editions, I would think. Seems we're getting pretty close.

I'm gonna have to agree with bob. I've posted lengthily on this before, so I'm just gonna leave it at this: If you change the art that you make at the whims of people who disliken it, then you cheapen both the product that you're changing and yourself as an artist.

Bob, im tired of your retarded view on everything, Your one sided "Im right so you go fuck yourself" agenda, your insult to your fans, you are terrible. All you care about is getting paid to be in a ninja suit and spout your crap to the masses. Shame on us you say? No, Shame on you, we all can tell you are trying to cause trouble, so sit down, shut up, and please for fucks sake stop adding fuel to the god damn fire. I did not see him bitching with Fallout 3 did the same god damn thing with Broken Steel.

I understand both points of view.

I agree with both in parts as well. I think this is the perfect opportunity to develop the gaming community in a more mature sense by creating positive debate and discussing how companies should develop/produce their works.

However, there are some members of this community that are taking the "burn him alive" stance and just over reaccting (like so many people do) and promoting a boycott of this/that/whatever - (ref anti-moviebob poll). This is NOT what we should be talking about. We shouldn't be even talking about MovieBob.

Members should use this statement as from an outsider looking into our community and approach the problem in that sense. Not throwing ridicule of "they dunt get et!" or "how would he no!". But I am fully aware that the loudest voices and frequent posters do indeed rule the day and the few calmer posts of reason from the quiet majority will be drowned out by the bile that media sites like to re-post and feed on.

I never played the series.

TL/DR - don't attack people just because you disagree with their points.

I wonder, if I could deliver, as a chef, dish after dish of tasty delights for 3 years, then one day, roll in, demand the most money I've ever demanded to date, and just take a giant fart right in your open mouth, and claim that if you complain (or ask for a refund or another meal), that you're setting back the culinary arts a decade, or that if I 'cave' in and give you a refund (or, god forbid, another meal), that nobody is going to take eating seriously ever again?

If straight up marketing lies, using DLC to swindle customers and dismantle market protections that customers have against the risk of bad games (used game sales), and then delivering an ending that's basically 'red explosion, green explosion, blue explosion' (none of which fit Shepherd's character or the themes of the whole trilogy a bit) is the definition of artistic integrity... then frankly I'd rather have the product over the art.

Any time I see anybody defend Bioware, and call lies like this stunt 'integrity' because it wore the mask of art, all I hear is a voice that screams "DON'T WANT, DON'T CARE, DON'T THINK; CONSUME, CONSUME, CONSUME"... And I wonder which of us is truly setting the medium back.

Best case scenario, doing what Movie Bob wants: The ending stays the 15 minute slapstick chucklefuck it is to 'preserve' it, and EA learns that as long as it has the proper brand or designer name, a fart in the mouth is the same to us as quality and that it retains integrity no matter how much it fails or lies as long as it claims that it's art in the end.

And people that don't take gaming seriously as an art medium continue to not take gaming seriously.

Edit: And considering the nature of last message asking you to CONSUME MORE DLC at the end, it wouldn't surprise me if the ending was so terrible on purpose so that in a month a 'new' DLC pack (already in production and on your disk likely) could come out with an 'updated' ending. For $14.99, no doubt.

zinho73:

If they change it, it is because it will make business sense, as it made business sense to them to make promises that they could not deliver in the first place.

What people fail to understand is that in the moment Bioware chose to hype the ending with false statements the integrity speech seems way out of place. People felt deceived and, honestly, remake, add or explain the ending is an easy way out for Bioware because people love the product - if the rest of the game were that bad, people would be demanding their money back.

Also, you might think it is hideous to alter something due to popular demand, but it is actually quite common in the entertainment industry and it happened before with videogames (Fallout 3) and with Bioware (book Deception).

This indignation is late to the party.

I understand that the word "demand" must cause some chills but the truth is that this is a hyperbole much more smooth than "this whole thing is setting back the debate of games as art a decade!"

Reasonably, Bioware will probably maintain much of this ending, if not all and will just add or explain things better. No big deal. I understand the fan that felt betrayed being hyperbolic and exaggerating things, this is the Internets after all, but the same behavior from a journalist is out of place. Nobody even knows what Bioware is going to do.

Don't get me wrong, what you are saying is right in principle, but the ME3 endings are not in a vacuum. They must be seen in the proper context: false advertising, EA pushing for DLC (removing content from the original game) and a developer that said once and again that the game was co-created with the fans.

Well, lying to your consumers to improve sales is good business sense in the short term, but in the long term, it's not very bright. I mean look at this mess. Bioware has done some serious damage to its own credibility that could possibly damage future sales of their games. Whether or not that occured to them, I do not know.

By the way, by all accounts it is possible that what Casey Hudson said was the plan at one point. The ending we have was rushed, after all(They said they had to reschedule voice-acting sessions because of rewrites) and it strikes me as odd that a developer would simply lie like that. It's either very naïve to expect no fallout from that, or unbelievably arrogant to assume that it wouldn't matter. Still, it's only speculation.

And yes, the people who defend Bioware(such as me) are essentially forced to play devil's advocate. I know. But I'm not honestly convinced by your argument that personal integrity and artistic integrity is one and the same, and forsaking one is forsaking the other. Some of the greatest artists of our time are or were complete douchenozzles, and that doesn't seem to hinder our enjoyment of their work.

P.S. Some people are demanding their money back. Didn't Origin and Amazon start handing out refunds?

I 110% agree with MovieBob. All of you whiners just proved that gaming isn't a mature medium and set back the medium a decade

JFuss:
Don't know if anyone has seen this or really cares anymore but here you go anyway.
http://www.reddit.com/r/masseffect/comments/rcbta/dialog_cut_from_the_ending_spoilers/

So much for artistic integrity. The game was obviously rushed.

*sigh* 15 pages of mostly moviebob slamming? Really? Look, what he's basically saying, if I understand him correctly, is that artists should produce art, not cave to the demands of people who would rather see it be different. Think about how good Stanley Kubrick's movies were. Some of those movies were highly controversial. Would they have been improved by a public outcry and then suddenly changing the movies to reflect what society wanted? Obviously not. That's where Moviebob is coming from here, I believe. For what it's worth, I think he's right about that. In theory, Bioware was making a specific artistic statement with their ending. I don't know what statement that is, having not played to the end yet, but that statement is compromised completely if the company suddenly decides to back off because of it's lack of popularity. Art does not bend to popularity. That would defeat the point of it being art.

Now, that's my opinion in general about what he had to say. On the specifics, the problem is that a game is not a movie, book, or painting. It is, by its nature, interactive. As such, this is not "THE" Commander Shepard having to live with the ending that happens, the same way that "THE" Darth Vader has to live with his ending or "THE" Hamlet has to live with his. This is "YOUR" Commander Shepard that has to live through this ending. As such, giving people agency over what is essentially their own avatar in the Mass Effect universe and then yanking that agency completely away from them creates a sense of deep betrayal. This is not just people watching a favorite movie character bite it. This isn't just watching Han change to shoot first. This is basically forcing you to change who you are to fit how the company wanted you to act for their ending.

For non-interactive art forms, Moviebob is completely correct. It's specifically the sense of player-imposed persona, the defining feature of video gaming as a means of conveying emotional weight, that makes the campaign to change ME3's ending(s) valid where they would never have been valid in any other art form. In effect, Bioware brought us into the creation process with them and, in the end, rather than work with us to produce a capstone to reflect all of the passionate effort put into it by both player and developer, they instead created a funnel to force all of those previous decisions into becoming essentially completely inconsequential. Your efforts have been removed for the sake of artistic vision. No other medium has to contend with such deep audience participation. That is what sets this concern apart from many other outcries of betrayal, such as when George Lucas decides that the next movie should be a romance between Boba Fett and Jabba the Hutt. In that case we are disappointed and infuriated that Lucas would mishandle his own property, but it is still his property to mishandle. With Mass Effect 3, it's not just their efforts they're mishandling. They gave you control until it mattered, then yanked it away at the last minute. How did you expect the audience to react?

Comrade_Beric:
*sigh* 15 pages of mostly moviebob slamming? Really? Look, what he's basically saying, if I understand him correctly, is that artists should produce art, not cave to the demands of people who would rather see it be different. Think about how good Stanley Kubrick's movies were. Some of those movies were highly controversial. Would they have been improved by a public outcry and then suddenly changing the movies to reflect what society wanted? Obviously not. That's where Moviebob is coming from here, I believe.

Yes. He is applying movie logic to video games. That's also one of the reasons why his argument fails.

Comrade_Beric:
For what it's worth, I think he's right about that. In theory, Bioware was making a specific artistic statement with their ending.

Not even in theory. They just rushed the game. There's no art in that. They're full of shit and they're insulting our intelligence. If they want games to be treated like art and not like products they have to create games like art and not like a products. It's as simple as that.

Adam Jensen:
stuff

Didn't read it all, did you?

Orthon:

zinho73:

If they change it, it is because it will make business sense, as it made business sense to them to make promises that they could not deliver in the first place.

What people fail to understand is that in the moment Bioware chose to hype the ending with false statements the integrity speech seems way out of place. People felt deceived and, honestly, remake, add or explain the ending is an easy way out for Bioware because people love the product - if the rest of the game were that bad, people would be demanding their money back.

Also, you might think it is hideous to alter something due to popular demand, but it is actually quite common in the entertainment industry and it happened before with videogames (Fallout 3) and with Bioware (book Deception).

This indignation is late to the party.

I understand that the word "demand" must cause some chills but the truth is that this is a hyperbole much more smooth than "this whole thing is setting back the debate of games as art a decade!"

Reasonably, Bioware will probably maintain much of this ending, if not all and will just add or explain things better. No big deal. I understand the fan that felt betrayed being hyperbolic and exaggerating things, this is the Internets after all, but the same behavior from a journalist is out of place. Nobody even knows what Bioware is going to do.

Don't get me wrong, what you are saying is right in principle, but the ME3 endings are not in a vacuum. They must be seen in the proper context: false advertising, EA pushing for DLC (removing content from the original game) and a developer that said once and again that the game was co-created with the fans.

Well, lying to your consumers to improve sales is good business sense in the short term, but in the long term, it's not very bright. I mean look at this mess. Bioware has done some serious damage to its own credibility that could possibly damage future sales of their games. Whether or not that occured to them, I do not know.

By the way, by all accounts it is possible that what Casey Hudson said was the plan at one point. The ending we have was rushed, after all(They said they had to reschedule voice-acting sessions because of rewrites) and it strikes me as odd that a developer would simply lie like that. It's either very naïve to expect no fallout from that, or unbelievably arrogant to assume that it wouldn't matter. Still, it's only speculation.

And yes, the people who defend Bioware(such as me) are essentially forced to play devil's advocate. I know. But I'm not honestly convinced by your argument that personal integrity and artistic integrity is one and the same, and forsaking one is forsaking the other. Some of the greatest artists of our time are or were complete douchenozzles, and that doesn't seem to hinder our enjoyment of their work.

P.S. Some people are demanding their money back. Didn't Origin and Amazon start handing out refunds?

Yeah, I know about the money back. Apparently some guy got his money back from EA too. But imagine this in the thousands.

Also, the problem with Hudson's statements is that some of them (and the most damaging) were made in January and February, when the game was already ready, waiting for certification. Well, this is all according to Bioware so the whole thing seems iffy one way or the other.

I think we are not talking about personal integrity as Hudson's and Walters speak for the company. It is about Bioware integrity as a whole in how they handle an artistic product. A rushed game or removed content are also things that are directly related with artistic integrity.

But the main beef people have with Bioware anyways is not an artistic one - I think this is really a false assumption that is contaminating the discussion. If the end was just terrible but made sense, had less plot holes and offer some kind of closure we wouldn't be here.

zinho73:

Yeah, I know about the money back. Apparently some guy got his money back from EA too. But imagine this in the thousands.

Also, the problem with Hudson's statements is that some of them (and the most damaging) were made in January and February, when the game was already ready, waiting for certification. Well, this is all according to Bioware so the whole thing seems iffy one way or the other.

I think we are not talking about personal integrity as Hudson's and Walters speak for the company. It is about Bioware integrity as a whole in how they handle an artistic product. A rushed game or removed content are also things that are directly related with artistic integrity.

But the main beef people have with Bioware anyways is not an artistic one - I think this is really a false assumption that is contaminating the discussion. If the end was just terrible but made sense, had less plot holes and offer some kind of closure we wouldn't be here.

Oh. Hadn't actually looked at the dates of the comments, simply that he had made them. Yeah, so much for that. My bad.

You are right in that we're not talking about the personal integrity of a few select people. Rather, it is a case of a company's integrity, and not somebody within that company. However, I was kind of using "personal integrity" to refer to Bioware as a whole, as ME3 was, after all, a team effort. It was a misnomer, though, to call it "personal integrity", and I should've clarified. Also, rushing a game or removing content doesn't really hurt artistic integrity, as art is allowed to be bad, stupid, or trite. The difference being that if you think it's art, you accept that it's bad and criticise it for being bad, while if you think it's a product, you register a complain that it isn't what you ordered.

Also, about your last point. I'm not sure. Those things you list in the last sentence are artistic criticisms, so to say that the main problem isn't artistic seems contradictory. What you basically say is that if you fix everything that's structurally bad with the ending, without fixing the large thematic inconsistency, people wouldn't freak out? Possibly, but I would still wager that they would complain, because of their large expectations of ME3. However, it is impossible to know, and therefore will remain unknown.

marurder:

TL/DR - don't attack people just because you disagree with their points.

did you tell bob that?

*sigh* Movie Bob, what have you gotten yourself into this time?

AndyCobra:
I 110% agree with MovieBob. All of you whiners just proved that gaming isn't a mature medium and set back the medium a decade

Care to explain how exactly? Or would that just require too much thinking for yourself?

Its a case of defending Artistic Integrity only if there even is ANY art to begin with. /ohsnap

Whatever that horrible excuse of an ending was, it sure as hell wasn't art. Bad art isn't the same as Good art, even though its all art. Heck, go look at that post about the guy who made an Iron Man face in his toilet out of his own blood and urine. Appearently to Bob, insulting that just "regresses the medium, man". I think Bob could agree! What if everyone who saw Transformers 3 wanted a refund or demanded they changed the ending or even the whole damn movie! I can sure tell ya who would be the first guy in line *ahem*.

Bob, I love your show, it's what kept me on the Escapist all those years ago after I had lost interest, but seriously. Over the years he has gone from "Under the rader, cool guy critic" to "fanboy nostalgia whore".

Edit: Even if you can consider that "ending" art, I'm sure EA just saw it as buisness opportunity to get the game out the door as fast as they could without having to work on an ending that would have worked for everyone, which, from what i can infer from all the supposed "statements" from those Final Hours app and such, the game seemed to be struggling to meet the 3/6/12 deadline so they crapped out on the last 4/5 of the game. I think people can admit after the whole Quarian/Geth Conflict, everything felt a little hastened. Either way: Moral Integrity is always > Artistic Integrity. Hudson straight out lied about the ending (already posted in the thread). We were given the exact opposite of what we were both assuming, and directly promised.

boag:
wow, movie bob can be very near sighted sometimes.

By "sometimes" you should mean most of the time. I still remember bob being a whiny bitch about how the expendables outsold scott pilgrim vs the world and calling everyone who watched it "sheep".

Movie Bob, your one ignorant snob who doesn't deserve one place on the escapist, let-alone two.

Jaeke:
Its a case of defending Artistic Integrity only if there even is ANY art to begin with. /ohsnap

Whatever that horrible excuse of an ending was, it sure as hell wasn't art. Bad art isn't the same as Good art, even though its all art. Heck, go look at that post about the guy who made an Iron Man face in his toilet out of his own blood and urine. Appearently to Bob, insulting that just "regresses the medium, man". I think Bob could agree! What if everyone who saw Transformers 3 wanted a refund or demanded they changed the ending or even the whole damn movie! I can sure tell ya who would be the first guy in line *ahem*.

Bob, I love your show, it's what kept me on the Escapist all those years ago after I had lost interest, but seriously. Over the years he has gone from "Under the rader, cool guy critic" to "fanboy nostalgia whore".

P.S.Even you can consider that "ending" art: Moral Integrity is always > Artistic Integrity

This is what I think whenever someone spews that "artistic integrity" nonsense.

No one with any artistic integrity would have let that absolute debacle of an ending be released. No one. The ending was so inexcusable on so many levels, that I can't help but laugh at people's attempts to defend it by calling it art. As if Art were not subject to ridicule and criticism.

StolenTaken from this article regarding the whole matter and why people are disappointed with the ending.

A pretty damn good read if I do say so myself.

Freakout456:
Everyone forget Fallout 3 did this same thing about 4 years ago and nothing happened, and it in fact made the game a more complete experience.

Despite everything ME3 is overall probably the best in the series and serves as a fitting entry minus the already infamous finale.

And even though the ending to ME3 is lazy, unstructured, and artistically barren; the fans really don't care. What the fans want is closure; they could have killed Shepard and done anything else that they wanted, but as long as they put closure to the other characters and conflict of the story this would be a different. The first thought after beating the game for most was that DLC was sure to come, but for most that just makes the situation worse. The thing with the ending with ME3 is that it fails in it's dénouement of the three part story structure. In the dénouement conflicts are supposed to be tied up and the audience should be clear of any threat at the ending. This is basic story writing 101 that I learned in High School, and that was apparently lost at this point in the game's writing. I myself was not cleared of my questions I just had more, and I was curious of what happened to the characters I spent so long training and traveling with.

The scary thing is that it appears that the closure was avoided just to turn the consumers into a cash cow for something they were already invested in. That wouldn't be shocking from some other companies, but this is Bioware a name that may from now one carry a warning depending on what happens in this situation.

And sole complaining fans are one thing but this ending debacle has created an entire organized community to complain about this and the organization is currently at about 50k+ members. That in itself is an accomplishment, and something that has yet to be seen in this medium that should serve as a sign that there is a problem here.

Everything else aside the game is a commodity and at the end of the day the creators must listen and rely on what the fans want. They do not have to give in but it would be bad business practice not to, and that is what they are is a business. Otherwise if Bioware chooses to not listen they would lose trust with the fans; a longstanding trust built over 10 years and several amazing games.

This. Biodrone or Mass Effect Crier, both can agree that there was little to no closure at all. All we were given were plot-holes and contradictions unending.

Captcha: know your rights

I like this new captcha system :D

Comrade_Beric:

Adam Jensen:
stuff

Didn't read it all, did you?

I don't think you and Bob understand how art really works.

You see, it's easy to just proclaim "This is what art is, this is what art isn't!" But art is incredibly subjective. if you think it's art, that's fine, but I don't have to share that belief, nor do I need to somehow treat something differently just because you think it's art.

In other words, if I don't think it's art, then I have no reason to give it the respect someone else thinks it's due. Because as far as i'm concerned, art is only as good as the method used to deliver it. In this case, complete shit. I've said it once already. if the fact that it's art needs to be used in defense against sloppy mechanics and rookie mistakes, then the artistic statement being made deserves neither my respect nor my recognition.

Ultratwinkie:
You assume gaming is anything like the art market, and assume what I mean. Since when was money (around 20-100 million minimum) was thrown around on that scale? taking years to make? and was so risky NO publisher would DARE make a game that wasn't a sequel? When has anyone made "Mona Lisa 2: the half-smile returns?"

You assume gaming is even close to the art of the past. When something gets that big, with that much money and fear, it becomes a industry of "safes."

They refuse to do anything beyond what is basic, invalidating the big budget market for the time being. The AAA market is not known for its artistic merit, because AAA games are in the same boat as block buster movies.

When the AAA market is that restricted, art cannot form. Only when the corporations and red tape go away can it form. This is the reason art didn't form on consoles after the PS2 era past.

Ok, i'm about done with you. Actually read up on these subjects and present me with examples of why i'm wrong before pulling the same reply out of your arse again, or you won't get an answer from me.

Let's answer your question: "Since when was money (around 20-100 million minimum) was thrown around on that scale?" Since movies became big business. Just because it hadn't happened with games yet, doesn't mean that we have no comparison. Movies started small too, then they started sinking into the habits of the populace and voilà, big budget.

Do you think making movies is not risky? I hope you don't think so, because it is, quite a lot. Movies bomb on a regular basis and studios are never happy about it, even when they are low budget (money IS money, afterall).

And yet, are there NO movies worth the label "art" with a big budget? There are quite a lot. Sure, they use their budget WISELY, instead of using it on robot testicles like some Michael of my knowing, but they still have a big budget nonetheless. "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus", "Burn after reading" "No country for old men" and so on.

And like movies, there are legitimately AAA games that try to push the envelope, they live off fans of the makers rather than of the previous titles (Not all companies are, afterall, consistent in the quality and style of their output enough to warrant fanbases). There are comparatively fewer, like there were fewer movies that took risks back at the time of Charlie Chaplin, who mainly made comedies, and then, one day, decided to mock the head of the nazi party and call him out on his bullshit.

You can't demand of a medium actions that are still not within its reach. Videogames are about 30 years old, movies were not as complex and poignant as they are now when they were 30 years old. There were exceptions, like "Metropolis", but they weren't for the masses. Like deliberately "art" games are now.

(Furthermore, while movies are still a passive medium that, therefore, follows rules that are still valid for books, comics and any kind of traditional narrative, games are an entirely new type of narrative, a narrative that has to be delivered to an active participant, if not in its plotline, which could very well be fixed, in the unfolding of the events themselves. This means many rules need to be rethought to adapt to this delivery, which means the medium starts at a disadvantage already.)

To give you an example of what i mean: Atlus, with their recent "Catherine", have delivered a game that, while not flawless in any respect, is clearly taking a risk. It's an unusual story that touches themes that are largely taboo in the videogame industry because of the general misconception that games must be catered to the average squeamish american that giggles at the mention of sex like a twelve year old boy.

If a movie did that exact same plot, it would be run of the mill (excluding the most mindfucky aspects, mind you), because movies already overcame that misconception about what could and could not be filmed - to some extent - and therefore it would not be significant for them. It is for gaming, though.

And while i agree that there are not MANY examples of games that try to push the boundaries, wheter they be AAA or indie, you know as well as i do that there are.

On the other hand there is your claim that art was not always like this, on which i have to disagree. The reason why you're convinced that it is so is, once again, lack of historical perspective on the matter.

The reason why you think the average quality of older art was better, which is clear by how you say that this is an industry of safes, implying it was not always, is that you don't take in account how people record things.

Art has to be preserved, in order for us to know it. We know there were many more greek writers than those we actually have works of. That's because only the exceptionally good ones were preserved. We know that during the reneissance there were lots of painters in Italy. We still have lots of their paintings and i can assure you (I live in Italy, witnessed them firsthand) that they're absolutely banal and they all look alike. Those we remember were the exceptional ones, but the average renaissance paintings were safely imitating the genuinely good articles.

Same goes for any period of history. Someone does something original, it sells well, people copy it. It happens today with all forms of media, and it happend for every medium since its inception. Whether it be cinema, painting, literature, music and, today, gaming.

It's not special, it's not a horrible sign of the inevitable decline of art and the human species as a whole, it's just proof that not all artists are as good and creative as eachother. That's it.

By the way, Bob posted more on Twitter: "The "commissioned art" argument is a new wrinkle - they realize in that analogy EA is the "commissioner," right? Not them?"

He's got it wrong again. EA might have requested that Bioware make Mass Effect 3 to certain guidelines, but the entity that's paying for the game is the PLAYER. Game design is about making the player HAVE FUN. Hell, the #1 design motto for a video game is almost always "How do we make the players have fun?".

In an RPG, the ending is one of the primary factors in whether the game is fun or not. You're striving towards a goal, and when the resolution of that goal is so poorly written and inflexible as ME3, you can be sure that people aren't having fun. The fact that so many fans are petitioning Bioware to change the game PROVES that it wasn't fun. Worse, unlike a FPS or RTS, the final ending of an RPG echoes along the entire length of the gameplay from start to finish. This is why RPGs with incredible endings but mediocre gameplay can be regarded so positively in hindsight, and it's why players go back again and again to play them.

Arthur Conan Doyle didn't bring Holmes back to life because his publishers told him to. He did it because his fans wanted him to. The books were always designed to please his readers, not his editors.

TLDR: Good artistic vision and appealing to your target demographic aren't mutually exclusive, and Bob doesn't get this.

P.S. Can't wait to see his Game Overthinker video. If he can't explain his position using sound logic then I'm done with him.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked