I'm sorry, but we cannot use your definition. Games aren't made to be judged on aesthetics, rather games are made for profit and judged on entertainment value.
Look up the definition of aesthetics. Aesthetics doesn't mean looks.
I think he understood the definition just fine.
I wonder how cowpoo will try to fit game balance and simulationism under aesthetics.
I always thought that the special love Bioware gets for its "art" was kind of funny, given how their games are almost always rehashed plots mashed together from tropes and clichés.
Dirty Hipsters: normally level headed people, like our very own Moviebob
Let's not go crazy now.
Edit: to be clear, there are times I agree with MovieBob (probably less than I disagree, but they definitely happen). Nevertheless, I wouldn't call him level-headed one way or the other. He's pretty reactionary.
And pretty fanboyish when it comes down to it.
Maybe not on every issue, but he's far from the level-headed type.
Changing a piece of media for "fans" isn't a new concept either. Hell, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle originally killed off Sherlock Holmes back in "The Adventures of the Final Problem" but brought him back from the dead years later because of fan outcry and because he needed the money, effectively changing the ending of the series. Did doing this sully literature or do irreparable harm to the integrity of literature as an art-form? It certainly did not.
Oh, this again. The same erroneous concepts brought up for the fiftieth time.
*clears throat*
Actually, there's no real evidence he needed the money. There's no evidence it was directly to fan outcry, and fans were satisfied with a new adventure that took place prior to Holmes' assumed death. Clearly, he could have written within that context and still made money if that was the only issue.
You are assuming, for the sake of convenience, reasons which have no real supported evidence. This is conspiracy theory logic, and in no way furthers any real discussion on matters at hand. Citing as precedent that which may not have been actually even true is a type of logical fallacy whose name I forget at the moment.
I'm sorry, but we cannot use your definition. Games aren't made to be judged on aesthetics, rather games are made for profit and judged on entertainment value.
Look up the definition of aesthetics. Aesthetics doesn't mean looks.
I think he understood the definition just fine.
Hardly, since aesthetics mean entertainment value, and video games turn a profit only if they're entertaining.
Draech: Where is the petition to change the ending to Lost?
Was Lost advertised as offering different outcomes based on user input?
Was Lost a product of a medium that ALLOWED for different outcomes based on user input?
Was Lost a product of a medium that allows for post-release patches, expansions, and DLC that change the content and nature of the show?
I can answer all of those questions for you, if you want. Television shows are a terrible analogue for games. Movies are a terrible analogue for games. Books are a terrible analogue for games. This facile analogy has not become any more compelling since the first time you floated it out there.
But regardless, let's accept for a moment that all these things ARE the same, and simply fall under the same nebulous umbrella, which we'll call "Art". Now, I am given to understand that your perspective is that "Art" should never, ever be altered, save at the creator's whim. No form of outside influence or input can ever be permitted, or the sanctity of the "Art" umbrella has been breached, and all of the glittering Art magic leaks out into the atmosphere, never to be recovered.
As evidence for why this should be, you will reference things like "Lost" or "Sopranos" as incidences of unpopular endings that remain unchanged, whilst handwaving examples such as "Great Expectations", "Sherlock Holmes", or the popularly referenced "Broken Steel", as incidences where works were changed due to feedback. Perhaps incomprehensibly, these changes occurred without setting their mediums back decades, or demolishing the reputations of the works in question, or decimating the definition of "art".
Let me ask you this...is "Art" now a label that can be slapped on anything to render it completely impervious to all forms of criticism, rebuke, or revision? If I half-ass something completely, then sell it to an outraged public, can I then casually dismiss all censure with the simple provision that it's art, and they just don't properly understand or appreciate it? What if Bioware changed the game in such a way that it became more meaningful? Thematically richer? More profound? More emotionally engaging? Would that not better forward the cause of "Art" then leaving it as confounding rubbish? Why must we always stare down this specious assertion that ANY change to the ME3 ending will automatically result in it becoming more lowest common denominator, when, even by the admission of its most ardent defenders, it is already poorly conceived and executed?
Draech: That is where the difference is. If this method of thinking becomes common place I fear for where it could end.
You're afraid for where what will end? The changing of art in response to feedback? Something that's been around for CENTURIES? You're afraid where that will end up, are you? Because of Mass Effect 3?
As long as we're standing on the edges of our slippery slopes, peering nervously into the alarming depths below, why don't we talk about where things end up when we can justify the existence of any piece of lazy, half-baked, incomplete nonsense as "Art". Art has a pretty shifty definition, and we could spend all day arguing about what it is, but I'm pretty sure "defense of crap" shouldn't be near the top of the list.
maybe i missed it, in your very logical rant that i was reading, but people also keep forgetting to mention that you don't have to pay a lick to watch lost legally. (besides electricity and tv obviously.) while mass effect there is gonna cough you up a solid 60 dollars legally, 70 if you want the day one DLC.
i think that is another big reason as to why mass effect is worth making complaints about enough to fix. (along with everything else you said.)
Seriously, this damn backlash of "artsy" people is quite hilarious. I never knew so many for lack of a better word "gaming hipsters" were so worried about what people thought of the medium regardless of what "damage" a single game does to it.
Draech: Where is the petition to change the ending to Lost?
Was Lost advertised as offering different outcomes based on user input?
Was Lost a product of a medium that ALLOWED for different outcomes based on user input?
Was Lost a product of a medium that allows for post-release patches, expansions, and DLC that change the content and nature of the show?
I can answer all of those questions for you, if you want. Television shows are a terrible analogue for games. Movies are a terrible analogue for games. Books are a terrible analogue for games. This facile analogy has not become any more compelling since the first time you floated it out there.
But regardless, let's accept for a moment that all these things ARE the same, and simply fall under the same nebulous umbrella, which we'll call "Art". Now, I am given to understand that your perspective is that "Art" should never, ever be altered, save at the creator's whim. No form of outside influence or input can ever be permitted, or the sanctity of the "Art" umbrella has been breached, and all of the glittering Art magic leaks out into the atmosphere, never to be recovered.
As evidence for why this should be, you will reference things like "Lost" or "Sopranos" as incidences of unpopular endings that remain unchanged, whilst handwaving examples such as "Great Expectations", "Sherlock Holmes", or the popularly referenced "Broken Steel", as incidences where works were changed due to feedback. Perhaps incomprehensibly, these changes occurred without setting their mediums back decades, or demolishing the reputations of the works in question, or decimating the definition of "art".
Let me ask you this...is "Art" now a label that can be slapped on anything to render it completely impervious to all forms of criticism, rebuke, or revision? If I half-ass something completely, then sell it to an outraged public, can I then casually dismiss all censure with the simple provision that it's art, and they just don't properly understand or appreciate it? What if Bioware changed the game in such a way that it became more meaningful? Thematically richer? More profound? More emotionally engaging? Would that not better forward the cause of "Art" then leaving it as confounding rubbish? Why must we always stare down this specious assertion that ANY change to the ME3 ending will automatically result in it becoming more lowest common denominator, when, even by the admission of its most ardent defenders, it is already poorly conceived and executed?
Draech: That is where the difference is. If this method of thinking becomes common place I fear for where it could end.
You're afraid for where what will end? The changing of art in response to feedback? Something that's been around for CENTURIES? You're afraid where that will end up, are you? Because of Mass Effect 3?
As long as we're standing on the edges of our slippery slopes, peering nervously into the alarming depths below, why don't we talk about where things end up when we can justify the existence of any piece of lazy, half-baked, incomplete nonsense as "Art". Art has a pretty shifty definition, and we could spend all day arguing about what it is, but I'm pretty sure "defense of crap" shouldn't be near the top of the list.
It isn't response to feedback.
There is a definite difference between "This Is crap" and "This is crap. Change it!"
Get it through your skull Guppy. Stop selectively qouting me in order defeat a point i didn't make. I have never been against feedback. I have been against gamers thought set of "we have the right to change this". No! you have a right to your opinion! Whatever the creator does with it is their business. NOT OURS!
Judge! That is all you can do. Not rule.
And I am well aware of your attitude of the "Fans" should be in control of their favourite franchise. The problem is you dont get to decide what the fans are. that you are part of them now doesn't mean you will be tomorrow. If a big enough group starts demanding that violence should be removed from video games. That is feedback. They MUST follow it?
Look up the definition of aesthetics. Aesthetics doesn't mean looks.
I think he understood the definition just fine.
Hardly, since aesthetics mean entertainment value, and video games turn a profit only if they're entertaining.
I guess we really need to feed you your own advice and quote the definition for you: "Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste, and with the creation and appreciation of beauty."
Entertainment nowhere in sight. Moreover, games are based on rational concepts.
Gameplay design is mathemetics and empirical data. For strategy games it's unit costs, opportunity costs, dps, etc. Effective character builds in RPGs like WOW are basicly math problems, solved by a few and copied by everyone. For flight sims and realistic racing games: does it handle like the real vehicle. Empirical data. Even for a platformer it's still a question of how well do our playtesters perform.
And yet, if their choice, upon receiving feedback, is to say "I guess we will change it", we get to hear about how they're setting the medium back decades and how they've sacrificed their artistic integrity? We get to hear you wringing your hands about where it's all going to end? I don't see much allowance for "choice" in that formula.
I've said "This is crap, change it because you CAN", not "Change it because you MUST". I think it's in their best interests to change it. Hell, I think it's in the best interests of ART to change it. But I've never said they MUST change. Others, however, you included, and MovieBob up there, are saying they MUST NOT.
And nowhere have I ever said the fans should be IN CONTROL of the franchise. I've argued against authorial fiat, not in favor of turning around and giving it to fans instead, which would be equally retarded.
And yet, if their choice, upon receiving feedback, is to say "I guess we will change it", we get to hear about how they're setting the medium back decades and how they've sacrificed their artistic integrity? We get to hear you wringing your hands about where it's all going to end? I don't see much allowance for "choice" in that formula.
I've said "This is crap, change it because you CAN", not "Change it because you MUST". I think it's in their best interests to change it. Hell, I think it's in the best interests of ART to change it. But I've never said they MUST change. Others, however, you included, and MovieBob up there, are saying they MUST NOT.
And nowhere have I ever said the fans should be IN CONTROL of the franchise. I've argued against authorial fiat, not in favor of turning around and giving it to fans instead, which would be equally retarded.
Oh ok
"This is crap, change it because you CAN" isn't you demanding change. Got it. You dont want control....
"This is crap, change it because you CAN" isn't you demanding change. Got it. You dont want control....
No, that's feedback.
"Don't change it, you mustn't change it, you are sacrificing your artistic integrity, we're all going to go tumbling down a slippery slope" is no less grasping for control if you're going to be absurd about it.
If you respect the creator so fucking much, respect that they decided to listen to feedback. Why is that hard to understand?
To all who feel that "art is somehow an unequivocal expression of its creator" I give you this link: http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-role-of-the-player Hopefully this vid will show you why a lot of people are pissed about the lack of choice in the ending of ME3, of how our choices eventually did not have as great a consequence on the outcome as we originally thought and why we're angry with it. And for all who agree, share this link with all who feel we are wrong.
"This is crap, change it because you CAN" isn't you demanding change. Got it. You dont want control....
No, that's feedback.
"Don't change it, you mustn't change it, you are sacrificing your artistic integrity, we're all going to go tumbling down a slippery slope" is no less grasping for control if you're going to be absurd about it.
If you respect the creator so fucking much, respect that they decided to listen to feedback. Why is that hard to understand?
And again you go for something I never said. Please point me to my quote where I am going against them changing it rather than going against the people demanding them to change it.
Like you do. Feedback stops at "this is crap". An order begins the second you put in the "change it" No matter what your reasons are.
Cowpoo: Mathematizing something doesn't make it math. You can mathematize music, and it will still be art.
Aesthetics, what you defined, is a branch of philosophy, I mentioned aesthetic judgement, which is something different.
GTFO and take a philosophy class.
You haven't actually posed YOUR definition of aesthetics (or aesthetic judgement like you want to call it just now), beyond saying "meaning no rational thought is involved in judging" I proved there is much rational thought involved, both in the creation AND judging, so games are not a matter of aesthetics then.
Draech: And again you go for something I never said.
Please point me to my quote where I am going against them changing it rather than going against the people demanding them to change it.
Like you do. Feedback stops at "this is crap". An order begins the second you put in the "change it" No matter what your reasons are.
So this is now boiling down to semantics with you, then?
1. This is the worst pile of shit I've ever seen, bar none = acceptable criticism. 2. This is the worst pile of shit I've ever seen, bar none, maybe you should consider changing it = the end of all art as we know it.
I'll leave this PA quote here, from Tycho:
Ownership is a very complicated business when it comes to cultural product, though. They succeed by virtue of the fact that we, as players, incorporate these stories into our lives. I've always wondered what the conflux of digital goods, interactive storytelling, algorithmic content creation, and democratized funding mean for an idea like authorship. I think we're beginning to find out.
I mean, god forbid, as we watch a new medium mature as an art form, that we adopt our concept of authorship to fit the nature of the medium. Rather than clinging to antiquated notions of authorship as it applies to other mediums, and forcing this new one to adhere to them.
Draech: And again you go for something I never said.
Please point me to my quote where I am going against them changing it rather than going against the people demanding them to change it.
Like you do. Feedback stops at "this is crap". An order begins the second you put in the "change it" No matter what your reasons are.
So this is now boiling down to semantics with you, then?
1. This is the worst pile of shit I've ever seen, bar none = acceptable criticism. 2. This is the worst pile of shit I've ever seen, bar none, maybe you should consider changing it = the end of all art as we know it.
And that is the second time you tried to mislead the argument.
Btw you still havn't quoted me being against them changing the ending, rather than the people demanding it changed. You dont get to drop that and then just leave.
But let us use your method. See if i can do this
Change your ending because you can = not an order
EDIT: Oh you just give it away in the hopes from an argument from authority?
You do believe you have ownership over it. Just stay with your stance then. You should have kept arguing that video games were different from other mediums because they are publicly owned.
Aesthetic judgement is judging (wether something is apealing or not) based on your sensory-emotional response to it. Which can be shortened to "not judging it with rational thought".
You didn't prove shit. You simply stated something.
Draech: And that is the second time you tried to mislead the argument.
Btw you still havn't quoted me being against them changing the ending, rather than the people demanding it changed. You dont get to drop that and then just leave.
But let us use your method. See if i can do this
Change your ending because you can = not an order
Draech, your slippery slope argument, posted in a thread about the hyperbolic presumption that a change to ME3's ending would be an assault on Art, came across as "if this is changed, god help us all". As you've since refined your position to indicate you're worried about fans feeling empowered to assume a position of authorial control over the content they're fed, I changed the tone of the discussion. Presumably because I thought this was a DISCUSSION, and not a slap and tickle fight in which you bicker over semantics, fuss about the nebulous distinctions of "demands vs feedback", and persist in comparing a video game to a television show.
Draech: Oh you just give it away in the hopes from an argument from authority?
You do believe you have ownership over it. Just stay with your stance then. You should have kept arguing that video games were different from other mediums because they are publicly owned.
I quoted a perspective that I thought nicely summarized a perspective I hold that has never changed. If you want to view that as an appeal to authority, you go right ahead. Appeals to authority do seem to be your stock and trade, as you've been trumpeting the righteousness of authorial fiat since this debacle started.
I believe that the player of a game has more...not complete...more ownership/involvement in the experience then the reader of a book or the viewer of a show. Yes, I do.
Draech: And that is the second time you tried to mislead the argument.
Btw you still havn't quoted me being against them changing the ending, rather than the people demanding it changed. You dont get to drop that and then just leave.
But let us use your method. See if i can do this
Change your ending because you can = not an order
Draech, your slippery slope argument, posted in a thread about the hyperbolic presumption that a change to ME3's ending would be an assault on Art, came across as "if this is changed, god help us all". As you've since refined your position to indicate you're worried about fans feeling empowered to assume a position of authorial control over the content they're fed, I changed the tone of the discussion. Presumably because I thought this was a DISCUSSION, and not a slap and tickle fight in which you bicker over semantics, fuss about the nebulous distinctions of "demands vs feedback", and persist in comparing a video game to a television show.
I have no clue what you are talking about. Please quote it.
I have had the same position the entire time. I am not going to quote myself in order to prove my point.
I have a problem with Gamers overstating their lvl of involvement
Aesthetic judgement is judging (wether something is apealing or not) based on your sensory-emotional response to it. Which can be shortened to "not judging it with rational thought".
You didn't prove shit. You simply stated something.
You need to up your comprehension skills.
No need to become rude. We are judging games with rational thought. I even gave examples and there is no counter argument. Not an aesthetic judgement then.
Aesthetic judgement is judging (wether something is apealing or not) based on your sensory-emotional response to it. Which can be shortened to "not judging it with rational thought".
There are people that are still clinging to the artificial distinction between "emotion" and "rationality?"
Let's put it this way: if something annoys me or makes me happy, it does so for reasons. I can unpack these reasons and express them as a "rational" judgment of the thing I am reacting to. Other people might or might not find this judgment persuasive, depending on what reasons they have for liking or disliking things.
Draech: I have no clue what you are talking about. Please quote it.
Draech: If this method of thinking becomes common place I fear for where it could end.
Given the OP and the discussion in the thread, I misunderstood WHICH slippery slope you were concerned about.
Regardless, I do think you are completely overstating the ability, or even the volition, of an audience to "bully" developers into doing what they want. Can you acknowledge that part of the reason the pressure on Bioware is as high as it is, and the clamor as loud as it is, is due to the fact they bungled it as badly as they did? If you've managed to almost universally antagonize your fan base with your artistic choices (and seriously, can we not agree that the "art" is not the only thing at question when it comes to the quality issues with that ending), then are you not looking at what could most charitably be described as failed art? Why NOT revisit it, at that point? What is there to be lost? A piece of shitty art that few people enjoyed?
I agree but good luck getting any of the "Video games are art" crowd to believe that. They are pretty set in their ways. As I said in another thread, we are way too blanket about the whole "video games are art". Even if they were, not all of them are. A lot of them are just cash grabs, designed to suck as much money out of you as possible, hell, I'd argue the majority are. Therefore I find it hard to get all upset about Bioware changing a god awful ending to their game. It isn't like they made that ending out of the warmness of their hearts, they rushed it because that is what Bioware does, at least since they became part of the EA machine.
Scabadus: Wasn't there a Mass Effect book released a while back full of errors and plot-holes that is being re-written by... whoever is responsible for such things? Why is this acceptable, yet changing the end of Mass Effect 3 (an ending based off of errors and plot-holes) is somehow lessening the artistic integrity of the medium?
thats actually a really good point.. we have a mass effect novel full of plot holes, continuity errors and characters that were changed for no reason and bioware said they would change it.. i dont remember anyone talking about artistic integrity then and i dont see it any different from whats happened with ME3
nikki191: thats actually a really good point.. we have a mass effect novel full of plot holes, continuity errors and characters that were changed for no reason and bioware said they would change it.. i dont remember anyone talking about artistic integrity then and i dont see it any different from whats happened with ME3
Presumably it's because this time a few of the more fiery detractors had the temerity to use the word "demand", changing it from a request to a loaded gun.
Karnesdorff: Wait, what? I'd confidently say about 75% of that stuff isn't in the game.
Eesh, you're right. I just took a closer look. A lot of that stuff ISN'T in the game.
I pretty much agree with OP. Obsidian releasing Broken Steel didn't set a horrible new precedent, and I really doubt ME3's ending being changed will. Every other medium has gone through the "Death of the Author" phase. Besides, fan input changes what the next entry, the next DLC, the next patch will include. And editors, producers, executives, actors, directors, writers, designers, fans so many people are involved with altering a work before and after its release.
And with people like Grey Carter and Moviebob being so down on the ending being changed, I am getting pretty annoyed. I like and respect both of them as content creators and as people in general, but I think the backlash to the backlashhas also gone too far now. It's gone from being the voice of reason to an overly critical, hyperbolic and reactionary voice.
This whole ugly mess is really unfortunate. Mass Effect 3 was a great game, and I hate to have all this spoil that.
That said I'm excited about getting a new ending too.
More on topic, as other have said, I doubt so many people would be wanting DLC to change the game if Bioware hadn't made it part of its marketing strategy to sell DLC that changes its games post-release.
ME2 for example, has a fair bit of story DLC that changes both it's own story and ME3's when you get to it - a lot of the time giving you a better option later than you would have had without it (for example, if you have the ME2 Kasumi DLC, in ME3 and either/or choice becomes an 'all of the above' gain).
Draech: I have no clue what you are talking about. Please quote it.
Draech: If this method of thinking becomes common place I fear for where it could end.
Given the OP and the discussion in the thread, I misunderstood WHICH slippery slope you were concerned about.
Regardless, I do think you are completely overstating the ability, or even the volition, of an audience to "bully" developers into doing what they want. Can you acknowledge that part of the reason the pressure on Bioware is as high as it is, and the clamor as loud as it is, is due to the fact they bungled it as badly as they did? If you've managed to almost universally antagonize your fan base with your artistic choices (and seriously, can we not agree that the "art" is not the only thing at question when it comes to the quality issues with that ending), then are you not looking at what could most charitably be described as failed art? Why NOT revisit it, at that point? What is there to be lost? A piece of shitty art that few people enjoyed?
Now I have problem with improving it. It is the method I am against.
I am going to pull the ME book as an example again.
A lot of fans found flaws (there were ALOT of them. And flaws might be to soft a word), but rather than demand a change they just vent and criticized it. Bioware went ahead and want to change the book (not sure how far that got, didn't keep up with it). The whole idea seemed kinda alien and embarasing to the general public, but I had the opinion of "ok at least they listen to critic and are doing something". Had no problem with them changing it. Had no problem with the way the critique was handled either.
Then we get to the ending of ME3. Now people have no problem demanding a change. Not only because they feel it is a breach of contract, but also because they feel they have the right to demand the change because of the very nature of the medium (your argument). And that is where have my problem! I think it breaks the "My right to extend my fist stops before your face". I dont think "the very nature of the medium" is a good enough excuse to demand things. I dont see why it should be differentiate from other mediums just because of our lvl of involvement within the product. There is no question the JK Rowling get to decided how/where to take Harry Potter no matter how much the public feels attached to it.
Let your opinion be heard. Always. Everyone who works with any form of entertainment will have to deal with the feedback. But demanding the ending changed is to me no different to demand George Calin to tone down his swearing.
Karnesdorff: Wait, what? I'd confidently say about 75% of that stuff isn't in the game.
Eesh, you're right. I just took a closer look. A lot of that stuff ISN'T in the game.
That's good to know. Even though I knew I'd 100%'d the game before the final mission I needed a quick trip to the ME Wiki to double check I hadn't just accidentally messed it all up.
That image is riddled with inaccuracies, for example, you can't even go anywhere immediately before Earth, the last two missions are played back to back, Harbinger hits you no matter what, the Geth never fall under Reaper control in the final battle, there's no fighting on the Citadel, etc, etc...
Good lord, the more I look at that image the more I see it's either a blatant fabrication or a wish list for what the ending should have been like. I'd have been happy with the ending that's on that flowchart
Draech: Now I have problem with improving it. It is the method I am against.
Well, you've clarified. I've clarified. We will, at the end of all things, have to agree to disagree. I hear that you don't want art being dictated by consensus. I hear that, I respect that. I feel that a product that allows for parallel endings will not and cannot be harmed by adding more, especially when the ones originally on offer suffered from...let's call them "serious quality control" issues. I know you don't like fans being noisy and demanding, but in an industry where the critics are in bed with the developers, I think the fans NEED to be noisy and demanding if they don't want to utterly voiceless.
Let's see what they end up doing with this hypothetical DLC. My guess is if they improve the game and satisfy the bulk of their critics, all this controversy will wither up and blow away, and we'll be back to clawing at one another over $10 DLC.
I think it breaks the "My right to extend my fist stops before your face". I dont think "the very nature of the medium" is a good enough excuse to demand things. I dont see why it should be differentiate from other mediums just because of our lvl of involvement within the product. There is no question the JK Rowling get to decided how/where to take Harry Potter no matter how much the public feels attached to it.
And here we see why 'Games are Art' has a long way to go, too many people clamouring for it are still comparing games to other mediums, rather than being confident enough in gaming to allow it to form its own artistic tropes. I reckon Terminator 2 would be a terrible novel, but you know what? WHO CARES? It's not a novel, it's a film and secure enough in its nature as a film to not worry about being judged by another media forms standards.
None of this matters because the whole debate is more or less irrelevant. The real issue boils down to this: THEY WILL NEVER MAKE EVERY SINGLE PERSON HAPPY NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO, NO ONE CAN.
An ending to a series like this will always piss off a lot of people because everyone is going to have their own ideas about how it should end. If Bioware changes it now all they'll be doing is choosing which little fractured part of their fanbase they don't want to enrage and by doing so piss off everyone else.
Some people liked it, some people didn't, that's how it been since the beginning of storytelling, but the people who hated it always end up being the more vocal of the two whether they're the majority or not. Rewriting it now will just play favorites at best, and no one will ever be able to change the fact that someone is always going to be disappointed. They might as well just leave it be, cause clearly that's what they wanted to do.
1: Conan Doyle did not go back to the book after he finished it and wrote it a new ending. He just ret-conned the entire thing in a different book. That is not what people who demand a change to the ending want. What they want is to have Conan Doyle go back and rewrite the ending to the book.
I think if it was possible to "patch" or create a "DLC" for a book, he would. Technical limitations of the medium.
Mike Richards: None of this matters because the whole debate is more or less irrelevant. The real issue boils down to this: THEY WILL NEVER MAKE EVERY SINGLE PERSON HAPPY NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO, NO ONE CAN.
An ending to a series like this will always piss off a lot of people because everyone is going to have their own ideas about how it should end. If Bioware changes it now all they'll be doing is choosing which little fractured part of their fanbase they don't want to enrage and by doing so piss off everyone else.
Some people liked it, some people didn't, that's how it been since the beginning of storytelling, but the people who hated it always end up being the more vocal of the two whether they're the majority or not. Rewriting it now will just play favorites at best, and no one will ever be able to change the fact that someone is always going to be disappointed. They might as well just leave it be, cause clearly that's what they wanted to do.
You are wrong at so many points I don't even know where to start...
How about the fact that ending has so many stupid plotholes and inconsistencies that it barely looks like something Bioware would make? Plotholes you CAN'T logically explain, like why did the explosion start from a Mass Relay that was destroyed in Arrival? Why did Joker run away from the fight, and how did he get teammates who were down there fighting with him? Teleportation?
Wasn't it Dickens who wrote some of his works piece by piece, so he could gauge the audience's reaction and adjust his story accordingly?
Yeah, that obviously didn't work out for him.
Yes it's not the same thing, just pointing out that Dickens was successful because he was an amazing writer, and one that listened to his audience. One could even say they helped write the story with him, much like we've done with Mass Effect.
So if Dickens pulled out a random twist ending that didn't gel with what had been established previously without any sense of closure for the galaxy and the characters we've grown to know and love, the audience would in the right to be upset. And if Bioware would like to retain their fanbase they'll probably rewrite the ending.
The idea that art is somehow an unequivocal expression of its creator, and that it is blasphemous to change it because of commercial disapproval seems extremely silly to me. Just think back a few centuries, art was a luxury, and it was commissioned and created to the specifications of it's buyer. Back then if the buyer did not like the artist's interpretation of his demands do you know what the artist did? He changed his art so he would get paid. Somehow this didn't prevent painting or sculpture from being considered high forms of art and expression, even if it was tailored to the wishes of it's buyer.
Commercial art and commissioned art is still like this, you are creating it either for someone specific or a group of someone specific. It's known that it might be changed several times before it's accepted. I don't really know how they could afford to not change things and still expect to please their audiences because the whole idea that it's art as in similar to fine art would imply that it wasn't something produced with the masses in mind and it wasn't meant for wide consumption.
I wonder how cowpoo will try to fit game balance and simulationism under aesthetics.