Extra Credits Takes a Stab at the Mass Effect 3 issues

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Knight Templar:

Fixed that video link. Thanks for sharing, it was a good watch.

Thoric485:

Knight Templar:

Fixed that video link. Thanks for sharing, it was a good watch.

Thank you, I often forget to check over my edits. I will go correct that.

RatRace123:

DrVornoff:

You know what? You're probably right about that. But doesn't that make Bioware something of an underdog?

I don't think any of us (who weren't born with fetal alcohol syndrome) really believe that Bioware made that ending just to say, "Haha, take that, fuckwads!" If you have a grievance, by all means say so. But assuming that Bioware release a DLC to alter the ending, would it be so bad if they simply tied up the loose ends, provided closure and otherwise stuck to their guns?

That's all I want out of a DLC. I think it'd be cool if they added more content after the end, and personally I like the indoctrination theory and would like to see Bioware latch onto that.

But... if the content only cleared up some loose ends and add closure, I'd be more than OK with that.

That is all EVERYONE wanted. Its not the ending. Its the lack of one that pissed me off. All i want is closure. Thats it.

Also on the topic of art, yes i agree the developer should have a right to keep the ending if thats what they want. But you can feel that it was rushed and not thought out. It just feel like, if Da Vinci was to paint the Mona Lisa, but when it came to doing the face he just drew a smiley face with a sharpie.

Thoric485:

Knight Templar:

Fixed that video link. Thanks for sharing, it was a good watch.

I was kind of on the fence about this whole thing I thought the ending was bad but I didn't think it should be changed, but after reading a few articles on both sides and watching that video and a few others I going to say now I am on the "yeah you should probably change it side." What I am saying is I was pretty neutral but now I am more siding with the "crybabies." I don't know they just seem to have a better argument then the other side. I am still not motivated to do anything about it though but for what it's worth yeah they have a better point, form my point of view.

Eddie the head:

Thoric485:

Knight Templar:

Fixed that video link. Thanks for sharing, it was a good watch.

I was kind of on the fence about this whole thing I thought the ending was bad but I didn't think it should be changed, but after reading a few articles on both sides and watching that video and a few others I going to say now I am on the "yeah you should probably change it side." What I am saying is I was pretty neutral but now I am more siding with the "crybabies." I don't know they just seem to have a better argument then the other side. I am still not motivated to do anything about it though but for what it's worth yeah they have a better point, form my point of view.

Come join us, we have cupcakes.

DrVornoff:

So you would prefer we go back to the way things were for artists a century ago or longer?

And what exactly has changed for artists in the last century? (Hint: The only answer involves money)

Art is now more widely produced, sold, bought and consumed. A lot more art is made with marketability in mind rather than with delivering the artist's pure vision to an audience to make a powerful statement. This is why I cringe every time someone brings up Bioware's artistic integrity... First of all, Bioware/EA/Mass Effect is a big commercial machine with strict deadlines, not a single artist's lifetime achievement pouring his heart out to deliver enlightenment to the masses, as it seems too many people like to imagine.

spectrenihlus:
Come join us, we have cupcakes.

Well.. You do I guess. A B or C cupcakes.

Alex Mac:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
You have 2 minutes to explain why asking for a different ending was disrespectful..

Because a majority of people who are supposedly just "asking", aren't merely asking.

How did you find out it was a majority?

I know I want them to change the ending, and I got by without crashing their website, writing death threats or buying cupcakes. I think the majority is probably people who havent done anything but voice their discontent on forums and said they would support a new ending.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Now, if Bioware comes out and says "No, we are staying with this ending and we are behind it 100%" and people continue with all this stuff, then you can talk about disrespecting this imaginary artistic integrity Bioware apparently have.

But right now, its not the case. Bioware are flip flopping on the issue, people keep saying they want a new ending, and a few thousand people (out of the million unhappy with the ending) launch crazy campaigns.

Alex Mac:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
You have 2 minutes to explain why asking for a different ending was disrespectful..

Because a majority of people who are supposedly just "asking", aren't merely asking.

Where's this "majority" you speak of? Do you speak for the majority?

Smiley Face:

In other words, IF BioWare never intended this, and IF they feel that they themselves don't like the ending, would it artistically improper for them to produce an 'ending supplement'? (Imagine, for this, that fan reaction doesn't enter in to the question - I agree, bowing to popular outrage just because it is popular outrage is wrong, but assuming that wasn't a factor.)

in that case I would have no problem at all with them changing the ending.

However if that isn't the case, however, i think the fans really wouldn't have the right to demand a new ending just because they were disappointed. It's less the end result of re-take mass effect that I object to, but rather the attitude of seemingly many of the people that support it.

Also my first post here was less against the re-take me3 movement and more intended to be against people who find it objectionable that someone would try to have some respect as gaming as an artistic medium.

Sutter Cane:
Also my first post here was less against the re-take me3 movement and more intended to be against people who find it objectionable that someone would try to have some respect as gaming as an artistic medium.

This is a frustrating attitude though, this presumption that if you want the ending changed, you're disrespecting art or disrespecting games, and visa versa. From Kahuna Burger's favorite article on the internet:

The "The Ending Must Never Be Changed" faction seem to take it as axiomatic that Stories are pure, singular entities created by a single Author (even when that Author is a massive team of writers working for a games company, I suppose this is another good example of what we mean when we say a company constitutes a "corporate person") and that the sole function of a Story is to convey the Vision of the Author to the Audience. This is, of course, bollocks. Not only is the discourse of CRPG design rehashing ideas that tabletop RPGs were sorting out a decade ago, it's getting stuck on concepts that conventional literary theory got past halfway through the last century.

Indeed ironically the argument so many people are using in favour of the Ending being the Immutable Word of the Author-God is exactly the argument that Roger Ebert used to explain why video games would never be art - a Story, they say, is a specific sequence of events and it ends how it ends, and to change it would lessen the Author's Vision and compromise his Artistic Integrity. This attitude is - of course - completely incompatible with an interactive medium.

http://www.ferretbrain.com/articles/article-848

People On The Internet seem genuinely offended by the idea that Bioware might change the ending (the probably won't, and I really don't care if they do). The consensus, even amongst people who agree the ending sucked goat dick, seems to be that it is better to have a stupid ending that stays "true to Bioware's vision" than a good ending that may not. This is an attitude which I cannot even begin to fathom. I don't mind people liking the ending and defending it on its merits, but I can't wrap my head around people who hated the ending believing it should be protected because it's "Bioware's story." About two minutes ago I was reading a comment on kotaku from somebody who claimed that they "didn't like the ending" but thought it shouldn't be changed because it had "depth and cognitive impact." I don't even know how to parse that idea - how can you at once believe something has "depth and cognitive impact" and also dislike it? Isn't that like hating a book for being too well written?

This weird position people are taking...the position that supports Authorial Divinity, the position that says art can never be changed or else we're setting a horrifying precedent...not only is it woefully ignorant of history, it's just fundamentally broken logically. It's not "being respectful of art". It's just a poorly supported argument.

endtherapture:
[quote="Sutter Cane" post="9.359349.14173314"][quote="endtherapture" post="9.359349.14173285"][quote="SmashLovesTitanQuest" post="9.359349.14173210"][quote]
quote]

snip.

SNIPquote]

Listen if games aren't conbsidered art we don't get rights to free speech which means groups like the PTC will turn video games into EC rated games. You might not realize it, but gamers and devs are fighting to retain the rights to have the first admenment protection. They want labels saying playing games leads to violent behavior, next it will be remove all nudity, and heavy violence (think warhammer 40k execution moves) from games until games are dumbed down to a point where it is no longer fun. Also look up the controversy of D&D if that is any indicator then if we lose art rights we lose a lot.

Let's go back a little further Harry Potter epic series? yes! look at how many religious groups tried to take it down for it's pagenism and witchcraft. If books werent an artform would it have changed? who knows?.

Let's go back further in time to the hays code if we still had it then our movies today would be a lot differant. Reason why I said this is look how much censoring occured, a similiar fate will occur to games if it loses it's protection.

The hays code effect: source: wikipedia

What the game needs isn't a new ending. What it needs is an epilogue.

Once again. I didn't mind the exact ending. I minded the fact that your choices throughout all the games had little meaning in deciding it, and I wanted to know what happened to the galactic community ONCE YOU BLEW UP THE MAIN PILLARS OF SOCIETY: The Mass Relays.

If BioWare can pull a DLC off, that explains JUST A BIT what the fudge the ending was about.

The problem with ME3 ending is not artistic integrity - it was a freaking Gynax Ending (See original episodes of Neon Genesis Evangelion for reference!).

Seanfall:
Bioware an underdog? no...it makes them sellouts.

"Sellout" is an overused term and doesn't apply in the example given. In fact, it doesn't apply 99% of the time people use it.

Mr.Tea:
A lot more art is made with marketability in mind rather than with delivering the artist's pure vision to an audience to make a powerful statement.

You think that was the case under a patronage system?

First of all, Bioware/EA/Mass Effect is a big commercial machine with strict deadlines, not a single artist's lifetime achievement pouring his heart out to deliver enlightenment to the masses, as it seems too many people like to imagine.

Once again implying that commercialism and artistry must be mutually exclusive.

Gigatoast:
Is anyone going to acknowledge that maybe the idea of consumers holding a studio responsible for their actions might be a good thing? This will lead to developers being more inclined to accept real fan-feedback because it proves that we are still a powerful force to be reckoned with, and they'll be less likely to cut corners in places where it matters.

I'm very disappointed in EC for falling into that tired 'artistic integrity' bulls**t. It doesn't apply to a commercial product, and it does not justify a failure to meet the promises made before release, and Bioware will not set a 'dangerous precedent' by fixing their crass mistake, end of story.

Thank you for explaining this point of view. Commercial products don't get to hide behind "its just art, leave me alone."

Extra Credits win the internet again, The Escapist were crazy to let them go.

So...can we all agree that they were right and stop arguing about it now? We're all gonna have forgotten this in a few months regardless of what BioWare do, and I would love to make the forgetting process happen sooner rather than later.

DrVornoff:

Mr.Tea:
A lot more art is made with marketability in mind rather than with delivering the artist's pure vision to an audience to make a powerful statement.

You think that was the case under a patronage system?

I'm saying that the difference between now and then is that it's a lot more economically viable to be an artist. Just about anybody can fancy themselves an artist these days (with the accessibility of digital art) and have a pretty good chance of not starving to death since it's not just nobility or very rich bourgeois consuming art anymore. There is more creation of art and more consumption of art all around.

DrVornoff:

Mr.Tea:

First of all, Bioware/EA/Mass Effect is a big commercial machine with strict deadlines, not a single artist's lifetime achievement pouring his heart out to deliver enlightenment to the masses, as it seems too many people like to imagine.

Once again implying that commercialism and artistry must be mutually exclusive.

Implying that, for a commercial entity, one doesn't exclude the other, but one must come first and Bioware/EA exist to make money first.

Not to say that hoping to get paid for your creation ruins art, but ME3's ending is a clash of the huge differences between "this might not be popular, but dammit I want to get this message out there" and "let's make something everyone can enjoy". See, ME had been part of the latter case all the way to the ending, but at the last second, the design choice shifted to the former.

Someone likely figured "everyone will probably buy it anyway now, so we're not taking such a big commercial risk by rushing the end and tacking on some 'statement'". And you know, it could have worked, but it ultimately did not belong with the rest of their creation.

Nevermind the fact, which I strangely haven't seen anyone consider yet, that the one person who might have fit the bill of "creator" more than anyone else and whose artistic vision we should respect (the guy who was lead/senior writer on ME and ME2 who also wrote 3 novels around ME) was not even involved in ME3. And, fun fact about the novels: there are actually 4 of them, the latest of which did not involve that man either. The fan reaction to that one? Backlash against plot holes and lore inconsistencies (draw any conclusions yet?).

People change, time runs short, money and resources run out; Developers don't exist in a perfect vacuum of creation where the entity "Bioware" is always constituted of the same individuals amounting to the same auteur with a singular vision to be upheld. Say we go back in time and step on a butterfly and another member of the writing staff speaks louder at a meeting this time. How sacred is his idea compared to the other one? Or compared to the ones not spoken by the other writers? If all the writers have their own vision, as individuals always do, then whose is most valid? (Yeah, the rose-coloured answer is that the collective encapsulates everyone's idea equally, but that's not how humans work)
But let's assume a perfect world and everyone (writing staff) is on the same page, what happens when they run into money/time problems and they have to scrap that genius idea for their "artistic vision" to squeeze themselves into their publishing deadline and budget?

There are so many variables that can change the artistic vision between inception and realization it's not even funny.
That's why constantly hearing "Bioware's artistic vision must be respected" is just complete horseshit. What if the true "vision" just ran into a time constraint (or was vetoed by the project lead, or any of myriad other reasons), but now they have the opportunity to fix it post-release but the buffoons who call themselves gaming "journalists" have been screaming "must never be changed!", "setting back gaming as art!" and "dangerous precedent!" and other such shit.

Edit: Hm, got into a bit of a rant there, sorry.

DrVornoff:

Seanfall:
Bioware an underdog? no...it makes them sellouts.

"Sellout" is an overused term and doesn't apply in the example given. In fact, it doesn't apply 99% of the time people use it.

Mr.Tea:
A lot more art is made with marketability in mind rather than with delivering the artist's pure vision to an audience to make a powerful statement.

You think that was the case under a patronage system?

First of all, Bioware/EA/Mass Effect is a big commercial machine with strict deadlines, not a single artist's lifetime achievement pouring his heart out to deliver enlightenment to the masses, as it seems too many people like to imagine.

Once again implying that commercialism and artistry must be mutually exclusive.

I noticed your not refuting that the ending made no sense. And yes...when you work for a company that has the rep EA has you've 'sold out'. How many times has it already been shown that Bioware comprised their 'artistic vision' for EA and profit? Just because it's fans who want them to change something suddenly it's out of the question. But when a publisher who has no artistic integrity makes them do something no one questions it.

Extra credits pumping out more pretentious bullshit as usual. I wish those guys would go and get run over by a bus and do the internet a favour.

Mr.Tea:
I'm saying that the difference between now and then is that it's a lot more economically viable to be an artist.

That much is true.

Just about anybody can fancy themselves an artist these days (with the accessibility of digital art) and have a pretty good chance of not starving to death since it's not just nobility or very rich bourgeois consuming art anymore. There is more creation of art and more consumption of art all around.

Here's where I disagree. With the barriers to entry coming down, that mean doesn't just anybody can hang up a shingle and quit their dayjob. It's more economically viable, but it still takes a lot of work to build up and keep an audience as well as be able to consistently turn out new material that they'd want to spend their money on.

Jonathon Coulton for example has proven that it can be done. And while Soulja Boi showed that talent isn't always necessary to get fans, I don't think he has much in the way of longevity, and the field is littered with the bones of thousands of other hacks who couldn't make it.

Not to say that hoping to get paid for your creation ruins art, but ME3's ending is a clash of the huge differences between "this might not be popular, but dammit I want to get this message out there" and "let's make something everyone can enjoy". See, ME had been part of the latter case all the way to the ending, but at the last second, the design choice shifted to the former.

Someone likely figured "everyone will probably buy it anyway now, so we're not taking such a big commercial risk by rushing the end and tacking on some 'statement'". And you know, it could have worked, but it ultimately did not belong with the rest of their creation.

I don't deny that's possible. But I try to give creative teams the benefit of the doubt because I've found myself in positions where I ran out of money or time or last access to talent and had to turn out a shit finished product because better to finish it than to let it languish in limbo forever.

It's not the complaints people have that I take issue with. It's how some have chosen to express them.

Seanfall:
I noticed your not refuting that the ending made no sense.

Because I too thought the ending was bad.

And yes...when you work for a company that has the rep EA has you've 'sold out'. How many times has it already been shown that Bioware comprised their 'artistic vision' for EA and profit?

To the first sentence, guilt be association? Really?

To your question, enlighten me.

Just because it's fans who want them to change something suddenly it's out of the question. But when a publisher who has no artistic integrity makes them do something no one questions it.

Actually, I have repeatedly expressed my dislike of EA for the terrible way they treat their people. It's likely I won't be finishing the Dragon Age trilogy specifically because of that.

I'm still not sure where I stand on this issue. One of the arguments used is against changing the ending is that the same wouldn't be asked of someone writing a book or making a movie, but games can be tweaked to a much greater extent than either of those mediums. If you wanted to change the ending of a book you would have to release a new book and if you wanted to change the ending of a movie you would have to release a new edition of that moive. However with video games it is something that can be done with a patch or dlc depending on the nature of the change.

I am not denying that the ending is horrible, I even think it would be nice if it were changed. I think if I were to really think about it at the end of the day no one can force Bioware to change it, if the ending to Mass Effect is an ending that they truly stand behind, despite the hugely negative feedback then they should stick with it. I think it is ok to ask that they change it, but ultimately it is Bioware's decision.

Also in future they might want to stear clear of Peter Molyneux, I don't know if they've met but from the pre Mass Effect 3 marketing I've seen and from the ending they have clearly picked up some of his bad habits.

DrVornoff:

Mr.Tea:
I'm saying that the difference between now and then is that it's a lot more economically viable to be an artist.

That much is true.

Just about anybody can fancy themselves an artist these days (with the accessibility of digital art) and have a pretty good chance of not starving to death since it's not just nobility or very rich bourgeois consuming art anymore. There is more creation of art and more consumption of art all around.

Here's where I disagree. With the barriers to entry coming down, that mean doesn't just anybody can hang up a shingle and quit their dayjob. It's more economically viable, but it still takes a lot of work to build up and keep an audience as well as be able to consistently turn out new material that they'd want to spend their money on.

Jonathon Coulton for example has proven that it can be done. And while Soulja Boi showed that talent isn't always necessary to get fans, I don't think he has much in the way of longevity, and the field is littered with the bones of thousands of other hacks who couldn't make it.

Not to say that hoping to get paid for your creation ruins art, but ME3's ending is a clash of the huge differences between "this might not be popular, but dammit I want to get this message out there" and "let's make something everyone can enjoy". See, ME had been part of the latter case all the way to the ending, but at the last second, the design choice shifted to the former.

Someone likely figured "everyone will probably buy it anyway now, so we're not taking such a big commercial risk by rushing the end and tacking on some 'statement'". And you know, it could have worked, but it ultimately did not belong with the rest of their creation.

I don't deny that's possible. But I try to give creative teams the benefit of the doubt because I've found myself in positions where I ran out of money or time or last access to talent and had to turn out a shit finished product because better to finish it than to let it languish in limbo forever.

It's not the complaints people have that I take issue with. It's how some have chosen to express them.

Seanfall:
I noticed your not refuting that the ending made no sense.

Because I too thought the ending was bad.

And yes...when you work for a company that has the rep EA has you've 'sold out'. How many times has it already been shown that Bioware comprised their 'artistic vision' for EA and profit?

To the first sentence, guilt be association? Really?

To your question, enlighten me.

Just because it's fans who want them to change something suddenly it's out of the question. But when a publisher who has no artistic integrity makes them do something no one questions it.

Actually, I have repeatedly expressed my dislike of EA for the terrible way they treat their people. It's likely I won't be finishing the Dragon Age trilogy specifically because of that.

Wait you agree the ending is bad? Then...why are we having this conversation? If the ending is bad then what is wrong with Bioware fixing it? You agree that it breaks down the narrative cohesion, is nonsensical and disregards what the rest of the series has been building up to? So...what is wrong with it being changed? Cause it violates some ill-defined artistic integrity?

Guilt by Association. No their not guilty for working for EA their guilty by allowing EA to pressure them to change things. Why is this different from Fans? Cause Fans care about the story, the Characters, the interactions and the world that was built. EA cares about profit.

Vault Citizen:
I'm still not sure where I stand on this issue. One of the arguments used is against changing the ending is that the same wouldn't be asked of someone writing a book or making a movie, but games can be tweaked to a much greater extent than either of those mediums. If you wanted to change the ending of a book you would have to release a new book and if you wanted to change the ending of a movie you would have to release a new edition of that moive. However with video games it is something that can be done with a patch or dlc depending on the nature of the change.

Which is a whole load of crock, as it is not an unprecedented practice in either the literary or film medias to alter a product after a release to appeal to public demand. In fact some of the greatest works of literature and film have done just that. People taking this route of argument are arguing for a holier than thou point of view that is completely disconnected from reality. Fact of the matter is, it's special pleading and pure ignorance that forms this argument. Neither of which is good justification to make such an uninformed and pompous claim.

I am not denying that the ending is horrible, I even think it would be nice if it were changed. I think if I were to really think about it at the end of the day no one can force Bioware to change it, if the ending to Mass Effect is an ending that they truly stand behind, despite the hugely negative feedback then they should stick with it. I think it is ok to ask that they change it, but ultimately it is Bioware's decision.

Also in future they might want to stear clear of Peter Molyneux, I don't know if they've met but from the pre Mass Effect 3 marketing I've seen and from the ending they have clearly picked up some of his bad habits.

The major difference I find between Molyneux and Bioware is that you can actually see where Peter was coming from. He exaggerated some details, most certainly. But much of the time the hype that was created (Such as Fable 1) was due to ignoring many of his later statements about what was actually going to be in the game in favor of much earlier statements about what he wanted to place in the game.

The other thing is that I have never once gotten the distinct impression that Peter alterred his final vision for profit or left his work unfinished. From a gameplay standpoint, he's produced some rather awful elements. Yet you can always see how these decisions play into a larger vision of a finalized product (The sanctuary in Fable 3... such a bad idea on so many levels).

Truth is, I would call Peter an artist, and almost every single game he has produced art. They are a complete vision that he rigorously defends with substantial arguments. His games are very bad, but he has always produced a complete vision of what he wanted. More importantly he has always been very clear about the gameplay decision he had made in the games, for better or worse.

This is very different than Bioware. Bioware made extremely explicit statements about the end content of their product, in many instances only days before release. Not only were their statements extremely exaggerated, but some of them were out-right falsehoods. This is utterly without compare to Peter's work. Peter exaggerates things, but he never really tells outright falsehoods about content. He may exaggerate the effect of the details, but he has not to my knowledge ever stated that a certain element was integral and included within his products, only for said element to have practically no existence in the final product.

Truth of the matter is, Bioware took the "hype" thing a tad to far. They gave completely misleading statements that could not be backed up by the actual content of ME3, provided false information as to the actual content (In certain cases stating the exact opposite of what actually occurred within the game itself), and stated full lies about how they were going to approach the ending. This much is not up for debate, as all one needs to do is look at their statements and how excessively specific they were about certain content. It is rather clear that this goes beyond mere hype such as is the case with Peter (Who for all his flaws actually based his statements on actual content). They deliberately mislead their playerbase in what appears to be a hope that nobody would notice, or at the least care.

So really, I have respect for Peter. He has a clear vision, that he rigorously defends. I disagree with many of his decisions and think that he has a bit of a high-head, but I respect him as he never really completely mislead his costumers through stating complete falsities. I do not, however, have much respect for Bioware as their practices transcend mere hype and exaggeration. They have taken advantage of their core fans and the trust that the fans placed within the company. Something I find to be rather unprecedented in the community.

Seanfall:
Wait you agree the ending is bad? Then...why are we having this conversation? If the ending is bad then what is wrong with Bioware fixing it? You agree that it breaks down the narrative cohesion, is nonsensical and disregards what the rest of the series has been building up to? So...what is wrong with it being changed? Cause it violates some ill-defined artistic integrity?

Wanting closure is fine. I'm okay with people saying that. Demanding it as if you are entitled to never be disappointed, treating anyone who disagrees with you like shit, and the various other bullshit some people have decided to engage in? Not so much. It is not the opinion I am against, but the expression. The number of times I'm having to explain this is getting a bit old.

Guilt by Association. No their not guilty for working for EA their guilty by allowing EA to pressure them to change things.

Are they to conjure more time and money out of the ether and give the contracts obligating them to get the product out the finger?

To repeat, I've worked on projects where things just screwed up. Consequently, I try to be more sympathetic to the people who work on these things because I've been there.

Why is this different from Fans? Cause Fans care about the story, the Characters, the interactions and the world that was built. EA cares about profit.

Fans care, yes. But that doesn't mean they are infallible. That doesn't mean the customer is always right. And ultimately, the decision to change lies with Bioware and whether or not EA feels like giving them the money to do so. The publisher system is pretty fucked up, no question. But the fans are their own worst enemies in the attempt to change anything.

MiloP:
Extra Credits win the internet again, The Escapist were crazy to let them go.

So...can we all agree that they were right and stop arguing about it now? We're all gonna have forgotten this in a few months regardless of what BioWare do, and I would love to make the forgetting process happen sooner rather than later.

Perhaps not posting in Mass Effect ending threads would be a step in the right direction?

370999:

MiloP:
Extra Credits win the internet again, The Escapist were crazy to let them go.

So...can we all agree that they were right and stop arguing about it now? We're all gonna have forgotten this in a few months regardless of what BioWare do, and I would love to make the forgetting process happen sooner rather than later.

Perhaps not posting in Mass Effect ending threads would be a step in the right direction?

I doubt one person keeping quiet would stop my favourite forums from being clogged with ME3 threads discussing the same issues again and again and again.

And even past that, I do quite like the debate. I just hate the flamewars. And apparently you can't really have one without the other on this topic.

games cannot be art for the simple fact that there is day one patches (and patches in general).

let's take ME3 for example, which also had a day one patch. If we are supposed to believe that it is art, then there would be no reasons to release a patch to fix what ever the fuck the patch fixed. Bioware would have simply had to stand behind the original product as "art"

Reading "it's not like the ending was bad, it was just unsatisfying" bit is all that I needed to read.

Anyone still bringing their own definition of "art" or "artistic integrity" in defense of BioWare is seriously shortsighted on an annoying level. By now you people have had weeks to realise that BioWare is being run just like any subsidiary of any corporation, meaning this artistic integrity you seem to be so fond of was never there to begin with. It's a self-defeating argument.

I desperately hope Bioware doesn't overwrite what they've done. Not because I think it's perfect (I don't), but because they made an artistic choice.

FUCK your artistic choice. Is that fair?

Juventus:
games cannot be art for the simple fact that there is day one patches (and patches in general).

let's take ME3 for example, which also had a day one patch. If we are supposed to believe that it is art, then there would be no reasons to release a patch to fix what ever the fuck the patch fixed. Bioware would have simply had to stand behind the original product as "art"

That logic doesn't quite scan.

Hammeroj:
Reading "it's not like the ending was bad, it was just unsatisfying" bit is all that I needed to read.

Anyone still bringing their own definition of "art" or "artistic integrity" in defense of BioWare is seriously shortsighted on an annoying level. By now you people have had weeks to realise that BioWare is being run just like any subsidiary of any corporation, meaning this artistic integrity you seem to be so fond of was never there to begin with. It's a self-defeating argument.

Could you elaborate on that?

ilovemyLunchbox:

I desperately hope Bioware doesn't overwrite what they've done. Not because I think it's perfect (I don't), but because they made an artistic choice.

FUCK your artistic choice. Is that fair?

You want to develop that thought for me?

DrVornoff:

Hammeroj:
Reading "it's not like the ending was bad, it was just unsatisfying" bit is all that I needed to read.

Anyone still bringing their own definition of "art" or "artistic integrity" in defense of BioWare is seriously shortsighted on an annoying level. By now you people have had weeks to realise that BioWare is being run just like any subsidiary of any corporation, meaning this artistic integrity you seem to be so fond of was never there to begin with. It's a self-defeating argument.

Could you elaborate on that?

Basically, the crux of the argument seems to be that art is ruined, destroyed or otherwise rendered worthless the moment people other than the creators of said art get involved. And a whole lot of people other than the creators got involved on a whole lot deeper level before the game ever got released. Those people are the "higher-ups", and all they care about is the money. Which is another thing that destroys the argument. People are literally putting more trust into the hands of mindless corporate drones instead of people who care about whatever the point of discussion may be.

Hammeroj:
Basically, the crux of the argument seems to be that art is ruined, destroyed or otherwise rendered worthless the moment people other than the creators of said art get involved. And a whole lot of people other than the creators got involved on a whole lot deeper level before the game ever got released. Those people are the "higher-ups", and all they care about is the money. Which is another thing that destroys the argument. People are literally putting more trust into the hands of mindless corporate drones instead of people who care about whatever the point of discussion may be.

And you got all of that out of, "The ending was unsatisfying." I guess I'm not speaking the same English that everyone else is, because that is a strange leap of logic to go to based on that one sentence.

But here's the thing, the crux of my argument is that the ending was bad, but what to do with it should be Bioware's decision, not yours. They should have the right to stand by their decisions or decide if your argument bears enough merit to warrant a change to whatever degree. And you can give me as many anti-corporate talking points as you want, it doesn't change the fact that you are still talking about people.

By the end of this game, after that brutally intense final push, we are desperate to know the answer: "Did we make it? Have we saved everyone? Are my companions ok?"

None of the endings to this game provide a conclusive answer to that. In its last five minutes, Mass Effect shifts the focus to bigger questions with ambiguous results, and the switch happens right at the very peak of your investment in the fate of your squad, leaving us filled to bursting with dramatic tension. And without any relief for that tension, it quickly turns to frustration.

That more or less hits the nail on the head.

Again, if Bioware had just provided another minute or so at the ending just showing a cinematic of the races that we'd helped for the slightest bit of closure, then the shitstorm over the ending probably would have been very small.

DrVornoff:

Hammeroj:
Basically, the crux of the argument seems to be that art is ruined, destroyed or otherwise rendered worthless the moment people other than the creators of said art get involved. And a whole lot of people other than the creators got involved on a whole lot deeper level before the game ever got released. Those people are the "higher-ups", and all they care about is the money. Which is another thing that destroys the argument. People are literally putting more trust into the hands of mindless corporate drones instead of people who care about whatever the point of discussion may be.

And you got all of that out of, "The ending was unsatisfying." I guess I'm not speaking the same English that everyone else is, because that is a strange leap of logic to go to based on that one sentence.

But here's the thing, the crux of my argument is that the ending was bad, but what to do with it should be Bioware's decision, not yours. They should have the right to stand by their decisions or decide if your argument bears enough merit to warrant a change to whatever degree. And you can give me as many anti-corporate talking points as you want, it doesn't change the fact that you are still talking about people.

Oh no, that wasn't directly linked to my first paragraph. More of a comment directed at people who still use this train of thought for some reason. I just knew EC would say something like this, and I knew people already did say this a million times on this forum.

That said, I have to ask where:
A) I addressed you in particular, since all I did that was geared toward you was expand, if slightly, what I've said before, which wasn't;
B) I said that BioWare doesn't have the right to stand by their decisions, or anything to that extent.

As far as my opinion on the matter goes, BioWare should change the ending as long as they either care about the goodwill of their fanbase, or have any standards as far as writing is concerned. I don't think I've ever said they must do anything.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked