I want to begin by stating that this a brief sketch, written lazily as I fall asleep in my Ikea swivel chair. Over the past few weeks I have followed the outrage, from forum fanaticism to the (rather odd) weird youtube videos [http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/03/27/mass-effect-3-protesters-sending-cupcakes-to-bioware/]. I am still unsure of my entire argument, but there are many smart individuals on The Escapist. If we can rely on the internet for anything, we can rely on its sheer seething ability to devalue, defend or devour any and every idea that happens to sprout on its electrified surface.
In short: Any and all aid or criticism to my thread is not only welcome, but passionately preferred.
To begin, let's start with frackin' premise. Mass Effect 3 was released just over a month ago, on March 6th, 2012. Not soon after, I am not too sure of the exact date (let's be honest here, I ain't no math say [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjQKFoUdk4g]:
My spin on this topic is that the illusion of choice in the Mass Effect series has given rise to the illusion of ownership. And, indeed, my contention is that the choices throughout the trilogy's space opera were illusions; every decision the player has made in the series was tailored by a creative team. The question of authorship is not so easy though, as Casey Hudson himself points to the collaborative nature of the series:
What matters here is that the fraction of the fan base that is calling foul is doing so for reasons that Bioware has, itself, put in place. When you set both of these problems side by side: the fans' need to extend their illusion of choice into the real world and Bioware's claim of collaboration, we get an identity crisis of sorts. Neither side is wholeheartedly wrong. What we have here is really a unique issue, and one that I hope some of you also see. The fan's do technically have a claim to the story elements of the game because the developer has given them the freedom to feel connected to the story. And, adversely, Bioware is the sole creator of the series. They do, in any real creative sense, have the true creative license.
So, to summarize for the text-challenged [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww], my view of the Mass Effect ending debacle is threefold. Firstly, the video game series presents the player with the illusion of choice. The supposed freedom which comes from these choices poses the issue of ownership. Players arguably feel as if the tailored experiences they have had in the game allow them to partake in other aspects of the game. Moreover, the illusion of choice has presented a rather intense sort of fan base, one which feels formally connected to their character and experience. This problem leads to my second formulation: Bioware has stated that it not only appreciates feedback from the player, but that the game is a "collaboration" between players and developers. When we combine these two adjacent dilemmas, we arrive at what I've called the identity crisis. The gist, my friends, is that neither side can truly be held accountable for the problem, or to rephrase it (I am a glass half-empty sort of guy), both the players and the developers are in the peculiar position of observer and creator.
I, for one, find this to be fairly interesting.
In short: Any and all aid or criticism to my thread is not only welcome, but passionately preferred.
To begin, let's start with frackin' premise. Mass Effect 3 was released just over a month ago, on March 6th, 2012. Not soon after, I am not too sure of the exact date (let's be honest here, I ain't no math say [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjQKFoUdk4g]:
The language Hudson uses is worth noting. Firstly, he addresses the consumer directly, with the all-important first person, identifying the key concept behind the Mass Effect series: personal experience. Phraseology like "your actions" and "your journey" emphasize the personalized story that the player is a part of. However, for my purposes, I want you to pay close attention to the beginning, "we designed." At the core of this letter is the direct reference to an author, and most important of all, this author is not the player, it is the developer.
My spin on this topic is that the illusion of choice in the Mass Effect series has given rise to the illusion of ownership. And, indeed, my contention is that the choices throughout the trilogy's space opera were illusions; every decision the player has made in the series was tailored by a creative team. The question of authorship is not so easy though, as Casey Hudson himself points to the collaborative nature of the series:
You see, the tension is not between an uncompromising developer on the one hand and a rabid fanbase on another. Rather, the tension comes from how the two sides have viewed their, supposed, mutual relationship. I hesitate to bring up the obvious possibility that Bioware would claim collaborative communization with the understated reasons of financial gain. In other words, the community involvement is a rouse, a sham, to take your precious dino eggs (that's the monies [http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_'monies'_a_real_word]). But really, my swivel chair is killing my back right now.
What matters here is that the fraction of the fan base that is calling foul is doing so for reasons that Bioware has, itself, put in place. When you set both of these problems side by side: the fans' need to extend their illusion of choice into the real world and Bioware's claim of collaboration, we get an identity crisis of sorts. Neither side is wholeheartedly wrong. What we have here is really a unique issue, and one that I hope some of you also see. The fan's do technically have a claim to the story elements of the game because the developer has given them the freedom to feel connected to the story. And, adversely, Bioware is the sole creator of the series. They do, in any real creative sense, have the true creative license.
So, to summarize for the text-challenged [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww], my view of the Mass Effect ending debacle is threefold. Firstly, the video game series presents the player with the illusion of choice. The supposed freedom which comes from these choices poses the issue of ownership. Players arguably feel as if the tailored experiences they have had in the game allow them to partake in other aspects of the game. Moreover, the illusion of choice has presented a rather intense sort of fan base, one which feels formally connected to their character and experience. This problem leads to my second formulation: Bioware has stated that it not only appreciates feedback from the player, but that the game is a "collaboration" between players and developers. When we combine these two adjacent dilemmas, we arrive at what I've called the identity crisis. The gist, my friends, is that neither side can truly be held accountable for the problem, or to rephrase it (I am a glass half-empty sort of guy), both the players and the developers are in the peculiar position of observer and creator.
I, for one, find this to be fairly interesting.