Entitlement

[Ham Blitz]

We were promised our choices would matter.

We were promised an end to a story.

We were promised answers.

We were promised multiplayer wouldn't affect single player.

Without spoiling any plot points (unless you ask).....

Not one single choice made in previous games actually made a difference. The only thing that changed was a small scene, nothing actually affected the story. The story hasn't ended, we didn't get any answers.

As for multiplayer, you can screw up your game royally and fix it all with a few hours in multiplayer to get your war assets. In fact, if you follow a certain path then the only way to get enough war assets is to dabble with multiplayer.

As for this whole "games are art so you shouldn't complain, it kills artistic integrity", bollocks.

I'm not paying for art i'm paying for a product. If that product turns out to be shite then i'm going to complain.

Well, to be fair, There is an ending to the story.
Also many choices made in previous games would add assets or change parts of the story, for example there are tons of things that can go wrong or well in the genophage mission depending on whether Mordin survived the last, you kept Maelon's Data, and whether or not Wrex is alive, all of which are choices made in previous games.
I don't remember Bioware saying that the multiplayer wouldn't affect the single player. I do however remember them saying that all endings (including the best) would be possible without multiplayer.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

What did Bioware promise?

A game that would function and a story that would conclude the Mass Effect trilogy.

What did Bioware deliver?

A game that functioned and a story that concluded the Mass Effect trilogy.

Think about any other medium. Fans decided that the ending to The Matrix wasn't very good and complained about it en masse, did the Wachowskis go back and change the ending? No. Harry Potter fans cried about the Epilogue because they decided that it wasn't exactly what they wanted from the ending, are there versions being published without the Epilogue? No. Even when there are director's cuts of movies it's because the director wanted to change it, not the fans. Musicians don't rerecord albums and songs, movie makers don't re-shoot the ending after the movie has been released, authors don't re-publish new versions with added additional endings (and A Clockwork Orange doesn't count, the so-called 'extra' ending was always supposed to be there) The Avatar team didn't remake the final episode of The Last Airbender to make it a Zutara story.

But when gamers get butt hurt about the ending, they get their ending changed because they whined hard enough about it not being exactly how they wanted it. To me that says entitled.

 

[Zayle79]

People like you don't understand what artistic integrity means.

Artists are asked to change their art ALL THE TIME.

Don't believe me? Look up a guy called Doyle. He wrote a little known thing called Sherlock Holmes. Go look up why Sherlock Holmes got novels published that were set after the novel in which Sherlock Holmes died.

Oops. People asked the artist to change the ending for years, which he eventually did. This led to literary classics that we would not know if "artistic integrity" would have the meaning you think it does.

He didn't change the ending. The Final Problem still ends with Holmes dead. He just resurrected him in a later work. That's a retcon, which is completely different from changing an already existing work.

No, actually. It is flat out lying. With any other product, you could indeed sue the maker of the product for false advertisement.

No. Do you get a refund from a movie theater if something the director said in an interview didn't turn out to be true? Do bookstores give out refunds if the blurb on the back of a book was misleading? They don't. What makes games any different?

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

No spoilers here, nor in the discussion, please.

I haven't finished it, yet, but that's not the point

It is the point. Please go finish it and then come back and we can all talk together in a civilized fashion. That may seem like an unreasonable request, but I don't think it is unreasonable to expect you to know what you are talking about exactly and from experience before you start an entire thread (of which, I might add, we already have many like it) about the subject.

This is not an insult to you. This is not a flame. This is merely a request that you educate yourself about the ending before you make assumptions about how people should feel about it - you don't even know how you feel about it yet, having not experienced it. Like I said, when you have, come back and let's chat - PM me if you like, I'm quite serious about being open to discussion on the matter.

 

[Falcon123]

And remember, buying the DLC that "fixes" everything only gives more money to the developer that you seem to oppose so deeply. And if people don't buy it, then why do you care that they make it? And if it is made, people will buy it, and Bioware will learn the opposite lesson; as long as they fix it later, people will keep giving them money. That precedent will affect gaming far longer than people will remember why they hated this ending

Have they established they would be charging for ending DLC? If its geniune content alla "Broken Steel" then fair enough, But I assumed they will slap an epilogue on the end and patch it in for freesie.

Also didn't the fallen steel dlc for fallout 3 set this precedent you speak of already?

There's a big difference between the two cases, and I'll use Egoraptor's set up on the nature of storytelling to explain what I mean.

Basically, he asserted that there are three methods by which developers tell the story in a video game: the design (art and music), the gameplay, and the story itself. The problem with Fallout 3 was not the story (there was no "Retake Fallout" campaign, if I remember correctly) but the gameplay, which seemed counterintuitive to what the game and story was trying to be. I don't want to put any spoilers here (I know it's older, but I'd rather not ruin it for the few that care), but because the game ended when the main story did, the ending worked against the developer's intended desire to create an open world in which people could explore, and those who wanted to explore were de-incentivized from finishing the ending of the main story, which was far from the intended result.

As such, Broken Steel fixed this so that players could return to the world, but the ending was largely unchanged with the exception of the one significant detail that kept the player from returning to the world after the main quest was complete. It was a patch to the gameplay to meet the developers' already-established goal of open world exploration with a solid story base, and that needed to be fix in order to maintain the tone the developers wanted for the game.

Now let's look back at ME3. The gameplay is far from the problem; it's probably the most refined it's ever been. And there's nothing about the ending that needs "fixing" per se (yes it's bad, but its not so broken as to prevent people from completing gameplay). No, this controversy was caused by the belief among the Mass Effect 3 fans that they deserved better and therein lies the problem. Should Bioware have done a more thorough job with the ending, knowing it would be the last in the series? Probably. (Though if the Indoctrination Theory is true, there are a lot bigger problems with this whole controversy and Bioware as a whole) But assuming good intentions, they don't owe anyone anything, and that's what we mean when we say entitlement.

If you don't like it, sell it back. Don't buy more games from Bioware. Whatever makes you feel better. But you paid money for Mass Effect 3, and they delivered in the way they thought was best. One doesn't have the right to tell them how to make their game to your liking any more than they have the right to tell you how to do your job. If they screwed up, show them with your wallet, and the market will force them to fix it. Otherwise, people need to shut up, put their money where their mouth is, and move on.

Note: If they do release the new ending for free (and I doubt they will, as most Mass Effect fans seem to be willing to spend whatever it takes to get the ending they feel they deserve; at least the ones in my group of friends feel that way), then this is just a sacrifice of artistic integrity on Bioware's side, as they failed to stand up for their vision, however flawed it may have been, and how much that matters to you is dependent on a lot of other things.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Note: If they do release the new ending for free (and I doubt they will, as most Mass Effect fans seem to be willing to spend whatever it takes to get the ending they feel they deserve; at least the ones in my group of friends feel that way), then this is just a sacrifice of artistic integrity on Bioware's side, as they failed to stand up for their vision, however flawed it may have been, and how much that matters to you is dependent on a lot of other things.

Well, Bioware's vision allows for multiple different endings, and Bioware's stated design philosophy...as per Mike Gamble and Casey Hudson...calls for the players to co-author the experience with them. So adding more endings to the game that allow for the maximum number of players to feel satisfied with their experience is, in fact, perfectly in line with Bioware's vision.

...and they delivered in the way they thought was best.

Do you really believe this? Serious question. Take a hard look at that ending. At the weird continuity gaffes, at the copy paste explosions, at the rushed/fractured feel, at the abrupt and sudden plunge in production values...and tell me, with a straight face, that they gave us what they thought was "best".

 

[Waaghpowa]

Sure, everyone who doesn't like the ending of ME3 and are mad at Bioware for lying are just entitled fuckwads. Let's just ignore all of the interviews and statements claiming that the game would feature this or that. We have no rights as consumers and we should just let big companies walk all over everyone because they have more money, therefore they have more rights. Why not right? Because in America, money talks, and having money means you're entitled to more money and power.

I swear, the bleak future that is Syndicate isn't too far off.

P.S The people arguing against the "whining" about ME3 are just as annoying and fucking stupid as the people who irrationally scream about how shit the ending was. Meanwhile, the people with rational arguments, backed up with evidence, either get over shadowed by the whiners on both sides or automatically get labeled self entitled cunts by idiots who are too willing to give up their rights and let the corporation treat them like cattle with wallets.

Please note that I have taken part in most of this ME3 bullshit short of discussing the indoctrination theory or simply stating "I thought the ending sucked".

 

[Atmos Duality]

As for this whole "games are art so you shouldn't complain, it kills artistic integrity", bollocks.

Agreed.
It's a dead end argument to begin with, since "artistic merit" is primarily subjective (with limited objective interpretation of technique, or lack thereof), and relative to the beholder.

 

[Asita]

Even the worst endings shouldn't tar the rest of the experience. OR in essence what you are saying is the final 1-3% of the experience is worth more than the preceding 97-99% of it put together.

At the risk of being brash, I get the feeling you're not a writer. In stories like this everything is building up to the ultimate payoff: The climax and its resolution, which should be the high point of the series. That's why plot diagrams show the climax at the peak. It is in that moment that everything you've been working towards is at its head, when all the cards are on the table and you're all in, waiting on that final card to be revealed. All conflicts at this point are at their worst, the battle is right at the gate and the audience's emotional investment is at its peak. Essentially, the climax and its aftermath are the most important parts of the story (which is hardly unknown in the industry), both because it represents the ultimate payoff that everything preceding it has been leading up to, and because it is the single moment that you will either captivate or alienate your audience, to say nothing of the fact that it effectively acts as the final impression your work leaves on the audience, which can and often does affect their overall opinion of the series.

In this case, there's a general perception of poor quality in the ending, which might have been forgivible if they'd included a denoument allowing for cathasis[footnote]of either the good or ill variety[/footnote] and closure, but that too is denied to the audience leaving them walking away from the series with a feeling of disappointment compounded by the outright nihilisitic undertones[footnote]Which is problematic in its own right, as that message runs in direct opposition to the general thrust of the series in both the in-universe and meta-sense, with the former being embodied by the series' mantra about unity triumphing over seemingly impossible odds (perhaps most triuphantly exhibited in the climax of Mass Effect 2, though it is repeatedly referenced throughout the games and acts as the main reason you assemble the Victory Fleet in the first place) and the latter embodied by the core gameplay mechanics of choice and consequence[/footnote] that effectively serves to ruin the very act of decision making throughout the series in the first place[footnote]Let's look at cause and effect
for a moment here:

Spoiler

You saved the Rachni in the first game? You do realize how much of a gamble that is, right? As the Turian on the council so succinctly put it, if you were wrong in your judgment then more than one generation will suffer for it...Nah, just kidding. There's no way for them to affect the rest of the galaxy after the Relays are destroyed, and they're probably going to all be dead within a year anyway. Sol can't support an intergalactic armada on its own. You reclaimed Rannoch for the Quarians? Congratulations, now they can finally return to their home and...oh wait, yeah, the Migrant Fleet's in the Sol system and Rannoch's in another arm of the galaxy...without the Relays no Quarian will ever see it again...especially considering that they and the Turians can't eat anything from our side of the galaxy...er...congratulations, they're screwed no matter what you did? Did you preserve the collector base? Well, rest assured that no matter what you did there, the results won't be any differnt in the end, as without the Omega-4 Relay nobody can even reach it. Incidentally, what happened to the council? Not that I care, I mean the relays where what allowed Galactic Civilization to exist in the first place. And what about that Genophage? Meh, either way it's not like they can affect the galaxy anymore anyways...

Effectively, the last few minutes of the game neuter the very thing that made Mass Effect's choice system so interesting: it removes the long-term ramifications of your actions[/footnote]. And unfortunately this conclusion colors the perception of the preceding events. This is hardly unheard of, mind you. How to put it...Have you ever seen the Sixth Sense? If yes, have you ever watched it again? If so, I expect your second viewing was very different from the first due to the way your knowledge of the ultimate reveal affected the way you viewed the scenes leading up to it. The same thing happens with Fight Club: You start looking at the movie differently because of what you know about the conclusion. Mind you, while these may have some of the clearest examples, the general sentiment applies to far more works than just these two. Applied in this case, what we see is the satisfaction of your initial choices being supplanted by the inevitable irrelevance they are given by the conclusion, ultimately (and unfortunately) making the use of a priorly beloved core gameplay mechanic feel hollow.

Hope that explains the sentiment a bit.

 

[Asita]

I understand the issues but i see people completely writing it off as a bad game when not 2 hours earlier they were loving the shit out of it. All i want is people to accept that despite that ending it was a pretty damn good game.

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. For the most part the reaction I've seen is that the game is great up until the last 10 minutes or so, though those ten minutes tends to taint the series. In fact, one of the more common laments I've seen is that the ending's effect is only exacerbated by the general quality the series exhibited up until that point (noting that, ironically, they wouldn't have been as angry if the rest of the game had been of similarly poor quality), making the ending's effect all the more tragic.

 

[Fox242]

Here's how I look at it: most video games cost $60 plus dollars these days, I expect a good experience for my money if I'm gonna get it right out the bat. I would hope that this is something that everyone can agree on.

Bioware said "No A,B,C" endings for their $60 plus product. What the Mass Effect fans got was a game that flipped them the bird at the end. That's not false advertising, that's highway robbery. I'm not a Mass Effect fan, I've never played the games, but I know a scam when I see one and Bioware scammed their customers. Simple.

 

[coolbeans21]

And remember, buying the DLC that "fixes" everything only gives more money to the developer that you seem to oppose so deeply. And if people don't buy it, then why do you care that they make it? And if it is made, people will buy it, and Bioware will learn the opposite lesson; as long as they fix it later, people will keep giving them money. That precedent will affect gaming far longer than people will remember why they hated this ending

Have they established they would be charging for ending DLC? If its geniune content alla "Broken Steel" then fair enough, But I assumed they will slap an epilogue on the end and patch it in for freesie.

Also didn't the fallen steel dlc for fallout 3 set this precedent you speak of already?

There's a big difference between the two cases, and I'll use Egoraptor's set up on the nature of storytelling to explain what I mean.

Basically, he asserted that there are three methods by which developers tell the story in a video game: the design (art and music), the gameplay, and the story itself. The problem with Fallout 3 was not the story (there was no "Retake Fallout" campaign, if I remember correctly) but the gameplay, which seemed counterintuitive to what the game and story was trying to be. I don't want to put any spoilers here (I know it's older, but I'd rather not ruin it for the few that care), but because the game ended when the main story did, the ending worked against the developer's intended desire to create an open world in which people could explore, and those who wanted to explore were de-incentivized from finishing the ending of the main story, which was far from the intended result.

As such, Broken Steel fixed this so that players could return to the world, but the ending was largely unchanged with the exception of the one significant detail that kept the player from returning to the world after the main quest was complete. It was a patch to the gameplay to meet the developers' already-established goal of open world exploration with a solid story base, and that needed to be fix in order to maintain the tone the developers wanted for the game.

Now let's look back at ME3. The gameplay is far from the problem; it's probably the most refined it's ever been. And there's nothing about the ending that needs "fixing" per se (yes it's bad, but its not so broken as to prevent people from completing gameplay). No, this controversy was caused by the belief among the Mass Effect 3 fans that they deserved better and therein lies the problem. Should Bioware have done a more thorough job with the ending, knowing it would be the last in the series? Probably. (Though if the Indoctrination Theory is true, there are a lot bigger problems with this whole controversy and Bioware as a whole) But assuming good intentions, they don't owe anyone anything, and that's what we mean when we say entitlement.

If you don't like it, sell it back. Don't buy more games from Bioware. Whatever makes you feel better. But you paid money for Mass Effect 3, and they delivered in the way they thought was best. One doesn't have the right to tell them how to make their game to your liking any more than they have the right to tell you how to do your job. If they screwed up, show them with your wallet, and the market will force them to fix it. Otherwise, people need to shut up, put their money where their mouth is, and move on.

Note: If they do release the new ending for free (and I doubt they will, as most Mass Effect fans seem to be willing to spend whatever it takes to get the ending they feel they deserve; at least the ones in my group of friends feel that way), then this is just a sacrifice of artistic integrity on Bioware's side, as they failed to stand up for their vision, however flawed it may have been, and how much that matters to you is dependent on a lot of other things.

I disagree, Broken steel did more than just allow free roaming after the end of the main story, it fixed a very large plot hole, this was the result of complaints from their customers.

Artistic integrity argument is also wrong, if they want to tell their 3 endings deus ex ripoff, then fine, they can do that, but dont ask me to give them money by lying to me in the run up to release, and it is fact that customers were mislead by bioware, the No three endings statement from Mr Hudson for one.

-edit-

Any argument I make from now on is tainted by several large Glayvas, so apologies.

 

[Asita]

the two hours wasnt an ingame time frame it was the actual time gaps between talking to one person. But its just a real life experience of what im talking about. Many films and film series for that matter (return of the king 8 ending later anyone?) have terrible endings but people still appreciate the rest.

Im just not hearing the appreciation for the rest post completion.

And I'm saying that the reaction I've seen hasn't been ignoring the rest of the game, but did deride the ending for its retroactive effect (among other things).

And on a tangent, as much as I like to echo Clerks' analysis of its ending, Return of the King didn't have a bad ending persay. Was it slow? Yes, and it could have satisfactorally ended any of several places, but at the same time it is the nature of the denoument to tie up loose ends and at least hint at the ultimate fate of the principle characters. While it was slow and possibly excessive, it fulfilled its function adequately.

 

[Shinigami214]

anc[is]

Who's defending Bioware in this manner? No one is saying the ending was good or that they don't deserve the backlash they're getting. The argument is over whether DLC fixing the ending should exist and its ramifications on the industry as a whole long term. I'm going to have to ask for some more explanation on your point, because calling fans entitled for demanding a new ending is not the same as defending Bioware's poor handling of the situation...

Only about 80-90% of the opposition. The thread title is one of the two words you can just parrot in order to shoot down anyone who wants it changed.

But how is that a defense of Bioware? I'm not denying that Bioware presented a bad ending (and it truly was bad; I don't think anyone is denying that), but I do believe that changing the ending is the wrong move, especially given the long term ramifications such a move would have, and players don't have the right to demand a new ending just because they personally don't like it any more than I have the right to tell you how to do your job. You don't like it? Don't give them your money. But they don't owe you anything.

I disagree profoundly.

They owed me Mass Effect 3 *as they promised it* the moment I exchanged money for it.

The key factor here is *as they promised it*. Me, and many other consumers included, aren't expecting the game to conform to our own likes/dislikes/hopes/dreams etc.

We simply expect it to live up to the promises that Bioware/EA made when they were promoting it.

To summarise - they promised a game that would conclude the story arch providing elements such as closure (i.e. answering questions and not leaving more unanswered), game endings that would profoundly reflect the series of choices made throughout the whole narrative, and be consistent with the lore world they created.

This are not fan expectations, I point out - these are pledges and promises that Bioware/EA spokespersons made over time leading to the release of the game.

We're not protesting that the ending is 'bad' - We're protesting that this is a case of misleading advertising. What they sold consumers was not the product as advertised.

Companies *have* been found guilty of false advertising in the past, and I am reasonably hopeful that it will be the case this time also - but only if the gaming community realises that consumers are not sulking because the ending 'wasn't what they hoped it to be' - but because Bioware/EA did not live up to its own end of the deal.

 

[peruvianskys]

Entitled is just a buzzword cooked up by the gaming corporations to demonize people who buy second hand.

Let me ask you who is more "entitled". The consumer who A.) Wants the product they were promised they would get B.) Wants the right to resell a game they paid for

OR:
The developers who want to dictate not only how you play your games (DRM, online passes ect...) but also who want to be the ONLY medium that bans second hand games. They even use the excuse that even though you paid for your very own copy of whatever you got, you don't reeeeally own it. Even though money exchanged hands and you were given a physical item in exchange.

Who is the entitled one?

Umm...the first one. The people who make a game get to decide how it's produced, how it's played, and the terms on which you purchase it. If the company released a press notice complaining about how no one bought their game, that would be entitled.

Do people understand how capitalism works? Producer has control of the product. If you don't like it, you don't buy it and the market pressure causes change. That's what you get to do. To demand things from publishers or producers or artists or entertainers is not your right; they owe you nothing. They produce something and you get to choose whether or not you buy it.