I first posted this on the Bioware forums after being stonewalled by IGN, but it is in the form of a letter to Mr. Moriarty.
_______________________
Mr. Moriarty,
I would like to start by saying I am an avid browser of your webpage, and have read several reviews written by you ? the most recent of which was, of course, the Mass Effect 3 review. I disagreed with your review in only a single way: I would have given Mass Effect 3 a 9.9 (though I know it is no longer IGN policy to give such scores). Since finishing the game, I have watched, and marginally participated in, the debate over the ending of Mass Effect 3, including the video comments you have made this situation. I noted in the your recent video comment about the Bioware decision to create content clarifying the ending (Dr. Muzyka was not clear on exactly what the content was to be) that you were without a contrary voice, so I thought I might offer myself in the form of this note as such a voice. I am not here to discuss the merits of the ending ? which I found personally disappointing and I would relish such a discussion with you, should you so choose ? but rather to offer an opposing philosophical view of the situation.
Before anything else, I thought I might start with an observation about your assertion that the disgruntled fans are an entitled, vocal minority. Calling the dismayed fan entitled is an unfortunate ad hominem attack that leads those aggrieved fans to automatically discount everything else you say ? even though you have a strong philosophical argument about the medium. I fear that this may be reflecting poorly on you and your news outlet in the eyes of some onlookers, myself not included. Perhaps more troubling to me, though is your repeated assertion that the aggrieved groups is a minority of those playing. Based on my own dissatisfaction, I feel like a majority must be disappointed with the way the tale was wrapped up. Unfortunately, the vast majority of players will never speak a word online in favor or against the closing moments of the wonderful Mass Effect Trilogy, making your assertion and my feeling impossible to prove or rebut. An irrefutable assertion is not good for any argument, and doesn?t have much place in a conversation about the future of an artistic medium. I offer this merely as a suggestion to improve your argument.
If I understand your point of view properly, you believe that a consumer of video games successfully petitioning to change the ending of a video game irreparably compromises the artistic integrity of the storytelling medium that is the videogame. I believe I recognize that this philosophy is similar to that which Ayn Rand espoused in The Fountainhead. I fully respect the idea that an artist?s work should be respected and protected in order to protect the medium of an art form. In fact, if we were having this conversation about the latest installment of George R. R. Martin?s A Song of Ice and Fire series, I would be on your side. However, I think your argument is wrong as applied to the medium of videogames, for two reasons: an economic argument concerning rights of consumers and an argument about the nature of the medium, itself.
When talking about art as a commodity, it is important to differentiate between the various forms. When a consumer goes to buy a landscape or a portrait or an artist?s abstract interpretation of New York City (I have one hanging on my walls), the consumer gets to fully see the piece that they are purchasing before they buy it. Obviously, this gets more complicated with books, movies, or videogames. Books are rather returnable, so long as you do not abuse them when you read them. Movies and videogames, due to the shrink wrap contracts tending to preclude a consumer from returning the product. I am personally of the mind that it is next to stealing to return a book, movie, or videogame once someone has read, watched, or played them. The user has gotten the satisfaction that they paid for and demanding their money back is improper. Thus, for those media the consumer can only express their displeasure economically by boycotting future works by the producer that may or may not be infected by the same issues that aggrieved the consumer. The interaction between the internet and video games, however, changes things. In an era of downloadable content the consumer can request that the producer consider changing the ending of a videogame. I don?t think this is a problem for a producer of an artist medium, I think it?s an inspired moment for the relationship between consumers and producers.
The economic argument, to me, is only part of the point, and it would seem that to you it is beside the point. As I mentioned above, it would seem that your belief is that the medium is harmed in its abilities to tell stories unless the work of the creators is left alone ? regardless of the feedback on it. With a book or a movie I wholeheartedly agree with you. Both these media are a means to present the artist?s vision to an audience that has asked for it, the audience takes no part in the tale other than being a third party observer. Due to the utter lack of interactivity between the story and audience, there is no room in the artistic medium for the audience to really have input into the tale, itself.
Videogames, however, feature the audience playing an active role in the telling of the tale, making the conversation about audience input more complex than it would be for books or movies. No longer is the audience watching as characters like Nick Carraway (from The Great Gatsby) or Billy Costigan (The Departed) meander through their tales, the audience and the main character in many instances are one and the same for the exposition of the story. Of course, this level of interactivity between the story and its audience varies amongst the various types of videogames. In the typical video game, the audience has first party control over portions of the game that cannot change the story and second or third party control over portions that do. For instance, when I am playing Call of Duty: Black Ops, I control Mason in the shooting scenes but I don?t control Mason when he?s moving us between them.
The role-playing genre, however, offers the greatest amount of interaction between the audience and the story ? an attribute that makes it my absolute favorite in the videogame medium. This level of interactivity creates expectations that the audience has a hand in crafting the tale that is being told; in fact, critical and popular reception regularly lauds games that emphasize player choice. With the level of interactivity, the audience in many ways becomes a co-author with the creative minds who have presented the story to them. Bioware?s Mass Effect series took this level of audience customization of the story to a level previously unseen. Not only did a player?s choices affect spoken dialogue, but decisions affected outcomes in the next game! As a medium that emphasizes interaction between the story and the story?s audience by making the audience the object of the story, the medium will necessarily develop towards greater interactivity.
Bioware?s decision to modify the ending at the behest of their fans is not a step back for the medium, but it is a step forward. At present it is impossible for a videogame?s player to be both author and audience, but the rpg genre of the medium is clearly trending in that direction. With this interaction and customization at the core of what makes the medium different from others looking to tell stories, Bioware is increasing the role played by the players in writing the story by agreeing to modify the ending that many of its fans are dissatisfied with. Rather than cheapening the artists? work, this furthers the medium.
- Chris I
_______________________
Mr. Moriarty,
I would like to start by saying I am an avid browser of your webpage, and have read several reviews written by you ? the most recent of which was, of course, the Mass Effect 3 review. I disagreed with your review in only a single way: I would have given Mass Effect 3 a 9.9 (though I know it is no longer IGN policy to give such scores). Since finishing the game, I have watched, and marginally participated in, the debate over the ending of Mass Effect 3, including the video comments you have made this situation. I noted in the your recent video comment about the Bioware decision to create content clarifying the ending (Dr. Muzyka was not clear on exactly what the content was to be) that you were without a contrary voice, so I thought I might offer myself in the form of this note as such a voice. I am not here to discuss the merits of the ending ? which I found personally disappointing and I would relish such a discussion with you, should you so choose ? but rather to offer an opposing philosophical view of the situation.
Before anything else, I thought I might start with an observation about your assertion that the disgruntled fans are an entitled, vocal minority. Calling the dismayed fan entitled is an unfortunate ad hominem attack that leads those aggrieved fans to automatically discount everything else you say ? even though you have a strong philosophical argument about the medium. I fear that this may be reflecting poorly on you and your news outlet in the eyes of some onlookers, myself not included. Perhaps more troubling to me, though is your repeated assertion that the aggrieved groups is a minority of those playing. Based on my own dissatisfaction, I feel like a majority must be disappointed with the way the tale was wrapped up. Unfortunately, the vast majority of players will never speak a word online in favor or against the closing moments of the wonderful Mass Effect Trilogy, making your assertion and my feeling impossible to prove or rebut. An irrefutable assertion is not good for any argument, and doesn?t have much place in a conversation about the future of an artistic medium. I offer this merely as a suggestion to improve your argument.
If I understand your point of view properly, you believe that a consumer of video games successfully petitioning to change the ending of a video game irreparably compromises the artistic integrity of the storytelling medium that is the videogame. I believe I recognize that this philosophy is similar to that which Ayn Rand espoused in The Fountainhead. I fully respect the idea that an artist?s work should be respected and protected in order to protect the medium of an art form. In fact, if we were having this conversation about the latest installment of George R. R. Martin?s A Song of Ice and Fire series, I would be on your side. However, I think your argument is wrong as applied to the medium of videogames, for two reasons: an economic argument concerning rights of consumers and an argument about the nature of the medium, itself.
When talking about art as a commodity, it is important to differentiate between the various forms. When a consumer goes to buy a landscape or a portrait or an artist?s abstract interpretation of New York City (I have one hanging on my walls), the consumer gets to fully see the piece that they are purchasing before they buy it. Obviously, this gets more complicated with books, movies, or videogames. Books are rather returnable, so long as you do not abuse them when you read them. Movies and videogames, due to the shrink wrap contracts tending to preclude a consumer from returning the product. I am personally of the mind that it is next to stealing to return a book, movie, or videogame once someone has read, watched, or played them. The user has gotten the satisfaction that they paid for and demanding their money back is improper. Thus, for those media the consumer can only express their displeasure economically by boycotting future works by the producer that may or may not be infected by the same issues that aggrieved the consumer. The interaction between the internet and video games, however, changes things. In an era of downloadable content the consumer can request that the producer consider changing the ending of a videogame. I don?t think this is a problem for a producer of an artist medium, I think it?s an inspired moment for the relationship between consumers and producers.
The economic argument, to me, is only part of the point, and it would seem that to you it is beside the point. As I mentioned above, it would seem that your belief is that the medium is harmed in its abilities to tell stories unless the work of the creators is left alone ? regardless of the feedback on it. With a book or a movie I wholeheartedly agree with you. Both these media are a means to present the artist?s vision to an audience that has asked for it, the audience takes no part in the tale other than being a third party observer. Due to the utter lack of interactivity between the story and audience, there is no room in the artistic medium for the audience to really have input into the tale, itself.
Videogames, however, feature the audience playing an active role in the telling of the tale, making the conversation about audience input more complex than it would be for books or movies. No longer is the audience watching as characters like Nick Carraway (from The Great Gatsby) or Billy Costigan (The Departed) meander through their tales, the audience and the main character in many instances are one and the same for the exposition of the story. Of course, this level of interactivity between the story and its audience varies amongst the various types of videogames. In the typical video game, the audience has first party control over portions of the game that cannot change the story and second or third party control over portions that do. For instance, when I am playing Call of Duty: Black Ops, I control Mason in the shooting scenes but I don?t control Mason when he?s moving us between them.
The role-playing genre, however, offers the greatest amount of interaction between the audience and the story ? an attribute that makes it my absolute favorite in the videogame medium. This level of interactivity creates expectations that the audience has a hand in crafting the tale that is being told; in fact, critical and popular reception regularly lauds games that emphasize player choice. With the level of interactivity, the audience in many ways becomes a co-author with the creative minds who have presented the story to them. Bioware?s Mass Effect series took this level of audience customization of the story to a level previously unseen. Not only did a player?s choices affect spoken dialogue, but decisions affected outcomes in the next game! As a medium that emphasizes interaction between the story and the story?s audience by making the audience the object of the story, the medium will necessarily develop towards greater interactivity.
Bioware?s decision to modify the ending at the behest of their fans is not a step back for the medium, but it is a step forward. At present it is impossible for a videogame?s player to be both author and audience, but the rpg genre of the medium is clearly trending in that direction. With this interaction and customization at the core of what makes the medium different from others looking to tell stories, Bioware is increasing the role played by the players in writing the story by agreeing to modify the ending that many of its fans are dissatisfied with. Rather than cheapening the artists? work, this furthers the medium.
- Chris I
