Mass Effect 3: Retake Mass Effect Ending Child's Play Movement

[Steven Kilpatrick]

You got any stats to back up your claim? The other side's numbers may be from a small pool, but at least it is better than not having any numbers at all.

I'm confused by the question. I assume you're being snarky since I included a bunch of numbers, but in case you were being serious:

The sales figures are from numerous reports. 3.5 million shipped. Over 1 million sold.

I used the number of facebook "likes" and divided it by the number of copies sold to get the raw percentage of "official" dissent.

I then took into account the personal takes in other forums, places like Penny Arcade, friends (if you go places where people are talking about this, you'll probably find that many people are against the change, but if you only go to the threads where everyone is unhappy, of course you're going to find consensus. It's how Fox News makes their money).

None of the numbers are official, so none of them can be used. That was the point of my follow-up post, which had you read it would help with some of the confusion about how much importance I place on the statistics in this case.

So far I haven't spoken to anyone in person who didn't like the ending--but I've read a lot about "consensus unrest" on the internet.

I assume it'll all shake out soon enough, but since I happen to disagree, it's not that hard for me to imagine that it's a minority opinion. Just like it's not that hard for people who agree to imagine everyone hates it.

My entire point, in both cases, was that the current stats are bogus and that anything I said would also be an approximation. However, you can only act on the information you have. If we're counting 28 thousand dissenters as the "majority" simply because we can't prove people like the game--we can surely admit that something is skewed.

 

[Ticonderoga117]

You got any stats to back up your claim? The other side's numbers may be from a small pool, but at least it is better than not having any numbers at all.

I'm confused by the question. I assume you're being snarky since I included a bunch of numbers, but in case you were being serious:

The sales figures are from numerous reports. 3.5 million shipped. Over 1 million sold.

I used the number of facebook "likes" and divided it by the number of copies sold to get the raw percentage of "official" dissent.

I then took into account the personal takes in other forums, places like Penny Arcade, friends (if you go places where people are talking about this, you'll probably find that many people are against the change, but if you only go to the threads where everyone is unhappy, of course you're going to find consensus. It's how Fox News makes their money).

None of the numbers are official, so none of them can be used. That was the point of my follow-up post, which had you read it would help with some of the confusion about how much importance I place on the statistics in this case.

So far I haven't spoken to anyone in person who didn't like the ending--but I've read a lot about "consensus unrest" on the internet.

I assume it'll all shake out soon enough, but since I happen to disagree, it's not that hard for me to imagine that it's a minority opinion. Just like it's not that hard for people who agree to imagine everyone hates it.

My entire point, in both cases, was that the current stats are bogus and that anything I said would also be an approximation. However, you can only act on the information you have. If we're counting 28 thousand dissenters as the "majority" simply because we can't prove people like the game--we can surely admit that something is skewed.

You do realize that's not how polls work right? You know like those presidential polls? You take a decent sample size (a few hundred) and use those results to say "Yeah, this is roughly how the public is feeling about something." Generally, these polls are quite accurate. So yeah, just because not everyone who bought the game (who might not have net, know about the polls, etc.) doesn't mean that statistically "the majority of people are fine with things." The only thing you can say is that "not that many people who bought the game have voiced an opinion on the internet for any number of reasons."

 

[BloatedGuppy]

None of the numbers are official, so none of them can be used. That was the point of my follow-up post, which had you read it would help with some of the confusion about how much importance I place on the statistics in this case.

No, and I made a point of underscoring that none of it was official and that you can't read too much into a forum poll, but it's still the poll we have available to us. What are we to make of a poll where 90% think the ending is bad and 2% defend it? Those are not good numbers. Are people who like endings less likely to vote on polls? Whether you want to go on to argue that many people haven't finished the game yet, and maybe a lot of those people will like the game, those are still ugly numbers, trending in an ugly direction.

You talk about Penny Arcade. They admit that they enjoyed their ending, but are sympathetic to the people who did not. Even "We're in your pocket!" websites like GameSpot are publishing diatribes along the lines of "So the ending sucked! So what? Shut up whiners! Subscribe to GameSpot!".

I have no trouble with someone arguing that they enjoyed the ending, that the ending worked for them, that they got the catharsis they needed, etc. That's fine. We all experience things differently. I do get a little frustrated with people who go on to suggest that anyone who didn't like the ending is a whiny, entitled minority, or that we just didn't understand it, or that we want puppies and flowers, or whatever other whimsical crap they come up with to attempt to invalidate a viewpoint.

The ending had some pretty clear problems. We can admit to those problems, and people can still enjoy the ending in spite of them. Both things can be true at the same time.

 

[AD-Stu]

My confusion is the notion that "most fans" have reached some sort of consensus on this.

The game has been in our hands for just over a week. That's hardly enough time for the 1 million plus owners to have beaten it. Furthermore, only about 1,400 people have donated money to the charity.

Great, good for charity, but 1,400 donations hardly equals consensus.

Beyond that, the FREE TO JOIN facebook group has about 26,500 members right now.

If there are 1,000,000 copies of the game already in the hands of gamers, and there are 26,500 people who are unhappy, then you're dealing with somewhere between 2 and 3% of all people who own the game. Let me reiterate: That's 2-3% of people who are even willing to click a "like" button--one of the easiest forms of activism on the planet.

There's a good chance that, even if the numbers swell as more people finish the game, 70-90% of people are enjoying the ending.

If only 2.5% of people are mobilizing against something, there's a good chance they're in the vast minority. If that's the case, and I'm almost certain it is, then I can't imagine the gall it takes to demand something is changed that would cripple authorial credibility.

Once again though, everybody is ignoring Bioware's track record on this stuff.

In the past they haven't required an outcry of anything even close to these proportions to make changes to the series.

The majority of the time, when a minority of hardcore fans has spoken out about something (be it gay romance options, hating planet scanning, mistakes in the latest novel and even, apparently, the leaked ME3 script) they've changed the games to accommodate them.

Part of the reason fans are acting this way is because it's worked almost every time in the past.

Also, assuming that everyone who didn't complain loudly about the ending actually enjoyed it is completely flawed logic - DUCY?

 

[HonestJoe]

OK, by examining the posts in this thread I have worked out that most posters can be lumped into one of two possible groups.

Group A: People with too much time on there hands, who have decided to go on the internet and whine about how the ending of a video game didn't meet their expectations. In the process raising +$30,000 for charity.


Group B: People with too much time on there hands, who have decided to go on the internet and whine about the people who whine about how the ending of a video game didn't meet their expectations. In the process raising $0.00 for charity.

What is interesting is that Group B seem to think that they have some sort of moral superiority; throwing around accusations of fraud and deceit. When by my arithmetic they have -30,000 reasons to justify that belief.


If it isn't obvious from my comments above, I am firmly in Group A.
I donated to what I believe is a worthy charity; primarily to voice my dissatisfaction with what I thought to be a mediocre ending to an otherwise excellent game. But also to help assuage some of the guilt I feel in dedicating so much of my life to a leisure activity, while so many in the world are suffering.

If some consider it "cheap to use charity for something like this"; I think I can live with that.

That reminds me of the time I realized I was going to stop going to church. I took my little sister to church at the behest of my dad, and the preacher was talking about how people, who are good but don't believe in Jesus, won't make it to heaven because they don't believe. I couldn't help but think, "If people who do good, but don't believe in God or heaven or Jesus, then they're not doing good because they expect a reward. They're doing good because it's just the right thing to do. And if they don't get into heaven, then heaven doesn't sound all that great."

Now the point of that is you're generosity is based on selfish interests. And because of that, that actually makes you worse than the people who didn't donate to the charity under your cause. Even though they gave no money, they also weren't dishonest about who they are as people.

I don't see what you attribute as 'dishonesty' in my statement.
I think I was perfectly clear in my own motivations, and made no effort to alter or obfuscate them. The accusation of dishonesty is an ad hominem fallacy; an attempt dismiss our ideas by attributing a negative quality to us as people.


I also think it's naive to believe that any charitable act doesn't contain some measure of selfishness. Mother Teresa believed in God, and I'm sure her actions were partly motivated by her belief that God would reward her deeds in the next life. Does this fact somehow lessen her accomplishments.

Not that I mean to make a comparison between this movement and Mother Teresa, that would be absurd.
I merely wish to point out that the inherent premise of your argument is flawed. Pure intent and no action is not morally greater than an ambiguous intent with positive action.

 

[Uszi]

SNIP

If only 2.5% of people are mobilizing against something, there's a good chance they're in the vast minority. If that's the case, and I'm almost certain it is, then I can't imagine the gall it takes to demand something is changed that would cripple authorial credibility.

My thought: the game has been out now for what, 8 days?

My play through was 35 hours. So if you just finished today and you bought it on launch, you played for at least 4-5 hours a day. That's still pretty hardcore.

I think the issue is that hardcore fans finished first. I'm expecting by the end of the month when people who are only going to play 1-2 hours a day finish the game, there will be more people complaining.

I'm not sympathetic to this movement at all. It's not just because I'm a fan of the current ending. It's also that I'm not a fan of this notion of crowd sourced creativity. It's up there with voting "1 out of 10" at Metacritic to make a point.

You didn't like it. It was too bleak. So is life. So is the Christ story that Shepard is based on. So is nearly every catalytic change. If reapers dropping onto earth and killing everyone didn't set the tone for you, what were you doing for hours and hours of gameplay that didn't make you think: "this won't all end up perfectly?"

I wonder how many people would have petitioned Spielberg because Saving Private Ryan had an ending that was too bleak. I wonder how silly they'd have seemed.

I don't care that it's bleak. I agree, it should be bleak.

I care that it doesn't make sense and it's full of holes. I care that the game is resolved using two deus ex machina. I care that the game offers no form of closure at all.

I care that you aren't offered the opportunity to succeed. All of the choices represent failure: It's unethical in my opinion to force synthesis on organic life (I sure as fuck wouldn't want it forced on me); it's unethical to kill the Geth and EDI; it's unethical to sieze control of sentient beings (the reapers).

You might say, "Well sometimes you have to make unethical decisions."

You've never been forced to accept that sort of compromise before though. If you did everything right in ME2, you got a "perfect" ending. There is no "perfect" ending in ME3.

In regards to "crowd sourcing creativity," and "authorial credibility" I think what I said in reply to Andy Chalk's article is relevant here:



I don't really buy the "meddling with art," argument.

We're talking about commercial art first of all, that is already planning to release paid DLC that will add content to the game, second of all. And, finally, this particular piece of art is 99% perfect, but it features a flaw with one percent.

Compare mass effect to say, a real piece of art, like a painting. The obvious difference is that a painting is made and then it's finished. The game is going to be added to repeatedly in the form of paid DLC.

So lets say the artist of the painting has told you he's going to charge you to update your copy of his painting a couple of times this year(i.e. paid DLC). Looking at the painting, you decide you like 99% of it, except the one corner that features a crude drawing of a penis. Why not ask him to cover up that penis in the bottom corner when he comes to do the painting update?

Back to Mass Effect, what's wrong with people saying, "Hey, make one of those DLC's a new ending!"

I actually cant wait until the bsn people leave. Threads like this are hurting my brain

We're actually here most of the time.

 

[42]

Yeah, I'm gonna have to say fuck you guys. Maybe if you were story writers there and decided that you could do better, then this'd be okay. But no, you're a bunch of whiny, entitled, self-important douchebags. You're consumers buying a form of art (in the same way that movies are art), and when buying art, you have no right to ***** about how shitty it is. You bought someone else's creative work, and if their work is not up to your standards, then that's your loss. It's not their job to remake it to suit your wants.

This is wrong on so many levels, it's not even funny.

Whether I can or can't do better is beside the point. If someone serves me a shitty meal, it doesn't matter if I could cook it better.

Especially if that meal is full of ridiculous plotholes.

Buyer beware. You bought their game, you were disappointed, oh well. The world goes on, the company goes on, and the game stays the same. It's not at all their job to rebuild their game from the ground-up just to please people who think they're important enough to have creative control over the game.

My opinion, the most you should get is a "Sorry you didn't enjoy it," and maybe your money back. The refund is seriously pushing it.

That's not what you were saying.

You're claiming we shouldn't be able to complain about it, when, as a paying customer, I'm absolutely within my right to complain about it.

i think your confusing a video game with food, because if you believe that games should be treated as an Art medium then it is buyer beware. buying food however is something that does make you a paying customer. if the foods not up to standard then you complain, but since Art is subjective, and everyone believes video games should be treated as such then its a whole other kettle of fish.

OP: as for the whole charity stunt, yeah i don't buy it. while it is good that the money is going to a worthy cause, let me ask this. if the ending didn't suck would they have been so generous? no of course not. this is just hiding behind a charity so they can hide from criticism.

 

[Uszi]

i think your confusing a video game with food, because if you believe that games should be treated as an Art medium then it is buyer beware. buying food however is something that does make you a paying customer. if the foods not up to standard then you complain, but since Art is subjective, and everyone believes video games should be treated as such then its a whole other kettle of fish.

The fact of the matter is that this game is going to receive periodic updates that add content for money.

So if they are already going to add content to the game, then what is wrong with vocalizing your desire as a consumer of DLC to the producer of that DLC for specific content?

OP: as for the whole charity stunt, yeah i don't buy it. while it is good that the money is going to a worthy cause, let me ask this. if the ending didn't suck would they have been so generous? no of course not. this is just hiding behind a charity so they can hide from criticism.

Or we're simply doing something good as well as raising awareness for our cause?

 

[42]

i think your confusing a video game with food, because if you believe that games should be treated as an Art medium then it is buyer beware. buying food however is something that does make you a paying customer. if the foods not up to standard then you complain, but since Art is subjective, and everyone believes video games should be treated as such then its a whole other kettle of fish.

The fact of the matter is that this game is going to receive periodic updates that add content for money.

So if they are already going to add content to the game, then what is wrong with vocalizing your desire as a consumer of DLC to the producer of that DLC for specific content?

OP: as for the whole charity stunt, yeah i don't buy it. while it is good that the money is going to a worthy cause, let me ask this. if the ending didn't suck would they have been so generous? no of course not. this is just hiding behind a charity so they can hide from criticism.

Or we're simply doing something good as well as raising awareness for our cause?

DLC should be under the same banner. yeah its a money grabber, but nonetheless its a part of a product thats been made for entertainment purposes.

What cause is that may i ask? Retake a video game, and give it to the fans to give it the ending they see fit? Wow thats an amazing cause. i never knew it was up there with cancer research and a cure for aids. if you can see this as cynicism then you'd be right because I know bioware aint going to change it. I mean i did say while i think it is good that moneys being raised for charity, i object to the pre tense its being donated under.

 

[xPixelatedx]

Man, Mass Effect 3 is going to be part of many jokes for a long, long time... maybe indefinitely. The director wanted their game to be remembered, and so it shall be. When any conversation rises comparing Mass Effect to other games, this will now be uttered: "At least our game's ending wasn't so god awful gamers -notoriously known for being cheapskates and inactive slouches- actually got off their butts and forked over $40,000 to have it changed."

That said I am very proud of you all. I honestly thought this new generation of gamers had no spine what so ever, thank you for proving me wrong. Now lets set our crosshairs on Capcom let them know how much we hate all the BS they have pulled recently.

 

[random281]

It's a relatively impossible situation after only a week.

50,000 respondents is still only 5% of the total owners (give or take, these numbers are extremely fluid right now).

50,000 people who are definitely not buying one $10 DLC pack is a $500,000 loss in revenue to the company.

The people who are actively complaining about the endings online are people who would be likely DLC Customers, since they obviously feel very strongly about the series.

 

[Uszi]

DLC should be under the same banner. yeah its a money grabber, but nonetheless its a part of a product thats been made for entertainment purposes.

Art =/= a product made for entertainment purposes.

For instance, Adam Sandler made a career of making fart noises for entertainment purposes. If you want to include Jack and Jill in your definition of "art," then your definition is unworkably broad for my tastes.

What cause is that may i ask? Retake a video game, and give it to the fans to give it the ending they see fit?

No. Encourage the creation of post release content that delivers a cohert ending, instead of the mess that currently exists. It has nothing to do with "giving the game to the fans."

Wow thats an amazing cause. i never knew it was up there with cancer research and a cure for aids.

I never said it was. I find it very telling that you have to misrepresent my statement before you can reply to it.

if you can see this as cynicism then you'd be right because I know bioware aint going to change it. I mean i did say while i think it is good that moneys being raised for charity, i object to the pre tense its being donated under.

That's fine. I don't know if Bioware will change it, and you're free to disagree with us.

 

[Fr]anc[is]

this is just hiding behind a charity so they can hide from criticism.

"U mad biodrone? trolololo" is not criticism, despite what half the internet would like to think.

 

[Duncan Cross]

Well said! It raises money for a worthy charity = win, it acts as a catalyst for more mass effect that builds on what was an already awesome story = win. Nobody loses, everybody gains something.