MOVIEBOB you're wrong about the Mass Effect Ending! The art is ours as well as theirs.

[Nazgual]

AND I am a little miffed that yahtzee pretty much insulted the fan base..but whatever

Doesn't Yahtzee insult fans all the time? I don't take his quips seriously.

 

[ResonanceSD]

[sub](Good Lord, when will this topic go away?)[/sub]

Nope.

I disagree with Bob, but I also disagree with you.

We, the audience, did not create anything. Nothing at all. We merely chose between various bits of content produced by the developers. That does not grant us any kind of ownership. To suggest it does is ridiculous, and I mean that literally, as in "worthy of ridicule."

EDIT: Ninja'd. Always with the ninja'd.

This. So much of this.

The topic needs to die. Consumers need to learn their place. PUNISH BAD COMPANIES BY NOT BUYING THEIR CRAP, also, you didn't do anything to create it. It was mass effect, you ferried around your guy to events other people created. Any suggestion of ownership is completely ridiculous. You got involved with a game, the writer botched the ending. The end, game over. You dont have an sort of f creative control over the content, you aren't EA.

 

[Olas]

Unlike any other medium games allow us to BE the protagonist in the story. The story, the world unfolds around us, reacts to us, we are not observers. This is especially true with a series like Mass Effect because unlike a lot of other games the player is given CHOICE. And this is the point. It is this choice that allows us to not only shape our world, but also the story that's being told.

I'm not sure if the Anti-Change ending camp has realised but people refer to Shepard as MY Shepard. This is an important point, and what underpins the experience that Bioware was selling. It was each our own story. Bioware created the universe, but allowed us to choose which path to take and to deal with the consequences of said choices and to carry this over across games. The ending they made does not do this.

Sorry to have to tell you this but...

This isn't minecraft we're talking about here. The different options/paths that Mass Effect gives you are already programmed into the game for you to choose from. Your choices aren't at the level where they could possibly be considered original game content. Even if they were, the only person affected by your in-game decisions is yourself; you aren't sending information back to EA to help them in further game development. Ironically the only time Mass Effect players have really helped father anything within the actual games is when they protested the ME3 ending, leading bioware to create the DLC they've promised.

If we deserve any credit for the game it isn't because we can make decisions within it, it's because we pay for the game with our money. We create the incentive for developers to make it at all, and then we contribute to Bioware with funds for doing so. They need us more than we need them.

However, we still aren't entitled to have games made the way we want any more than Bioware is entitled to our money. They don't work directly for us, we're just investors.

 

[tobi the good boy]

again? really? can we like ya know move on now


here, listen to this, since its literally the last song i listened to i have a link to and chill, cause it not really worth going into again at this point

I don't even like ponies but that was indeed quite enjoyable.

OT: We didn't make it, we are not entitled to force change.

 

[Smertnik]

Why do you people always feel the need to make new threads about over-discussed topics instead of posting in the existing ones?

 

[thebighead01]

LMAO, nice responses, calm and level headed as always people. Please note how hostile the Anti-Change Ending camp is, compared to the other side in this thread. Very interesting...

So where to being first...

Personally, I thought ME2 was shit. So, I've already cut ties to the franchise and have no real vested interest in this whole ME3 boondoggle.

However, unless you are actually part of the team that wrote ME3's story, you have absolutely ZERO say in the direction that they took the game.

If you think the ending was shit, then think it's shit. There's nothing wrong with that.
If you think it deserved better, then think it deserved better. There's nothing wrong with that.
If you think you're entitled to have them rewrite it, then you're Wrong.

By purchasing the game, you only got the right to play the game they made. Nothing more.

I second the entirety of this post.

When people say "entitled gamers," TheBigHead01 is a shining example. The games industry is not Wal-Mart. If I do not like a mouse because it feels funny, I am not entitled to return it. I cannot go to the manufacturer and say "This mouse is funny, you are homosexual, redesign it. And while your at it, I've got 2 tonnes of manure you'll need to sign off downstairs."

This is exactly what is happening here. If you think Bioware or EA is some big evil company taking advantage of you then don't buy their fucking product. Is this so hard? I don't understand this. You shell out the money for a game and expected something that will shape your life, and when you don't get it, what? You harass an entire company? What the fuck gives you the right?

Man, fuck this entire Mass Effect thing. After playing through ME1, I knew this trilogy wasn't going to be amazing. I'll say it was a good game, but... Again, were you expecting your entire life to change as the result of ME3?

Ahh yes, madwarper & BeerTent. If you're one of the 7 people who played the games and didn't like them or didn't want anything to do with them or whatever not sure why you're really. But ok. And to answer your question BeerTent no, no I wasn't expecting my life to change. However what I found in this love piece of escapism was a universe that paid homage to every sci-fi franchise that I have grown up with while also creating it's own magnificent world, in a medium that I love the most. So where my expectations high on this? Yes, how could it not be.

When people say "entitled gamers," TheBigHead01 is a shining example. The games industry is not Wal-Mart. If I do not like a mouse because it feels funny, I am not entitled to return it. I cannot go to the manufacturer and say "This mouse is funny, you are homosexual, redesign it. And while your at it, I've got 2 tonnes of manure you'll need to sign off downstairs."

Points been made time and again so please try to pay attention, if not for everyone else's sake than at least for yours; multiple promises were made for multiple endings, this was not given. To use your mouse analogy if the box says that you'll have 5 buttons on it but only get 3, don't you have the right to get your money back? Clearly it was advertised to have something that it didn't have. Last time I checked that's false advertising. And lastly, I haven't used any of the terminology you've so colourfully used. In fact I've tried to approach this as a serious debate. But *sigh* guess you won't.

This is exactly what is happening here. If you think Bioware or EA is some big evil company taking advantage of you then don't buy their fucking product. Is this so hard? I don't understand this. You shell out the money for a game and expected something that will shape your life, and when you don't get it, what? You harass an entire company? What the fuck gives you the right?

Oh and I never said Bioware or EA were evil (although with EA that goes without saying). The trouble with this point is that to find out about the ending you have to buy the game, play it, and reach the ending. And please don't tell me that I can just find out the ending before getting it because if you're that type of person how can you enjoy anything in life. Quite frankly I hope you find help if you're like that.

His main argument is that because we are not the creators of the art we have no right but this isn't true. Among all the arguments this one just doesn't seem to be mentioned. We also made that art too.

Unlike any other medium games allow us to BE the protagonist in the story. The story, the world unfolds around us, reacts to us, we are not observers. This is especially true with a series like Mass Effect because unlike a lot of other games the player is given CHOICE. And this is the point. It is this choice that allows us to not only shape our world, but also the story that's being told.

So because they decided to have choice as a gameplay mechanic, you have creative control over the franchise?

And even then, each choice is a choice they gave you, with consequences they scripted, in a game they made and you bought. Reading a choose your own adventure book doesn't make you the author.

Phlakes, I will direct you to the quote below because I think Joccaren (thanks Joccaren ) puts it quite elequently. What I was trying to get people to think about was the relationship between the audience and the artist in the confines of not only a computer game, but one where the audience had a personal, vestige interest in the protaganist. Again, look at the fact that people refer to Shepard as MY Shepard. And this relationship creates a different paradigm compared to other mediums.

We didn't write the story, we didn't create it.
What we did create was Shepard - and don't anybody try to tell me otherwise.
Bioware presented us with Options with which we wrote our Shepard, but each Shepard was unique, and until ME3 Bioware left Shepard as mostly a blank slate.
We didn't write the story. Bioware did that. They wrote the story, and made the world. We created Shepard though. They wrote what he says, and gave us the option to choose, but Shepard was never Bioware's character - until ME3. Its why a lot of people are hurt at the ending, and the auto dialogue, and the dreams. That isn't the Shepard we forged throughout ME1 and ME2, that's Bioware's vision of Shepard - generally quite different from my own.

I think Shamus Young said it right: We are the editors of ME. We don't write the story, we don't create the world. We take what is offered to us by those that do, and choose which one is the right one. Generally they gave us a reasonable array of options to choose from. The ME3 ending didn't.

can i just say i agree with everything you said
people on these forums are (in all honesty and hate calling people this) complacent.

id also like to talk about artistic integrety. theres the argument about somethings being changed (Great Expectations which is considered one of the greatest works of art in literature was changed). we also have the fact that then ending was written by 2 people and the rest of team wasnt consulted (sacraficing most of the team's artistic integrety). what they delivered was exactly the opposite of what Hudson promised (keeping in mind he wrote the ending).
and all the time in media the publisher will demand the creator/artist changes their product/art to suit the publisher's needs. why is that ok but bad when the audience (the one the art is made for) thinks it should be changed

and at anyone complaining how this topic is still around, stop replying to these threads (there are plenty of non ME3 threads out there you are going out of your way to find and read them these days) and make your own threads that dont involve ME3 and if it gets brought up ignore it.... hmm which ones are the whinners?

lol, well put spartandude. Not sure why they whine about the fact that others are whinning. Makes no sense right. But in terms of what you said it is true there seems to be a grudging acceptance that if a publisher or whoever interferes with a piece of art it's ok while for the people actually investing in i.e. the audience it isn't. I'm honestly trying to think of an answer but can't really think of one. Think I'll need to come back to this one :/

*Sigh* DrVornoff, you also failed to understand the point I was trying to make. We are not asking for director's credit. As has been pointed out fan input has shaped development of the game so our input is already there.

Difference being that now people are demanding it.

Well I'm not, so....

Also, again, let me repeat this to be as clear as possible, all that is needed is CLOSURE. The ending didn't offer that. It created more questions than answers, and ultimate failed to deliver on the very game mechanic it had built its franchise on, choice and consequences. This is what we though we bought, but we didn't get.

Did I at any point deny that?

No, but you didn't acknowledge it either. This is, I believe, above all else where the problem lies. As I've said before the game offered a personalised experience that genuinely created a personal connection with the characters and the peoples in that world. This was ignored in the creation of the ending that helped to create this situation.

So all your rage against this isn't really going to go to take you anywhere. Isn't it hypocritical to complain about people who complain, since you believe people shouldn't ever complain since it won't or shouldn't change anything? Hope that doesn't go over your heads.

Fucking spare me. Speaking of missing the point...

And what point is that? You're complaining about people complaining. Just swearing doesn't disprove this. Come on your better than that aren't you? spartandude, talk to him would you?

This is an open letter to MovieBob, and anybody else who still has energy to argue about this

While I don't go so far as to say that the player has artistic input, we have something that is just as important, the ability to interpret what is created.

I will always argue that in Games the storytelling and the experience are shaped by two things; The narrative intended by the Creator, and the narrative created by the Mechanics. What do I mean by that? Simply put that the narrative in the story is shaped as much by what is intended as it is by what the player can do.

I personally feel that if we strive to call games art, then we MUST call all games art, and if we call all games art then we need to define games and define what sets games apart from other forms of art. That defining characteristic is the mechanics, and the problem that most members of the games journalism industry haven't picked up yet (other than Extra Credits and they've missed some of their own statements when it comes to the ME3 ending), is that mechanics can tell a story that the creator doesn't intend. A game with a excellent and deep plot that fashions itself towards a particular goal can be totally undone by the actions that a player takes through the games mechanics.

My dissatisfaction with the ME3 ending has always been that the plot of the game and the story being told DOES lead up to a particular ending, one of total sacrifice and loss, but of final triumph. That ending is reached and it DOES work for the story because in retrospect the story does work towards it, foreshadow it and generally build up to it...but the mechanics of the game allow for a different interpretation of it.

What do I mean? Out of the numerous people who I've asked who say they enjoy the endings, only ONE person said they saved everyone in ME2, saved Wrex, and only lost people when it was unavoidable. Overwhelmingly, the people who lost characters on the suicide mission, lost them in ME3 and lost Wrex in ME1 felt that the tone of the game led to an ending of loss. On the inverse, the players I've spoken to who do not like the Mass Effect 3 ending went out of their way to save and resolve issues. They went through the suicide mission without loss, they made peace between Geth and Quarian, they talked down Saren, they saved Wrex and the Krogan AND made the Krogan more galactically friendly.

The Story tells us one thing, while the Mechanics of the game lead us to a different interpretation of the story one that isn't intended. If you establish in your mechanics that it is possible to approach unreasonable or untenable conflicts and resolve them rather than ascribe to the options that are simply 'there' don't be surprised when your players are discontent with having to chose between options that are presented without any ability to realign the situation. If your mechanics establish that a mission that will almost certainly result in the deaths of you and your teammates can be survived without a single casualty do not be surprised when your players express surprise that they're in a situation that can't be overcome.

That's something that I don't think has really come up in gaming before because a game like Mass Effect 3 has never come out before. ME3 is truly a watershed in gaming, it gives us an experience that no other form of media has every created, and it is a form of Art, but in it's creation, we can see what can go wrong with our art-form. ME3 was an excellent attempt at creating something that shows how Games are an art in their own right not simply art as taken from other forms (graphics, audio, story).

If we look at games based upon story and mechanics, I submit that Modern Warfare 3 was a greater work of art than Mass Effect 3. That Gears of War 3 was a greater work of art than Mass Effect 3. Yes, I said it, and I mean it. Because in those games the narrative is united in mechanics and intent.

The story remains set to interpretation within the boundaries of what the mechanic allows. There's no option to negotiate with the Russians in Modern Warfare 3 and have them leave America and Europe willingly, and if the Mechanic of the game gave us that option at some point, we'd be confused and displeased. There's no Locust character in Gears of War 3 for us to get to know better and have as a squadmate so we empathize and understand the Locust point of view better...if there was we'd be more than a little off put by it. But those games don't, their mechanics are consistent. Story is told with one intention, and there is no way to step around and look at the story from another way.

FFHAuthor...I feel I should get back to you in a separate post because quite frankly the points that you've made are really thought provoking, and I believe eloquently underpins this situation and deserves serious consideration on my part. Although MW3 better than ME3? We have to talk mate

I agree with Jim on this one

AND I am a little miffed that yahtzee pretty much insulted the fan base..but whatever

I actually dont think its so unreasonable to be unahppy with the ending, Im dont know if anyone is as insane I as I am about Mass Effect...but I had some SERIOUS emotional attatchment to this series (and shepard, oh god shepard)..espeically ME3 where everything was turned up to eleven

afterwards it left me feeling empty and depressed, I wouldnt mind so much but this is the ENDING ending, this is what mattered

I think regardless of peoples stances on the matter...the ending was crap, not only because of the ambiguity...because of the fact that shepard didnt deserve that

but also because of the fact its ridden with plot holes,

I mean theres ambigous and theres sad, they can both work in their own way, but mix those two together and you get the worst kind of ending...

now weather or not we deserve" another ending is one thing

but personally, to me its more about "well...if they COULD change the ending then why not? what harm could it do?" unlike other mediums thease things can be fixed with simple DLC, as I said, MOST people you talk too weather they care or not think the ending is bad,

that said even with this new epilouge DLC I dont htink it well improve things (for me personally) they arnt going to change the ending really, but I guess its somthing at least, and for that I AM grateful

This was the point I was trying to make. A game is not the same as book, like a book is not the same as a film. But all have art within them. The concept of art is changes, so why can't it adapt to the way games work thorough DLC. And Vault101, no one's a bigger ME fan than me

Oh, so wrong in so many ways. But, at least your ridiculous argument was worth it for a good laugh. So thanks.

Oookkkk, thanks for dropping by I guess. Why are you here?

[sub](Good Lord, when will this topic go away?)[/sub]

Nope.

I disagree with Bob, but I also disagree with you.

We, the audience, did not create anything. Nothing at all. We merely chose between various bits of content produced by the developers. That does not grant us any kind of ownership. To suggest it does is ridiculous, and I mean that literally, as in "worthy of ridicule."

EDIT: Ninja'd. Always with the ninja'd.

This. So much of this.

The topic needs to die. Consumers need to learn their place. PUNISH BAD COMPANIES BY NOT BUYING THEIR CRAP, also, you didn't do anything to create it. It was mass effect, you ferried around your guy to events other people created. Any suggestion of ownership is completely ridiculous. You got involved with a game, the writer botched the ending. The end, game over. You dont have an sort of f creative control over the content, you aren't EA.

Again, can't know the ending if you don't get the game. Just wow 'consumers need to learn their place'? Dear God man, companies love people like you so by all means, please continue.

Unlike any other medium games allow us to BE the protagonist in the story. The story, the world unfolds around us, reacts to us, we are not observers. This is especially true with a series like Mass Effect because unlike a lot of other games the player is given CHOICE. And this is the point. It is this choice that allows us to not only shape our world, but also the story that's being told.

I'm not sure if the Anti-Change ending camp has realised but people refer to Shepard as MY Shepard. This is an important point, and what underpins the experience that Bioware was selling. It was each our own story. Bioware created the universe, but allowed us to choose which path to take and to deal with the consequences of said choices and to carry this over across games. The ending they made does not do this.

Sorry to have to tell you this but...

This isn't minecraft we're talking about here. The different options/paths that Mass Effect gives you are already programmed into the game for you to choose from. Your choices aren't at the level where they could possibly be considered original game content. Even if they were, the only person affected by your in-game decisions is yourself; you aren't sending information back to EA to help them in further game development. Ironically the only time Mass Effect players have really helped father anything within the actual games is when they protested the ME3 ending, leading bioware to create the DLC they've promised.

If we deserve any credit for the game it isn't because we can make decisions within it, it's because we pay for the game with our money. We create the incentive for developers to make it at all, and then we contribute to Bioware with funds for doing so. They need us more than we need them.

However, we still aren't entitled to have games made the way we want any more than Bioware is entitled to our money. They don't work directly for us, we're just investors.

I'll give you the video, that was actually quite funny. But you're wrong. Sorry. Firstly Bioware has tracked and continues to track player usage, what paths they choose, power types, whatever that have shaped future games in the series. Also forum discussion, posts, polls, etc, have all been used to shape the game. Point has been made previously. Please look it up.

Anyway I think I answered most of the posts here, if I've missed anyone out please don't feel neglected, I don't have any favourites I swear.

 

[Phlakes]

His main argument is that because we are not the creators of the art we have no right but this isn't true. Among all the arguments this one just doesn't seem to be mentioned. We also made that art too.

Unlike any other medium games allow us to BE the protagonist in the story. The story, the world unfolds around us, reacts to us, we are not observers. This is especially true with a series like Mass Effect because unlike a lot of other games the player is given CHOICE. And this is the point. It is this choice that allows us to not only shape our world, but also the story that's being told.

So because they decided to have choice as a gameplay mechanic, you have creative control over the franchise?

And even then, each choice is a choice they gave you, with consequences they scripted, in a game they made and you bought. Reading a choose your own adventure book doesn't make you the author.

Phlakes, I will direct you to the quote below because I think Joccaren (thanks Joccaren ) puts it quite elequently. What I was trying to get people to think about was the relationship between the audience and the artist in the confines of not only a computer game, but one where the audience had a personal, vestige interest in the protaganist. Again, look at the fact that people refer to Shepard as MY Shepard. And this relationship creates a different paradigm compared to other mediums.

We didn't write the story, we didn't create it.
What we did create was Shepard - and don't anybody try to tell me otherwise.
Bioware presented us with Options with which we wrote our Shepard, but each Shepard was unique, and until ME3 Bioware left Shepard as mostly a blank slate.
We didn't write the story. Bioware did that. They wrote the story, and made the world. We created Shepard though. They wrote what he says, and gave us the option to choose, but Shepard was never Bioware's character - until ME3. Its why a lot of people are hurt at the ending, and the auto dialogue, and the dreams. That isn't the Shepard we forged throughout ME1 and ME2, that's Bioware's vision of Shepard - generally quite different from my own.

I think Shamus Young said it right: We are the editors of ME. We don't write the story, we don't create the world. We take what is offered to us by those that do, and choose which one is the right one. Generally they gave us a reasonable array of options to choose from. The ME3 ending didn't.

But it's still wrong. Shepard wasn't a blank slate, he was several variations of the same slate that we chose from. Slates that were all made by Bioware. If you want to argue that there wasn't enough choice in the ending go ahead, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's not our game, no matter how many choices we're given in it.

 

[Realitycrash]

Oh for the love of all that is holy can you people get over yourselves already?
It's not like people are starving, entire countries are being oppressed, disease is rampant and wars are being fought over a simple thing like water.
No, It's ME3, and by god, this shit matters.

 

[thebighead01]

His main argument is that because we are not the creators of the art we have no right but this isn't true. Among all the arguments this one just doesn't seem to be mentioned. We also made that art too.

Unlike any other medium games allow us to BE the protagonist in the story. The story, the world unfolds around us, reacts to us, we are not observers. This is especially true with a series like Mass Effect because unlike a lot of other games the player is given CHOICE. And this is the point. It is this choice that allows us to not only shape our world, but also the story that's being told.

So because they decided to have choice as a gameplay mechanic, you have creative control over the franchise?

And even then, each choice is a choice they gave you, with consequences they scripted, in a game they made and you bought. Reading a choose your own adventure book doesn't make you the author.

Phlakes, I will direct you to the quote below because I think Joccaren (thanks Joccaren ) puts it quite elequently. What I was trying to get people to think about was the relationship between the audience and the artist in the confines of not only a computer game, but one where the audience had a personal, vestige interest in the protaganist. Again, look at the fact that people refer to Shepard as MY Shepard. And this relationship creates a different paradigm compared to other mediums.

We didn't write the story, we didn't create it.
What we did create was Shepard - and don't anybody try to tell me otherwise.
Bioware presented us with Options with which we wrote our Shepard, but each Shepard was unique, and until ME3 Bioware left Shepard as mostly a blank slate.
We didn't write the story. Bioware did that. They wrote the story, and made the world. We created Shepard though. They wrote what he says, and gave us the option to choose, but Shepard was never Bioware's character - until ME3. Its why a lot of people are hurt at the ending, and the auto dialogue, and the dreams. That isn't the Shepard we forged throughout ME1 and ME2, that's Bioware's vision of Shepard - generally quite different from my own.

I think Shamus Young said it right: We are the editors of ME. We don't write the story, we don't create the world. We take what is offered to us by those that do, and choose which one is the right one. Generally they gave us a reasonable array of options to choose from. The ME3 ending didn't.

But it's still wrong. Shepard wasn't a blank slate, he was several variations of the same slate that we chose from. Slates that were all made by Bioware. If you want to argue that there wasn't enough choice in the ending go ahead, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's not our game, no matter how many choices we're given in it.

Sorry Phlakes, looks like I'm going to be pointing you to another quote. FFHAuthor, thank you for this one. FFHAuthor very brilliantly explains the relationship Bioware created between itself, the audience and Shepard. It makes for very a good read.

This is an open letter to MovieBob, and anybody else who still has energy to argue about this

While I don't go so far as to say that the player has artistic input, we have something that is just as important, the ability to interpret what is created.

I will always argue that in Games the storytelling and the experience are shaped by two things; The narrative intended by the Creator, and the narrative created by the Mechanics. What do I mean by that? Simply put that the narrative in the story is shaped as much by what is intended as it is by what the player can do.

I personally feel that if we strive to call games art, then we MUST call all games art, and if we call all games art then we need to define games and define what sets games apart from other forms of art. That defining characteristic is the mechanics, and the problem that most members of the games journalism industry haven't picked up yet (other than Extra Credits and they've missed some of their own statements when it comes to the ME3 ending), is that mechanics can tell a story that the creator doesn't intend. A game with a excellent and deep plot that fashions itself towards a particular goal can be totally undone by the actions that a player takes through the games mechanics.

My dissatisfaction with the ME3 ending has always been that the plot of the game and the story being told DOES lead up to a particular ending, one of total sacrifice and loss, but of final triumph. That ending is reached and it DOES work for the story because in retrospect the story does work towards it, foreshadow it and generally build up to it...but the mechanics of the game allow for a different interpretation of it.

What do I mean? Out of the numerous people who I've asked who say they enjoy the endings, only ONE person said they saved everyone in ME2, saved Wrex, and only lost people when it was unavoidable. Overwhelmingly, the people who lost characters on the suicide mission, lost them in ME3 and lost Wrex in ME1 felt that the tone of the game led to an ending of loss. On the inverse, the players I've spoken to who do not like the Mass Effect 3 ending went out of their way to save and resolve issues. They went through the suicide mission without loss, they made peace between Geth and Quarian, they talked down Saren, they saved Wrex and the Krogan AND made the Krogan more galactically friendly.

The Story tells us one thing, while the Mechanics of the game lead us to a different interpretation of the story one that isn't intended. If you establish in your mechanics that it is possible to approach unreasonable or untenable conflicts and resolve them rather than ascribe to the options that are simply 'there' don't be surprised when your players are discontent with having to chose between options that are presented without any ability to realign the situation. If your mechanics establish that a mission that will almost certainly result in the deaths of you and your teammates can be survived without a single casualty do not be surprised when your players express surprise that they're in a situation that can't be overcome.

That's something that I don't think has really come up in gaming before because a game like Mass Effect 3 has never come out before. ME3 is truly a watershed in gaming, it gives us an experience that no other form of media has every created, and it is a form of Art, but in it's creation, we can see what can go wrong with our art-form. ME3 was an excellent attempt at creating something that shows how Games are an art in their own right not simply art as taken from other forms (graphics, audio, story).

If we look at games based upon story and mechanics, I submit that Modern Warfare 3 was a greater work of art than Mass Effect 3. That Gears of War 3 was a greater work of art than Mass Effect 3. Yes, I said it, and I mean it. Because in those games the narrative is united in mechanics and intent.

The story remains set to interpretation within the boundaries of what the mechanic allows. There's no option to negotiate with the Russians in Modern Warfare 3 and have them leave America and Europe willingly, and if the Mechanic of the game gave us that option at some point, we'd be confused and displeased. There's no Locust character in Gears of War 3 for us to get to know better and have as a squadmate so we empathize and understand the Locust point of view better...if there was we'd be more than a little off put by it. But those games don't, their mechanics are consistent. Story is told with one intention, and there is no way to step around and look at the story from another way.

Oh for the love of all that is holy can you people get over yourselves already?
It's not like people are starving, entire countries are being oppressed, disease is rampant and wars are being fought over a simple thing like water.
No, It's ME3, and by god, this shit matters.

Alright, so what are you doing here? Go fix those problems then. Believe me I'm not going to take any more of your time. Go on, and good luck

 

[MetalMagpie]

Wrong.
The art is Bioware's, the experience and interpretation is yours. You created nothing, you expressed nothing, you merely observed, guided, and interpreted.
You had no part of the creative process, you had no input as to how the game was made or any investment therein.
You come in when it is presented to you. You experience it. That is all you do. You are not the artist.

Basically this. Emotional investment in something is not the same as ownership of it.

Someone who reads a book is not a passive participant. They interpret what they read, coming up with images, sounds and smells to go with the words on the page. In this way, the imaginative effort they contribute is vital to their experience of the book.

But they still don't own the story. No matter how often they read the book. No matter how much work they put into fan-fiction, fan-art, or letters to the author with feedback. No amount of investment by a fan can ever rob a creator of their creation.

Artists own their art. Not fans.

 

[Reeves88]

persoanlly im torn between the two as through out mass effect 1 and 2 bioware kept warning us that the choices we make will matter (and yet in number three the only thing that matters was weather or not your kept mordins research, every other choice you made through the games seemed meaning less in the third) and im sorry but they kept changing the games make up because of fan feed back ie they dropped the mako and elivators becuase of fans then in the third dropped the hack mini games and planet scanning for minerals, so yes they have the right to but really when they made the game they couldnt see that this is gonna bite us in the but

 

[Dr Jones]

Congratulations with your opinion and all, but there was ZERO reason to make a new thread about it. Your opinion brings nothing new to the table, it could aswell be a post in the already well established Moviebob ME3 thread.
Why isnt this locked?

 

[Scorpid]

I'm tired of Mass Effect discussions. We should instead focus on Wasteland 2. It's only got 8 days left to donate =O

 

[viranimus]

Now I've seen many arguments for a new ending, but also many counter arguments that us fans have no right to ask for one.

This right here. This sums the whole ideology up and where the fracture begins.

The resistance to the change the ending thing, is not that fans do not have the the right to ask for a new ending. Its that the people who are bent out of shape arent asking for a new ending. They are basically demanding a new ending.

Starting a charity drive to garner good will and support? Filing false advertisement lawsuits? These are not the actions of people asking for the change. They are the actions of people demanding a change and not willing to consider their request being denied.

As you can see, that creates a dangerous precedent.


Anyway, Bob is not wrong in his opinion. Remember, it is an opinion. Completely subjective. So right or wrong, really doesnt even factor into it.

Edit: Man I HATE being the first post on a new page. Means I will be quoted for the next 3 pages.

 

[SageRuffin]

Edit: Man I HATE being the first post on a new page. Means I will be quoted for the next 3 pages.

Damn right, and I'm gonna be the first to do it. >

It's like you said:

Its that the people who are bent out of shape arent asking for a new ending. They are basically demanding a new ending.

You already know this I'm sure, but to everyone else reading this, there's a big difference between telling something up front "I found something wrong..." and "This sucks. Change it NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!!!" And we've all seen far more of the latter than the former. Anybody ever hear the phrase "he who yells loudest is heard"? Same idea here - it's why the term "vocal minority" [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VocalMinority] exists.

There was a guy on a different thread saying that "BioWare owes us the ending we deserve". I don't think I need to go into detail how full-of-shit I think that sounds.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

We also made that art too.

Making art and playing out a story are two ENTIRELY different things.

Unlike any other medium games allow us to BE the protagonist in the story.[/quote] I could play the leading role in a play. I can read a choose your own adventure novel and there are quite a few examples of interactive stories on Television and in advertisements.

The story, the world unfolds around us, reacts to us, we are not observers. This is especially true with a series like Mass Effect because unlike a lot of other games the player is given CHOICE.

A choice with pre-written consequences by Bioware. If a person writes two endings to the same story and I can choose which ending I get by picking option A or B, that does not mean I had a part in creating the art.

And this is the point. It is this choice that allows us to not only shape our world, but also the story that's being told.

Its a world that is open to change because Bioware WROTE it like that.

I'm not sure if the Anti-Change ending camp has realised but people refer to Shepard as MY Shepard.

Because you created his unique looks, powers and backstory. Its the same way people do the same thing in regards to any game with a huge amount of customization. Saints Row 3, Skyrim and any MMO in existence and so on.

We were the hero and we made the decisions. In this case, shouldn't we be able to see where this brings us? Surely not all in the same place right?

See, you keep making the false generalization that because you made the choices that Bioware had created for you, you automatically assume you helped create the art. You didn't. You made choices with pre-determined consequences and story lines. Bioware and their writers are the sole creators and you have no claim to their work.

 

[thebighead01]

Congratulations with your opinion and all, but there was ZERO reason to make a new thread about it. Your opinion brings nothing new to the table, it could aswell be a post in the already well established Moviebob ME3 thread.
Why isnt this locked?

I did explain why but guess you didn't read it. I've read the other threads but felt that the argument got overshadowed by people wanting a happier ending and the like. There didn't seem to be any look into the source of this discontent, such as the personalisation effect of the games that was negated by the ending, and how this affects our perceptions of art, of games as art, and the relationship between the audience and artist. And I didn't want that being swamped in the hundreds of other posts. Hope that answered your question.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Well, no.

See, I'm probably repeating the comments of others here, but you, as the player had no real creative input into the game.

That you can make choices in a game like mass effect. (or even build entire worlds from the ground up if you feel like it in games like minecraft and terraria) does not get around the fact that you are playing within an environment whose constraints have been entirely devised by the game's creators.

What you can, and cannot do in any given game is as much a result of how the game's creators made it as what any given line of dialogue, or cutscene looked like.

That games are interactive changes nothing about the creative process other than that the creation now has to account for the potential for more than a simple linear narrative.

That's not to say fans have no input into a game series, but that's only because it's a commercial art. I'm sure if you were a wealthy aristocrat in the renaissance that asked an artist to paint your portrait, you'd have certain expectations of the result too.
But that doesn't necessarily mean the artist will cater to your every whim. And the more famous the artist, the more it is understood that you can't start demanding they do things your way.
(Or for that matter, that you'll get something from them at all. - Plenty of people wanted Leonardo Da Vinci's art, but he rarely finished anything he did.)

As for blade runner, yes things get changed after the fact sometimes.

But correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't the 'change' made in that case a "director's cut"?
That implies the original was something that the creator wasn't happy with, but which was forced on them by the people paying the bills. (eg. The film studio.)

For an artist, that's an inherent risk with art created with a budget in mind. (Though remember that few modern media lend themselves to non-commercial art; A portrait painting can be done to about the same quality whether done on commission, or at the whims of an artist. A film or game requires so much work, and so many people to make, that anything created for non-commercial means is very unlikely to match the craftsmanship of a commercial entertainment product. - Even if the actual core idea is just as good, if not better.)

In any event, I'm not sure the mass effect ending can actually be said to be a result of any artistic vision.

I haven't seen it, but it sounds more like something which was done with little thought or care.

If it was the way it is for a specific reason, i'd tell everyone that wants it changed to just piss off and get over themselves.
But it doesn't sounds like that's the case... More like it's just a lazy ending that was done in a rush and not thought out very well.