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

[thebighead01]

i believe some people in this thread may be misinterpreting feedback as entitlement. there is nothing wrong with telling bioware or E.A that you dislike the ending for ME 3 and think it should different or it should be changed that is just feedback which can be very useful for development of anything.

notice moviebob didn't actually like but was a bit more understanding of the whole H.E.A.T movement for the green lantern (which is very similar to whats going on here) and got what he considered a good comic due to fan outrage at the story.

For my opinions with the new extended cut DLC that should be free (which i think it is but i don't know for sure) if its just a new ending, if it has more gameplay and new mission etc only then can they charge us for it like fallout 3's broken steel. anyway my feedback would be that should try not to disprove the indoctrination theory in the new DLC ending cause i think that is an awesome fan made interpretation of ME 3 ending (weather bioware intended that or not). I recommend everyone who thought that ME 3 ending was a bit disappointing to check it out there is some good videos on youtube that explains it.

so yeah if they disprove the indoctrination theory in the new dlc ending bioware better replace it with something awesome or i'm gonna be really disappointed with them.

again that is just feedback, if i wrote that in to bioware it's better for them to know what their fans think of bioware's products. because if they do things with the story that people are unhappy with then less people will buy their games in the future which is worst-case scenario for bioware.

You bring up some interesting points Ricky 49. Guess you were blown away by that theory too right. I mean if it is true, credit where credit is due. The only trouble that I have with it is that if you war readiness rating is too low the only option you have is to blow everything up. Surely controlling the reapers would be the first choice right?

And yes the DLC will be free. They have said they are only expanding on the endings which my very well blow away the indoctrination theory.

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 still don't get how people like you are getting this so wrong. People like the OP and myself do not feel that we have a right to have the game rewritten. We do, however have a right to tell Bioware what we thought about the game they made for us, our community and others like it. What they choose to do is their business, but we should be able to talk about personally wanting a better ending (which is not us claiming we have a right to one) without the word "entitled" being flung around ambiguously, like it seems to every time anyone even mentions ME3.

This is the trouble I've had Zigzag. Not once have I used the word entitled I don't believe we are, I do believe we some stake in the series however, but this does not translate into entitlement. The problem with a lot of people on this thread it seems is that they think it's simply our fault for buying the game and that to complain about something that was not delivered when promised is just wrong. Tell me how can you find out about the ending of game without buying it thus and not ruining your experience of it in the process. Makes no sense to me Zigzag.

 

[madwarper]

People like the OP and myself do not feel that we have a right to have the game rewritten.

Oh, Really?

but we should be able to talk about personally wanting a better ending

So, riddle me this... Why exactly do you think you deserve a "better" ending? Because, you feel entitled to one? Get over yourself.

 

[KingofMadCows]

The arguments on both sides have become hyperbolic and extreme.

Is the game art? Maybe, maybe not, but that's not really important. What's important is that the game is a product that is marketed and sold to consumers. There's nothing wrong with the consumers demanding that the creator/artist/company change the product if they aren't satisfied.

The consumers can explain to the artist/company that they will be losing customers and profit if they do not change the product to meet certain standards. If the artist/company doesn't want to suffer those consequences then they should change the product. If on the other hand they're willing to take that risk and are not going to change the product, the consumer can then ask for a refund (whether or not they are entitled to it can be debated), stop buying the artist/company's products, and tell their friends and family not to support that particular artist/company. The consumer cannot force the artist/company to change their product nor can they harass or threaten to take illegal actions against the artist/company.

 

[thebighead01]

I know this isn't adding much to the argument, but I will have to state that some of the options are either not available or change based on war assets you have(though not greatly). For example:

Spoiler: Did You Know That...

If you have near the minimum amount of war assest possible, you are only given the "Destroy all non-organics" option, but it backfires and vaporizes everyone one, robotic and organic, and appears to vaporize anything caught in the explosions (which is pretty much everyone). No one even gets off the Normandy after it crash lands.

I see where you're coming from Ham Blitz I think with this ending you may have slightly less plot holes than the others, but like the others it still lacks any sense of closure which is the problem with them all.

 

[thebighead01]

People like the OP and myself do not feel that we have a right to have the game rewritten.

Oh, Really?

but we should be able to talk about personally wanting a better ending

So, riddle me this... Why exactly do you think you deserve a "better" ending? Because, you feel entitled to one? Get over yourself.

Listen, madwarper, look through the thread, points been made time and again that no one here, including myself feel entitled to anything, that word hasn't been used once. You really need slow down and breath a bit cupcake cause I think all this rage makes you miss these things. I worry about you madwarper, I really do

 

[Visan99]

You know, entertainment industry, there's a lesson to be learned in all this.

Fans are volatile things. If you're going to make something that becomes very popular, make sure you make it clear to your fans who is in charge and who owns what. Otherwise the entitlement will go on for months.

Or in Yahtzee's words: If your going to make something incredibly good that becomes incredibly good make sure that becomes frighteningly popular, make sure its the last thing you ever make in your entire life. Because otherwise you get to spend the rest of your life under the weight of high expectations and bricks..
(Your avatar made e thin of this)

I gotta say.. I have a good friend who used to work for EA and she still has friends throughout bioware, and by the gods...She won't even discuss this anymore.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.. You don't like it big deal, feel free to submit to bioware, and even EA if you wish, but my god then let it go, its a god damn game.. Something extensively created for amusement. This level of bile on both ends, filing for litigation, the gigantic temper tantrum such as the whole cupcake thing.. Is it really worth it at the end of the night? For a little bit of gratification that would come? Come a couple months from now....Hell I give it 6 months if that.. and that's probably being generous, no one will talk of this anymore, So why the damn fuss? Bioware didn't live up to your expectations, Big deal unfortunately disappointment happens.

As for their promises and what not, Whether they did or didn't is a matter of semantics and perspective, Personally i found the single player to be challenging and rewarding (Screw you 6 am banshee section on insane... YOU WILL NOT BEAT ME) But at the end of the night time will make it forgotten an obsolete relic of a bigone age... So again i'm left wondering, what's the big deal?

Is a single product created for amusement really worth this much venom towards anyone? Defending Bioware or attacking,I want you to tell me how this is worth it?

 

[Lovely Mixture]

snip

Expressing want and demanding entitlement are two different things. You are putting words in Zagzag's mouth, he clearly says it is NOT equivalent to claiming the right to a new ending (and "not have a right to" is a sentence synonym for "to not entitle") .

 

[z121231211]

My tip on how to not look entitled:

Don't call someone else's art yours.

Did you do any of the writing, modeling, programming, or animating? No, you didn't, so don't say that any part of the game is yours. You're the consumer, your place in this is to give them money and then tell them how much you liked it or let them know where their quality control failed.

 

[Doom-Slayer]

-snip

Going to sum up my thoughts briefly and preface it with this. I haven't played it, nor have I played any of them, I do read a lot though.

Quite simply you are wrong. My reasoning is similar to others really. You may love the game and its series, you may of even given input into the games creation but you did not create the game.

Do you DESERVE a better ending? Yes..yes you do, because the current ending I feel isnt good enough and the fan reception says that.

Are you ENTITLED to a better ending? No.

You may have a vested interested, and a personal connection to the property but that does not change the fact you did not in any way create it. If a painter takes inspiration from other artists those other artists did no create his painting. They do not have any say on whether it should be changed. Around now you immediately say "but its my shephard..I have have a vested.." etc etc.

They created a sandbox for you. You can offer all the suggestions in the world, they can replace the sand with gravel and even if you played in it all your life and have fond memories of it, it is not your sandbox.

They made it, they designed it, they created every aspect of that game. It is theres and not yours. And if your going to bring up the "they promised us" bit. No they did not, I have seen the forum posts. Yes it sucks that what they said didnt happen. Are they in any way legally bound to what one employee said, probably in an unofficial address and possibly months or years away from release. No.

 

[ralfy]

Issues concerning who is the creator of a game, etc., are all irrelevant because the problem with this game is that C&Cs do not significantly affect the ending. It doesn't matter who makes the endings or who likes the endings; as long as this requirement isn't followed--and it has to given an adventure game with RPG elements and following to earlier games--then the problem remains.

 

[Ricky 49]

You bring up some interesting points Ricky 49. Guess you were blown away by that theory too right. I mean if it is true, credit where credit is due. The only trouble that I have with it is that if you war readiness rating is too low the only option you have is to blow everything up. Surely controlling the reapers would be the first choice right?

yeah i'll admit i can't really explain that with certainty. one attempt i guess is that Shepard somehow lacked the will to fight the reapers as he/she wasn't confident enough he/she could beat them a bit like the squadmates in ME 2 if you didn't do their sidequests. so the destroy ending in that case would be the destruction of Shepard's hope (as the other ending are images of hope)and mind as his/her mind would rather die then give in to the reapers. i know that's not terribly convincing, however...

what i will say is that one of the main reasons the indoctrination theory is so awesome is because its so subtle. myself and i expect most players could have played right passed it never would of guessed what was really going on. this would make the ME 3 a really unique game if players could believe they finished the game without actually finishing it. also to understand it you need to study the whole mass effect series with the attention to detail you would need for a good novel or film which makes the ME series a good example for the games are art augment. also i would say the theory works better and makes more sense than if you took the ending on face value and has some evidence that really can't be ignored.

 

[thebighead01]

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).

I really had to take some time absorb your point because it's a very poignant one. I was one of those who went out of their way to save everyone I could in the first game and for the most part succeeding. That sense of lose for me therefore only really begins at the start of ME3. There was that running theme of loss, of battling monumental odds and the very real possibility of losing people. So to have been given a set of options that you couldn?t reject, say no, and that we'll fight the Reapers till the bitter end did feel really restrictive.

However, given the tone of the 3rd game I understand where Bioware was coming from with this.
As I?ve said before I'm actually happy with a bleak ending. The entire series felt quite dark and to have had a happy Return of the Jedi ending would have been grating. I enjoy the sense of victory but at great cost that the ending brings. However you are right; that restriction those grate with my experience with the rest of the franchise.

Ultimately I would have accepted the ending if it weren't for the plot holes and lack of closure. Guess we just need to see what happens to everyone, good or bad, just need to see it.

I do agree with you in what Bioware has achieved with this series has been monumental. When I first played ME1 I finished that game thinking to myself, yes, we're here, we are at the point where games can tell amazing stories that harness the power of immersion that we all know them to be capable of. ME is my favourite series of all time, hell my favourite sci-fi of all time.

 

[thebighead01]

You bring up some interesting points Ricky 49. Guess you were blown away by that theory too right. I mean if it is true, credit where credit is due. The only trouble that I have with it is that if you war readiness rating is too low the only option you have is to blow everything up. Surely controlling the reapers would be the first choice right?

yeah i'll admit i can't really explain that with certainty. one attempt i guess is that Shepard somehow lacked the will to fight the reapers as he/she wasn't confident enough he/she could beat them a bit like the squadmates in ME 2 if you didn't do their sidequests. so the destroy ending in that case would be the destruction of Shepard's hope (as the other ending are images of hope)and mind as his/her mind would rather die then give in to the reapers. i know that's not terribly convincing, however...

what i will say is that one of the main reasons the indoctrination theory is so awesome is because its so subtle. myself and i expect most players could have played right passed it never would of guessed what was really going on. this would make the ME 3 a really unique game if players could believe they finished the game without actually finishing it. also to understand it you need to study the whole mass effect series with the attention to detail you would need for a good novel or film which makes the ME series a good example for the games are art augment. also i would say the theory works better and makes more sense than if you took the ending on face value and has some evidence that really can't be ignored.

I agree. If Bioware really did have the balls to pull that off I would just be throwing money at them demand more. I remember noticing little things like how no one helped the kid up on the shuttle, but these were tiny thoughts that came and went, ultimately ignored. Certainly wouldn't have anticipated that. And considering my choice (synthesis) and hear about the theory my heart sank at the thought I my have chosen wrong and given in to the Reapers :/. But then I just thought how awesome it would be if it does turn out to be true.

 

[Zagzag]

People like the OP and myself do not feel that we have a right to have the game rewritten.

Oh, Really?

but we should be able to talk about personally wanting a better ending

So, riddle me this... Why exactly do you think you deserve a "better" ending? Because, you feel entitled to one? Get over yourself.

My entire post was supposed to be an attempt to say that wanting something is entirely different to being entitled to it. I was disappointed by the ending, and personally want Bioware to change it. However I do not feel that I have a right to this at all.

I can see how easy it is to get this confused, and I suspect that this confusion has caused about 50% of the furore surrounding this entire issue, and I apologies if I have just made things worse.

What I'm basically trying to say is: If I see something in a shop window and want it, this does not mean I feel I have a right to own it. It merely means I would like to own such an object, even if this will clearly never happen. I definitely don't think the word I would use to describe my feelings on this hypothetical object is

deserve

I am pretty much speaking hypothetically. The fact that I want something does not mean I should automatically get it, and I realise this. When I say we should be able to personally want a better ending, it is in the same vein as being able to want to be able to fly. It is something I can fantasise about being able to do, and believe that perhaps things would be better if it were so, but in no way do I actually expect this to happen. Nor should it.

Again, I'm sorry that my original post was ambiguous enough that you have misinterpreted it in this way.

 

[launchpadmcqwak]

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.

after reading that text wall of bitching and moaning and then seeing your post i just though to myself "fuck yea" so thanks brah.

 

[launchpadmcqwak]

Wow, really some hostile people out there. I was hoping for some interesting debate on this subject, guess I'm not going to get that.

But firstly, just lol. You lot must be the type of consumers corporations get wet dreams over. Me, I'm of the mind that if you work hard for your money, and use said money for a product or service, and don't get what was promised or delivered you have the right to complain and demand for a refund or what was promised. Multiple endings was promised, and was not delivered. Simple as that. If you're of the mind that you should never complain when you don't get what you paid for, well, you have my sympathies. Guess you must have been screwed many a time to make you this cynical.

In any case

You had no part of the creative process, you had no input as to how the game was made or any investment therein.

Other than providing feedback and suggestions.

Thanks mad825, good point, many of the games mechanics, hell, even parts of the story have been shaped by the fans. Some of these ideas would have made it into the game simply because the developers didn't think about it.

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.

LastGreatBlasphemer, you failed to understand my point. What Bioware was selling was an experience that was and became personalised. This is what was promised as wasn't delivered. Instead we got a 'one size fits all' ending. We have a right to complain.

See your rigid definition of art is the same definition that would have relegated games to being just that. The concept and definition of art of is constantly in flux. Games allow a change in that definition, and Bioware seems to realise that. They are offering an ending that I hope will offer closure. That's all that's really being asked for.

And let's not forget that in other established forms of art there have been changes made post publishing (Blade Runner anyone?).

When you can point me to the "Fan Cut" DVD release of Blade Runner then you might have a point.

But here's the thing: you didn't write shit. You didn't program shit. You didn't draw shit. You made choice, but it was within the confines that Bioware created. Claiming that because you made some choice in gameplay somehow gives you a director's credit is ludicrous.

*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. 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.

In any case Bioware don't seem to agree with you lot. I feel that they are and will strike a balance between holding on to their creative integrity while offering what is most important. You know what it is. Say it with me now. Yes it's CLOSURE. 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.

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

You want it to go away Zhukov don't reply to threads like these honey.

thats not hostile feedback, its a different opinion to yours, unless you were expecting everyone to agree with you or something #.

 

[Monsterfurby]

I guess anyone here working in marketing can take a few vital hints from this. About the human condition.

I have no problem with people complaining about the ending. We are well within our rights to say that we didn't like it, and though I do (the only way to end this story is with a vague ending imho, otherwise you would have to make three billion concrete ones to do it justice), to complain to Bioware and to act as customers (by not buying their future products, returning our purchase etc.)

What I don't get is the fucking crusade people make out of it. Seriously folks - how did we get from "I am not happy with this product" to "This is a sociological debate about creative ownership and personal rights derived from emotional attachment to a property"?

Emotional attachment, that's a good one. The problem here is often, that people get emotionally attached to something entirely virtual. Sure, when I read books, play games, watch movies, I want certain characters to survive or win or whatever, I am sad when they die or suffer, I suspend my disbelief to a certain point. But people, an adult, sane mind should be able to acknowledge that a work of fiction is just a work of fiction, a product, a ruse that is supposed to give you the impression that you are experiencing a story "right now" while it has already been written ages ago.

Who lets their personal emotions towards a work of fiction affect their rational position towards that work? I tell you who: children do. Ever wondered why Harry Potter was such a big thing? This is why. And that is alright, no one expects children to be 100% rational.

But when adults, wielding the entitlement deeply embedded in our society as a weapon, behave the same way, something has gone wrong. Either they are not intellectually able to detach themselves from the work of fiction, or not willing to. Since this kind of stuff is getting more and more common, and more and more people form these emotional attachments to games (ever played Call of Duty multiplayer?) I suppose this tells us a lot about how escapism becomes a more prominent "solution" to problems in our society.