MovieBob's thoughts on the ME3 ending controversy

[PrinceOfShapeir]

Let me make this clear: I think the ending sucked. I think the fans didn't get what they were promised, that Bioware dropped the ball, and that fans have ever reason to be upset about their purchase. But here's the thing: sometimes, games, movies, and books fail to live up to expectations. That doesn't mean we get to change them. When I was younger, I was a big fan of the Pendragon series. Book 1-9 were great. The tenth sucked. Horribly. Especially the ending. But I didn't demand a better ending. He has a right to screw his series over because it's his series . That's the thing about art. You don't have to like it. It doesn't have to be good. The artist can realize that things were wrong and try to fix it if that's what they want, but as of now, we have no proof this is what Bioware wanted.

Sure, I can buy this... for non-interactive media where I'm just an observer. If an author wants to do something like this I have one caveat for it: It must make sense in the premise of what was already established, or at least not break anything major along the way.

Mass Effect is a different animal here because while yes we have been limited to the tools we've been provided by Bioware to tell a story, they atleast had the common courtesy to not break me out of the suspension of disbelief, usually. Sure, a few hiccups here and there, but nothing too drastic. However, the way they decided to end this series (as it currently stands) feels like I was doing some painting, then suddenly Bioware stomps in and says "To finish this picture you can only use this one brush and three colors: Red, Green, or Blue. I don't care if I provided you more options earlier! You must stick with these for the end!" It's even more disappointing when talking about the picture earlier, it was mentioned I would be able to use everything for the entirety of the picture, especially the end.

I don't see how this is a different animal. You're not the artist, even if Bioware gave you the illusion that you are. They created the game. They created the universe in which the story exists, as well as every possible option you could make. They crafted the game from beginning to end. You played their creation. Big difference.

It's an awful shame Bioware let its fans down. They failed on this ending. They dropped the ball entirely. I'm not arguing against that. I agree with a lot of what you feel. They lied to you. They didn't deliver on their promises. They didn't make the masterpiece ending this game series deserved.

Where I differ from you is that I know this happens and it's not up to the developer to make it up to me. You don't like the ending? Don't buy their games. Don't buy their DLC. Don't support developers that make games you don't like. It's that simple. If you give them your money, and you don't think it was well spent, you take your licks and move on. That's how it was in the days of the NES when game reviews weren't easy to get a hold of and you had to guess whether a game would be good or not. No one demanded Dr. Jekyll and and Mr. Hyde be fixed.

I know you care about this series. That's not what's wrong here; that's what makes gaming special. But at the end of the day, you have to step back from your experience in game and realize that this wasn't your game. It was theirs. They screwed it up, but they don't owe you anything. If you don't like it, sell it back. Don't buy their games in the future. Learn your lesson. But demanding they meet your demands isn't right. You don't have that right; it's not your game.

That people feel entitled to have a game be good because you care about the series will have ramifications that affect gaming culture from years to come, and I find it hard to see how it will be for the better.

Next time devs will think twice about throwing us the worst ending since 'Congraturations, you save planet'?

 

[Terrik]

"MovieBob's" opinion means nothing to me. I dont see the point in making what he says such a big deal.

 

[MrLumber]

Wow a ton of people are missing the point in this thread, not to mention the fact that it lured all the bob anti-fanboys out to simply say they disagree without adding any real discussion. One thing a lot of people are getting hooked up on is whether or not it was a 'good' or 'bad' ending, which ultimately doesn't matter in context of what hes saying.

The point of his comments put simply are that by ret-conning, and literally deleting old content (which is why comics don't count... sorta), in demands to THE CONSUMER (this is why star wars doesn't count) after the final product has been released (this is why focus groups don't count), which is an unprecedented action in terms of an artistic medium, completely ruins the prospective artistic recognition afforded to ME as a whole, and even to games in general. Whether or not ME3 is worthy of being called art really doesn't matter, simply that it exists in an artistic medium, meaning it reflects on the rest of the medium when liberties are taken with its integrity. If a new ending is made, at the behest of anyone but the artist, it reflects very poorly on gaming in terms of an artistic medium, because it displays a lack of responsibility, and an overwhelming amount pandering.

This will ultimately harm the mediums transition into a recognized art form, which is something I hope most people who actually care about games want to to see happen. A thing most people fail to grasp, and especially on the internet, is that other people, and their respective opinions, actually do matter. So when something like this comes along and has the potential to smear gaming as a whole, people who care about games should be a lot more aware of what is about to transpire and take steps to prevent it.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I'd argue that it's the interactivity of the player that separates them and creates an extra layer of immersion. That doesn't mean the player becomes the artist, though; Bioware still made the game. It gives the illusion of artistry that creates palpable immersion but is not genuine, and game developers do not owe anyone a good game; if a game is bad, it is the market's job to fix it. If a game is bad, people shouldn't buy it, and developers learn their lesson in the future. You can choose to continue giving them your money if you want, but you have to be aware that that money goes towards supporting their decisions, which they are more than free to make, even if their decisions are wrong. Every artist is allowed to make their art crap if they want, just as you're free to not like it. But they don't owe you a better game. That's not what art is about.

(I'm not sure if this was what you were getting at, but I've heard this argument within my group of friends, so I figured I'd just get my point out there know in case someone was going to go there. Please forgive me if I jumped the gun)

It goes a little beyond that. The player is a part of the narrative, helps form and shape the narrative. True, the player is limited by the tools the creator has made available to them, but they are invited to and REQUIRED to take a hand in forming their own narrative experience. Some people look at the evolution of this relationship as tearing us away from more traditional, fixed storytelling where authorial fiat is more entrenched, and they're terrified. They seem to think it guarantees we'll get sucked down into "storytelling by consensus", and all nuance and vision will be replaced by soulless moderation. I think this is an unnecessarily alarmist notion. You are witnessing...no...you are PART of the growth and evolution of a new art form. The idea of audience and artist telling a story together, and participating in a story together, is exciting. Instead of focusing on the potential negatives, take a few minutes to think about the potential BENEFITS. Think about where gaming can go, following an idea like that. Where you're no longer a passive observer of someone else's story, but an active co-author. The great irony in all of this is that Bioware is actually amenable to this concept. They can even be said to be champions of it. It's a selection of GAMERS that seem fixed against it.

As a second, less essential point...my friend, they truly fucked that ending up in ways that go well beyond the boundaries that are defensible under the umbrella of art. On that front, they DO have a responsibility to "fix" it, at the very least by tidying it up and correcting their continuity gaffes. Artistic license buys you a lot, but it doesn't give you carte blanche to sell people a bag of shit.

 

[anthony87]

That's just MovieBob, isn't it? Y'know, that 'anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot' kind of attitude?

Hell that's not just Bob. Over the past couple of days I've seen around two dozen posts or more from people saying that the only reason the people who don't like the ME3 ending don't like it is because they're too stupid and ignorant to see the artistic meaning behind it.

If that really is the mindset of the "OMG! GAMES ARE ART!!!! TELL ME THEY'RE ART MR. EBERT!!!" crowd then I'm perfectly happy simply enjoying my games as games.

 

[Vault Citizen]

This is the WORST thing that has happened to gaming since Sega abandoned consoles.

Well, at least that explains why he isn't GamerBob.

Me and him disagree most of the time, so its no surprise I think he is wrong yet again. I don't care about a poor movie critics view on the subject. It isn't shocking he has nothing new to add to the discussion, just recycled statements of gaming site articles playing up to Bioware's PR that coincidentally have motive to protect their ad space.

He isn't just a movie critic, his gaming blog has been going for a while now and I think he spends about an equal time talking about gaming as he does movies.

 

[carpathic]

When did he start riding the Biodick?

This crap is popping up in the most unlikely places.

Well as an "artiste" himself, he has a vested interest in trying to convince people that his art is inviolate also. Brothers hang together.

Snide remark aside, I am not sure why he would react in such an immature fashion. I think he knows who signs his paycheque, and it seems with the exception of the "miracle of sound" guy who said he was "gutted" by the ending the staff at the escapist haven't exactly been on the side of the consumers now have they?

 

[Azo Galvat]

And Bob misses the point by a solid star cluster.

 

[anthony87]

And seriously, this is what Bob is talking about when he says gamers are immature. We would like for everyone to respect us, but yet we still cling to this childish notion of extreme entitlement and complete authority over the creative works and messages of others.

"We" do? Can you give me 5-10 examples of other gamer uprisings where we demanded to have a narrative changed?

As for wanting everyone to respect "us", I could really give less than a shit about whether or not non-gamers respect gaming. What possible difference does it make? It's about as important to me as whether or not people share my taste in music, or whether the guy sitting next to me likes spaghetti. If "gamers" are actually concerned about this, "gamers" would be well advised to stop being so fucking needy.

Would......would it be okay if I told you that I love you for this post?

 

[Falcon123]

Let me make this clear: I think the ending sucked. I think the fans didn't get what they were promised, that Bioware dropped the ball, and that fans have ever reason to be upset about their purchase. But here's the thing: sometimes, games, movies, and books fail to live up to expectations. That doesn't mean we get to change them. When I was younger, I was a big fan of the Pendragon series. Book 1-9 were great. The tenth sucked. Horribly. Especially the ending. But I didn't demand a better ending. He has a right to screw his series over because it's his series . That's the thing about art. You don't have to like it. It doesn't have to be good. The artist can realize that things were wrong and try to fix it if that's what they want, but as of now, we have no proof this is what Bioware wanted.

Sure, I can buy this... for non-interactive media where I'm just an observer. If an author wants to do something like this I have one caveat for it: It must make sense in the premise of what was already established, or at least not break anything major along the way.

Mass Effect is a different animal here because while yes we have been limited to the tools we've been provided by Bioware to tell a story, they atleast had the common courtesy to not break me out of the suspension of disbelief, usually. Sure, a few hiccups here and there, but nothing too drastic. However, the way they decided to end this series (as it currently stands) feels like I was doing some painting, then suddenly Bioware stomps in and says "To finish this picture you can only use this one brush and three colors: Red, Green, or Blue. I don't care if I provided you more options earlier! You must stick with these for the end!" It's even more disappointing when talking about the picture earlier, it was mentioned I would be able to use everything for the entirety of the picture, especially the end.

I don't see how this is a different animal. You're not the artist, even if Bioware gave you the illusion that you are. They created the game. They created the universe in which the story exists, as well as every possible option you could make. They crafted the game from beginning to end. You played their creation. Big difference.

It's an awful shame Bioware let its fans down. They failed on this ending. They dropped the ball entirely. I'm not arguing against that. I agree with a lot of what you feel. They lied to you. They didn't deliver on their promises. They didn't make the masterpiece ending this game series deserved.

Where I differ from you is that I know this happens and it's not up to the developer to make it up to me. You don't like the ending? Don't buy their games. Don't buy their DLC. Don't support developers that make games you don't like. It's that simple. If you give them your money, and you don't think it was well spent, you take your licks and move on. That's how it was in the days of the NES when game reviews weren't easy to get a hold of and you had to guess whether a game would be good or not. No one demanded Dr. Jekyll and and Mr. Hyde be fixed.

I know you care about this series. That's not what's wrong here; that's what makes gaming special. But at the end of the day, you have to step back from your experience in game and realize that this wasn't your game. It was theirs. They screwed it up, but they don't owe you anything. If you don't like it, sell it back. Don't buy their games in the future. Learn your lesson. But demanding they meet your demands isn't right. You don't have that right; it's not your game.

That people feel entitled to have a game be good because you care about the series will have ramifications that affect gaming culture from years to come, and I find it hard to see how it will be for the better.

Because when you were told you'd get one thing and you get something else, you have an obligation to yourself, as a consumer, to make a big deal out of it.

By all means, make a big deal out of it. Boycott Bioware games. Refuse to buy DLC. Write strongly worded letters expressing disapproval and making them aware they lost a fan due to their negligence, and make them win you back. You have a right to all of that. You don't have the right to tell them how to do their job, or demand that they be better at it. That doesn't work in any other industry or artistic medium, and the logic doesn't work here.

 

[Falcon123]

Let me make this clear: I think the ending sucked. I think the fans didn't get what they were promised, that Bioware dropped the ball, and that fans have ever reason to be upset about their purchase. But here's the thing: sometimes, games, movies, and books fail to live up to expectations. That doesn't mean we get to change them. When I was younger, I was a big fan of the Pendragon series. Book 1-9 were great. The tenth sucked. Horribly. Especially the ending. But I didn't demand a better ending. He has a right to screw his series over because it's his series . That's the thing about art. You don't have to like it. It doesn't have to be good. The artist can realize that things were wrong and try to fix it if that's what they want, but as of now, we have no proof this is what Bioware wanted.

Sure, I can buy this... for non-interactive media where I'm just an observer. If an author wants to do something like this I have one caveat for it: It must make sense in the premise of what was already established, or at least not break anything major along the way.

Mass Effect is a different animal here because while yes we have been limited to the tools we've been provided by Bioware to tell a story, they atleast had the common courtesy to not break me out of the suspension of disbelief, usually. Sure, a few hiccups here and there, but nothing too drastic. However, the way they decided to end this series (as it currently stands) feels like I was doing some painting, then suddenly Bioware stomps in and says "To finish this picture you can only use this one brush and three colors: Red, Green, or Blue. I don't care if I provided you more options earlier! You must stick with these for the end!" It's even more disappointing when talking about the picture earlier, it was mentioned I would be able to use everything for the entirety of the picture, especially the end.

I don't see how this is a different animal. You're not the artist, even if Bioware gave you the illusion that you are. They created the game. They created the universe in which the story exists, as well as every possible option you could make. They crafted the game from beginning to end. You played their creation. Big difference.

It's an awful shame Bioware let its fans down. They failed on this ending. They dropped the ball entirely. I'm not arguing against that. I agree with a lot of what you feel. They lied to you. They didn't deliver on their promises. They didn't make the masterpiece ending this game series deserved.

Where I differ from you is that I know this happens and it's not up to the developer to make it up to me. You don't like the ending? Don't buy their games. Don't buy their DLC. Don't support developers that make games you don't like. It's that simple. If you give them your money, and you don't think it was well spent, you take your licks and move on. That's how it was in the days of the NES when game reviews weren't easy to get a hold of and you had to guess whether a game would be good or not. No one demanded Dr. Jekyll and and Mr. Hyde be fixed.

I know you care about this series. That's not what's wrong here; that's what makes gaming special. But at the end of the day, you have to step back from your experience in game and realize that this wasn't your game. It was theirs. They screwed it up, but they don't owe you anything. If you don't like it, sell it back. Don't buy their games in the future. Learn your lesson. But demanding they meet your demands isn't right. You don't have that right; it's not your game.

That people feel entitled to have a game be good because you care about the series will have ramifications that affect gaming culture from years to come, and I find it hard to see how it will be for the better.

Next time devs will think twice about throwing us the worst ending since 'Congraturations, you save planet'?

See my response to the quote above you. Vote with your wallet. Boycott if you want. But you don't have the right to tell them how to do their jobs any more than they have the right to tell you the same.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

By all means, make a big deal out of it. Boycott Bioware games. Refuse to buy DLC. Write strongly worded letters expressing disapproval and making them aware they lost a fan due to their negligence, and make them win you back. You have a right to all of that. You don't have the right to tell them how to do their job, or demand that they be better at it. That doesn't work in any other industry or artistic medium, and the logic doesn't work here.

I'm not sure why this is a preferable outcome for anyone, most particularly Bioware.

 

[anthony87]

And yes, it is important that we take this medium seriously.

.....Really?

All the anger, reactions, movements and petition nonsense regarding Mass Effect 3 and you think that people don't take video games seriously?

 

[Tanakh]

The point of his comments put simply are that by ret-conning, and literally deleting old content (which is why comics don't count... sorta), in demands to THE CONSUMER (this is why star wars doesn't count) after the final product has been released (this is why focus groups don't count), which is an unprecedented action in terms of an artistic medium, completely ruins the prospective artistic recognition afforded to ME as a whole, and even to games in general.

But he is wrong, utterly wrong. I agree with Chipman on some stuff, but this is a factual error that derives from the modern naive view of "art" as an uncompromising opus radiating integrity.

Art has always been both a medium of expression AND a product, both aren't at odds with each other; see Ruben's work, Goya, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Puccini, just of the top of my head all of them redid parts of released works to FIT THE FUCKING AUDIENCE, because art IS a product.

It is nice to live in ivory castles though... i guess.

 

[Murmillos]

You know another reason for why Bob is squarely wrong; This game is was longer "art" the moment BioWare looked to fan input to help develop ME2 and ME3.

If BioWare wanted to keep the ME series as "art" then they should have ignored every single complaint, & suggestions of change.
The moment they changed their game to make it better marketable based on player/market feed back, they were no longer making art, they started making a product for mass consumption (ignore the pun).

Also, they lost the "art" card the moment they started making promises on what you could expect in that game. When you give specific promises on key game play and story line elements (all while looking for feed back on those elements) you can no longer say this game is "art".

You want your game to be art? Make no promises other then a very broad statement "A soldiers journey to unite the galaxy to stop a evil threat." and you stick to your vision and ideals of the game (as much as technically possible) and ignore all external input regardless on how well those ideas are.


edit: Unless your idea from the very start is based off of outside corroboration, then those elements can still be art; as thats the nature of those projects is to accept outside input for further development of ideas of the art project.

 

[Baron von Blitztank]

What is wrong if a game developer acknowledges that they fucked up and decides to edit what they did to correct it? People hated the ending to Fallout 3, so Bethesda made the Broken Steel DLC as a response. Developers have caved in to player demand for much more pettier reasons than "the ending sucked", such as changing Cole McGrath's appearance in InFamous 2. It changes absolutely nothing to to plot or the gameplay but the developers still did it.

I'm really getting sick of all this "art" nonsense too. What difference does it make if games are considered as an art form or not? Aren't games meant to entertain people? Sure they can bring up all kinds of philosophical themes but they also have to be made so that they are fun enough to make the player want to keep going.

 

[RaikuFA]

Considering that his defense of Other M basically boiled down to:

...I tend to take whatever he has to say about video game controversies with a grain of salt.

I may be wrong here, but I saw the revisited episode first, then the original and read it more as "Because of that infamous moment of weakness scene, everyone is jumping on the 'Japan hates women' bandwagon, and thats borderline racism there".

 

[Falcon123]

I'd argue that it's the interactivity of the player that separates them and creates an extra layer of immersion. That doesn't mean the player becomes the artist, though; Bioware still made the game. It gives the illusion of artistry that creates palpable immersion but is not genuine, and game developers do not owe anyone a good game; if a game is bad, it is the market's job to fix it. If a game is bad, people shouldn't buy it, and developers learn their lesson in the future. You can choose to continue giving them your money if you want, but you have to be aware that that money goes towards supporting their decisions, which they are more than free to make, even if their decisions are wrong. Every artist is allowed to make their art crap if they want, just as you're free to not like it. But they don't owe you a better game. That's not what art is about.

(I'm not sure if this was what you were getting at, but I've heard this argument within my group of friends, so I figured I'd just get my point out there know in case someone was going to go there. Please forgive me if I jumped the gun)

It goes a little beyond that. The player is a part of the narrative, helps form and shape the narrative. True, the player is limited by the tools the creator has made available to them, but they are invited to and REQUIRED to take a hand in forming their own narrative experience. Some people look at the evolution of this relationship as tearing us away from more traditional, fixed storytelling where authorial fiat is more entrenched, and they're terrified. They seem to think it guarantees we'll get sucked down into "storytelling by consensus", and all nuance and vision will be replaced by soulless moderation. I think this is an unnecessarily alarmist notion. You are witnessing...no...you are PART of the growth and evolution of a new art form. The idea of audience and artist telling a story together, and participating in a story together, is exciting. Instead of focusing on the potential negatives, take a few minutes to think about the potential BENEFITS. Think about where gaming can go, following an idea like that. Where you're no longer a passive observer of someone else's story, but an active co-author. The great irony in all of this is that Bioware is actually amenable to this concept. They can even be said to be champions of it. It's a selection of GAMERS that seem fixed against it.

As a second, less essential point...my friend, they truly fucked that ending up in ways that go well beyond the boundaries that are defensible under the umbrella of art. On that front, they DO have a responsibility to "fix" it, at the very least by tidying it up and correcting their continuity gaffes. Artistic license buys you a lot, but it doesn't give you carte blanche to sell people a bag of shit.

I agree that players are a key part of that art. They are instrumental in bringing that art to fruition. But sadly, this does not make us the artist.

I think it would be interesting for developers to work with players to make a game...but not in this context. Not when either the consumers or developers are being metaphorically held at gunpoint by the other side. At this point, any movement towards a collaborative effort will appear as if they are caving into demand and sacrificing their artistry (and the effect on the industry will be the same) even if it's not true.

I agree, friend, that the ending is shit. It's horrible. If you read my article ( http://www.redshirtcrew.com/2012/03/why-mass-effect-3-has-changed-industry.html ) you know I understand where you're coming from, and you have my deepest sympathies. But this is the wrong way to come about it. Don't support this practice by giving them your money, thus telling them that what they've done is okay. Sell your game, don't buy the DLC, and make Bioware earn your trust back. All of that is fair. Maybe they'll learn their lesson that way and who knows, maybe they will start a collaborative effort with a gaming community that changes the way games are made. But if you buy the ending DLC, you're supporting this mess, they won't learn the lesson, and all the outside world will see is that Bioware didn't stand up for their product. The ramifications of that will shape the industry as we know it, and I don't think it will be for the better.