MovieBob's thoughts on the ME3 ending controversy

[Sentox6]

The difference between talking into account feedback and being forced to change your message or meaning is that the latter violates the right of the artist.

Luckily, then, "right of the artist" (and, as yet, no one has explained why this should supercede your obligation to deliver on your promises to your customers - apparently moral integrity really does rank below artistic integrity) is not being violated in any way.

There's a lot of people telling BioWare they want a new ending. Many have made it clear they will be more reluctant to buy BioWare's products in the future if this does not happen. None of this forces BioWare to do anything. There's no one in the BioWare offices holding the producers at gunpoint. It's a lot of feedback, and it's loud, but it's still just feedback.

 

[boag]

snip

The difference between talking into account feedback and being forced to change your message or meaning is that the latter violates the right of the artist.

Everyone has the right to change things if they want to, whether its according to feedback or whatever, but YOU do not have the right to change the works of others just because you didn't like it. That is entitlement.

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.

No one is holding them at gun point, they are free to not change anything and tell customers to fuck off, but in doing so they will probably get less repeat customers.

And they didnt seem to give to many fucks when they canned Karpyshyn, when his artistic integrity became a bother to them.

 

[370999]

There's a lot of people telling BioWare they want a new ending. Many have made it clear they will be more reluctant to buy BioWare's products in the future if this does not happen. None of this forces BioWare to do anything. There's no one in the BioWare offices holding the producers at gunpoint. It's a lot of feedback, and it's loud, but it's still just feedback.

This is really at the heart of it. It's in Bioware's court now. They aren't shrinking violets, this is a game company, they should be able to reach a decision on their own. Yes there is external pressure but there always always is.

Companies are allowed to fuck up, they also have the ability to try and change this.

 

[Little Duck]

I look at this as "Architecture is never finished"

The philosophy being that even after a building is finished being built changes are still made to it. From the interior workings (the gherkin tower in London requiring air conditioning after occupants refused to have open office plans that the natural ventilation system needed) to the whole site (Parliament being changed the represent the fashionable architecture of the time. The exterior we all see is fancy cladding over a shoe box).

Many books endings have changed as well. We are not sending the gaming industry anywhere. We are un happy with how something has finished and request a way it can be done better.

 

[Falcon123]

As a gamer that really cares about the integrity of video games as an art form, that saddens me. But let me make this clear: you're right in that if it wasn't Bioware and it wasn't ME3, it wouldn't be as big of a deal. But it is. This is one of the most popular franchises of all time in gaming run by one of the three most influential developers in the industry. Everything they say and do influences the rest of the industry whether they want to or not, and the long term effect is that all the developers watching this will learn that as long as they follow through on their promises with DLC (which gets even more money out of the consumer than simply doing their job the first time around), they can get away with something like this. And since video games are hardly firmly established as an art form, this doesn't help any of us who really do care about its place in the artistic world

I would argue that Bethesda is every bit as big a mover and shaker in the RPG world as Bioware, and they already did this exact same thing with Fallout 3, and the earthshaking ramifications of that decision amounted to absolutely nothing at all. There was a problem, and they fixed the problem, and everyone said "Yay" and went on about their business. For whatever reason, THIS problem got caught up in the shit storm of social media, so every talking head has decided to wade in with their opinions, and suddenly everyone thinks they're fighting the last battle for the integrity of art in video gaming when the precedent for this already came and went without anyone noticing or caring.

You don't need to worry about video games suddenly ceasing to be art. They can't stop being art any more than a banana can stop being fruit. And some of that art will be banal and juvenile, and some of that art will be profound and extraordinary, much as the case is with art everywhere. What happens with this one game, in this one incidence, is not going to set the course for generations. They fucked up their ending. The only thing that stands to get changed forever from all this nonsense is that very same fucked up ending. And it NEEDS CHANGING.

I addressed this point with another person here, but the Fallout 3 ending change was different because the developers saw a problem with it and changed it of their own accord so that the story may continue. These changes would have happened regardless of player feedback. Would the ending have changed if people hadn't been so demanding and vocal about it? I'm not sure. Should the ending be changed? I don't think so. They should have gotten it right the first time so that none of this ever happened, but since it did happen, they should work within the parameters they created instead of changing the ending.

As far as games being art, you and I believe that place is written in stone but... I don't think we can say that for the majority of people. To this day, the question of "Are Video Games Art?" is one of the biggest and toughest to answer in the industry. I can't say with a straight face that the artistic merit of games is cemented regardless of what happens here because I've had plenty of people in my life who refused to believe games could be art before this happened.

I get what you're saying; IF games are art, then this won't affect their artistic status with those who love the medium. But what about everyone else? What happens with the perception of gaming in the minds of those who are not so ingrained in gamer culture? I believe there will be aftershocks to this, both on the business and social levels in terms of artistic acceptance, and by refusing to stand by their vision whether it was right or wrong, those who pointed to Mass Effect as a great example of games as art (I know I did) no longer have any ground on which to stand.

 

[Asita]

I didn't play any of these games

So you didnt invest 90+ hours into making choices in the game, being promised everytime that "your choices matter", so pray tell what gives you the right to judge those that are disappointed in the ending? What makes you an objective party?

The games never looked appealing to me, but aren't I allowed to have a say in all of this? Say what you will, but to an outsider, I find this outcry over these ending childish. Everyone at Bioware, invested what, TWO years of their lives staying up for days on end making a game that they believed would be appealing to their fanbase. What have you done?

The Man in charge even said he was a little upset with everyone's reactions, and he has my sympathies.

Problem being that as an outsider you rather definitively lack the context that defines this. Having not played the final game, you wouldn't realize the way that the final cutscenes made zero sense through characters stepping out of the ship on the end who could not logically have been there. Having little knowledge of the characters, one would not know how the scene with the ship fleeing requires that the principle cast completely break character for the scene to work. Having not played the game and participated in the storyline you don't see how the final moments of the game quite literally fall on Deus ex Machina (or Diabolus ex Machina if you prefer) both in presentation[footnote]suffice to say the final choices are relayed to you by a seemingly godlike entity that was never alluded to priorly, and for bonus points quite literally exists inside a mechanical device, making it far more literal than most other invocations[/footnote] and function[footnote]There are few things that hint that the 'synthesis' option should even be possible, and those few things that would suggest it (namely Husks...which are basically zombies in terms of function) entail decidedly different results (meaning the variant shown is completely out of left field) and methods to achieve it[/footnote]. Having not played through the games and seen firsthand the way Mass Effect espoused a very cause and effect approach to your choices[footnote]which is what makes it such a punch in the gut that the endings have such overwhelmingly similar results both in cutscenes and in what little aftermath is implied[/footnote], one doesn't recognize the lack of closure that follows[footnote]Indeed, many have pointed out that the ending would have been significantly improved had it had addressed the impact of the major choices you made, even if it were only in the form of a Dragon Age-esque text scroll[/footnote]. Having not participated in the series in general one doesn't realize that the final choices offered are antithetical to the very themes that were the core of the series[footnote]Which is part of the reason why so many of the people expressing some level of appreciation for it also tend to subscribe to the 'indoctrination theory' which states that the ending is effectively a hallucination acting as a metaphor for Shepherd's internal struggle against the villains' brainwashing ability, and that Bioware is (temporarily) withholding the true ending to make the concept apply on a meta-level[/footnote]. Having not followed the various news regarding the series one doesn't realize that what was ultimately presented was effectively the opposite of what had had been specifically promised even after the game had entered the final stages of development. Context matters, and the context makes this a fairly objectively bad ending which honestly comes off as what someone might make if they wanted to make a parody of Mass Effect.

 

[Oro44]

I have my own opinions on all this; I may have even expressed them at some point. But this whole thing has just gotten toxic. The fact is, this is all conjecture and semantics until Bioware makes a definitive statement on the issue, or physically does something about it in the form of releasing DLC.

 

[Falcon123]

I fail to see why it must be a sacrifice of artistic integrity to re-write an ending. We would never grow as a society if no-one paid any attention to criticism.

It's not that they're re-writing the ending. Fallout 3 rewrote the ending and it wasn't a big deal. The problem is that they're re-writing the ending to meet others demands instead of their own vision, and that's not what art is about. People are telling Bioware how to do their job, and instead of standing up for their game, right or wrong (see Lucas, George for a equivalent demand in cinema), they caved. That's the sacrifice of artistic integrity. They're not doing it for themselves or their own vision, but merely to make a profit. That's what products do. That's not art.

This right here is my problem. There was never an artistic vision at play. Typically, someone basing art on, and tying art to the works of another, or even their own previous work, will have the respect for the material not to openly make it null and void or to simply conflict with it out right. But the fact that they're pulling some sort of "It's art!" card as a cheap transparent defense does nobody any good. It cheapens the worth of ACTUAL art when they use it to cover their asses.

So you don't believe video games are art? I ask because I've spent a 30 page research thesis defending games as art, so that aspect matters to me. Either way, you're paying them more money to give you what you deserved all along. If you don't believe games are art, you can at least admit the business practice is shady at best, no?

So just because I state that ME 3's ending as being a stylistic choice is not an adequate defense for the failure in basic writing mechanics and execution, all of a sudden, you think you know my entire viewpoint on the "games are art" subject?

No, I don't know your entire viewpoint. That's why I asked if you believed video games are art. Question marks tend to indicate uncertainty, last time I checked.

I love having intelligent conversations about things like this; please don't ruin it by trying to attack me personally. If you'd like, I'd love to hear your answer to the question so that we can proceed with the discussion.

 

[goliath6711]

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.

People have the right to complain about the quality of a product. As long as games cost money and EA/Bioware refers to the users as "customers," games are a product and an art form.

Uh, no.

Paying for a product does NOT give you the right to do anything you want with everything related to it. You think your $60+ gives you the right to go up to the Bioware offices with a baseball bat and take a swing at everything and everyone inside to vent your displeasure?

It kinda boggles me that people are all up in arms using the "Games are art" flag to defend this but they weren't using it to defend, say, Duke Nukem Forever or Fallout New Vegas for being buggy and broken. Does the programming of a game not fall into the "artistic" domain? Is Big Rigs garbage cause it was poorly made or because the creators were trying to make some abstract artistic point? Where is the line between artistic integrity and quality production lie?

There is a huge difference between not liking a game because of style and setting and not liking a game because it doesn't work. You think anyone's would honestly scream "artistic integrity" for a game that freezes two minutes after you start playing it? That's like screaming "artistic integrity" for a car with no working brakes, that leaks gas and has a steering wheel that can suddenly fall off.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I addressed this point with another person here, but the Fallout 3 ending change was different because the developers saw a problem with it and changed it of their own accord so that the story may continue. These changes would have happened regardless of player feedback. Would the ending have changed if people hadn't been so demanding and vocal about it? I'm not sure. Should the ending be changed? I don't think so. They should have gotten it right the first time so that none of this ever happened, but since it did happen, they should work within the parameters they created instead of changing the ending.

It's irrelevant why they didn't or didn't do it. Bioware can just as easily lay claim to the same reasons. If something is broken, fix it. Games give an almost unprecedented ability to the creator to alter their existing work with minimal impact. To not take advantage of that would be foolish in the extreme. As for getting it right the first time, I'm afraid that milk has been spilled.

As far as games being art, you and I believe that place is written in stone but... I don't think we can say that for the majority of people. To this day, the question of "Are Video Games Art?" is one of the biggest and toughest to answer in the industry. I can't say with a straight face that the artistic merit of games is cemented regardless of what happens here because I've had plenty of people in my life who refused to believe games could be art before this happened.

Well, I'm sorry to tell you this, but people can be stupid and cling to anachronistic world views, but it doesn't change what something is or isn't. New mediums always go through a period of time where they struggle to gain acceptance, and they always eventually gain that acceptance when the generations that rejected them GET OLD AND DIE. This isn't a "big question" that is "tough to answer". They are unquestionably art, unless you're playing around with an incredibly esoteric notion of what art is.

I get what you're saying; IF games are art, then this won't affect their artistic status with those who love the medium. But what about everyone else? What happens with the perception of gaming in the minds of those who are not so ingrained in gamer culture?

I think the easy answer to that question is "I don't give a shit, and neither should you". As I've said elsewhere, it's probably because gaming originally put down roots in the already impossibly insecure geek culture, but there is absolutely no reason why your hobby or passion needs to be respected by, understood by, or embraced by the world at large. At least half the people I know hate professional sports with ardent passion, and somehow, impossibly, said sports continue to exist and flourish. There will always be people who deride and misunderstand the things you love. Just accept it, and move on.

I believe there will be aftershocks to this, both on the business and social levels in terms of artistic acceptance, and by refusing to stand by their vision whether it was right or wrong, those who pointed to Mass Effect as a great example of games as art (I know I did) no longer have any ground on which to stand.

What fucking VISION? The problem wasn't their VISION. If the only issue here was their questionable vision we wouldn't be having this discussion. That ending was RISIBLE. They cut every corner that was available for cutting. They backfired on promises, they copy-pasted their shitty, confusing cinematic, they screwed up their characterizations, they botched their continuity. If there was something to fuck up, they fucked it up. The art isn't getting compromised because there wasn't any fucking art there to begin with.

Let's say it again...if they FIX their ending, THEN we can start calling it art. Right now it's just a goddam mess.

 

[mad825]

Wait, bob. there was an ending?

Going on the presumption that the indoctrination theory has some true in it then it wasn't an end but rather the beginning of an ending.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

I have mixed feelings about this. One the one hand, companies shouldn't buckle to the demands of fans. On the other hand... the endings suck. From what I can tell, anyway.

...Does this count as a dilemma? 'Cause I get the feeling that if Bioware hadn't screwed up the endings we wouldn't be in this mess...

 

[Falcon123]

I addressed this point with another person here, but the Fallout 3 ending change was different because the developers saw a problem with it and changed it of their own accord so that the story may continue. These changes would have happened regardless of player feedback. Would the ending have changed if people hadn't been so demanding and vocal about it? I'm not sure. Should the ending be changed? I don't think so. They should have gotten it right the first time so that none of this ever happened, but since it did happen, they should work within the parameters they created instead of changing the ending.

It's irrelevant why they didn't or didn't do it. Bioware can just as easily lay claim to the same reasons. If something is broken, fix it. Games give an almost unprecedented ability to the creator to alter their existing work with minimal impact. To not take advantage of that would be foolish in the extreme. As for getting it right the first time, I'm afraid that milk has been spilled.

As far as games being art, you and I believe that place is written in stone but... I don't think we can say that for the majority of people. To this day, the question of "Are Video Games Art?" is one of the biggest and toughest to answer in the industry. I can't say with a straight face that the artistic merit of games is cemented regardless of what happens here because I've had plenty of people in my life who refused to believe games could be art before this happened.

Well, I'm sorry to tell you this, but people can be stupid and cling to anachronistic world views, but it doesn't change what something is or isn't. New mediums always go through a period of time where they struggle to gain acceptance, and they always eventually gain that acceptance when the generations that rejected them GET OLD AND DIE. This isn't a "big question" that is "tough to answer". They are unquestionably art, unless you're playing around with an incredibly esoteric notion of what art is.

I get what you're saying; IF games are art, then this won't affect their artistic status with those who love the medium. But what about everyone else? What happens with the perception of gaming in the minds of those who are not so ingrained in gamer culture?

I think the easy answer to that question is "I don't give a shit, and neither should you". As I've said elsewhere, it's probably because gaming originally put down roots in the already impossibly insecure geek culture, but there is absolutely no reason why your hobby or passion needs to be respected by, understood by, or embraced by the world at large. At least half the people I know hate professional sports with ardent passion, and somehow, impossibly, said sports continue to exist and flourish. There will always be people who deride and misunderstand the things you love. Just accept it, and move on.

I believe there will be aftershocks to this, both on the business and social levels in terms of artistic acceptance, and by refusing to stand by their vision whether it was right or wrong, those who pointed to Mass Effect as a great example of games as art (I know I did) no longer have any ground on which to stand.

What fucking VISION? The problem wasn't their VISION. If the only issue here was their questionable vision we wouldn't be having this discussion. That ending was RISIBLE. They cut every corner that was available for cutting. They backfired on promises, they copy-pasted their shitty, confusing cinematic, they screwed up their characterizations, they botched their continuity. If there was something to fuck up, they fucked it up. The art isn't getting compromised because there wasn't any fucking art there to begin with.

Let's say it again...if they FIX their ending, THEN we can start calling it art. Right now it's just a goddam mess.

Sadly, I'm about to get on a flight, so I can't give your response the dignity it deserves. I'll just have to say that it saddens me that we've reached the day in which WE decide the standard all art should meet, and that the artist is not allowed to fail unless they are willing to change everything to what WE want. Art can be bad sometimes, and you have to accept it and move on. To me, that people are unwilling to do that is the far bigger mess

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Sadly, I'm about to get on a flight, so I can't give your response the dignity it deserves. I'll just have to say that it saddens me that we've reached the day in which WE decide the standard all art should meet, and that the artist is not allowed to fail unless they are willing to change everything to what WE want. Art can be bad sometimes, and you have to accept it and move on. To me, that people are unwilling to do that is the far bigger mess

This isn't about any artistic failure. I thought I made that clear. If it was just a question of failure on purely artistic grounds it never would've reached this level of critical mass.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

I like the way Bob presents his stuff, but he is way off with this one. When Arthur Conan Doyle wrote Sherlock Holmes back to life, did it set the artform back 10 years? (well technically yes, it had been ten years since he killed him, but shhh.)

Look, a medium can produce ART or it can produce PRODUCT. If games can be changed at the whims of fanboys, then they are just product and we have no right to demand that Ebert etc take them (or US) "seriously."

This is just bullshit. Is Twilight art? Transformers? Human Centipede? A medium can have art and product at the same time. A film can be both art and product. If these things weren't product, they wouldn't get such massive budgets. Look at Star Wars. Infinite numbers of spin-offs and toy lines just to make money. Tell me that isn't a product.

To be honest, this isn't fans asking Bioware to lose their artistic integrity, it's them asking Bioware to get it back, to make an ending that fits the story, that makes sense, that is true to what they told the world about their game.

 

[Murmillos]

Sadly, I'm about to get on a flight, so I can't give your response the dignity it deserves. I'll just have to say that it saddens me that we've reached the day in which WE decide the standard all art should meet, and that the artist is not allowed to fail unless they are willing to change everything to what WE want. Art can be bad sometimes, and you have to accept it and move on. To me, that people are unwilling to do that is the far bigger mess

But then what are the limits between protecting artist merit and delivering a paid product?

BioWare made certain promises about the ending (quite recently) to which was not delivered on. It wasn't a promise 2 years go, but just mere months, just as the game was going into certification that would have prevented any additional changes, save for any future DLC's.

There is no problem with the ending if BioWare never made any promise about the ending in the first place. If they had only said "The end will be what it is.", then we as fans would have nothing to hold them to. Even being crap-tastically bad, they would have not had to own up to any given promises.

Over all, regardless of artist merit, it was just purely bad business in the first place to end the series as they had done so.

 

[Acton Hank]

As a gamer that really cares about the integrity of video games as an art form, that saddens me. But let me make this clear: you're right in that if it wasn't Bioware and it wasn't ME3, it wouldn't be as big of a deal. But it is. This is one of the most popular franchises of all time in gaming run by one of the three most influential developers in the industry. Everything they say and do influences the rest of the industry whether they want to or not, and the long term effect is that all the developers watching this will learn that as long as they follow through on their promises with DLC (which gets even more money out of the consumer than simply doing their job the first time around), they can get away with something like this. And since video games are hardly firmly established as an art form, this doesn't help any of us who really do care about its place in the artistic world

I would argue that Bethesda is every bit as big a mover and shaker in the RPG world as Bioware, and they already did this exact same thing with Fallout 3, and the earthshaking ramifications of that decision amounted to absolutely nothing at all. There was a problem, and they fixed the problem, and everyone said "Yay" and went on about their business. For whatever reason, THIS problem got caught up in the shit storm of social media, so every talking head has decided to wade in with their opinions, and suddenly everyone thinks they're fighting the last battle for the integrity of art in video gaming when the precedent for this already came and went without anyone noticing or caring.

You don't need to worry about video games suddenly ceasing to be art. They can't stop being art any more than a banana can stop being fruit. And some of that art will be banal and juvenile, and some of that art will be profound and extraordinary, much as the case is with art everywhere. What happens with this one game, in this one incidence, is not going to set the course for generations. They fucked up their ending. The only thing that stands to get changed forever from all this nonsense is that very same fucked up ending. And it NEEDS CHANGING.

I addressed this point with another person here, but the Fallout 3 ending change was different because the developers saw a problem with it and changed it of their own accord so that the story may continue. These changes would have happened regardless of player feedback. Would the ending have changed if people hadn't been so demanding and vocal about it? I'm not sure. Should the ending be changed? I don't think so. They should have gotten it right the first time so that none of this ever happened, but since it did happen, they should work within the parameters they created instead of changing the ending.

As far as games being art, you and I believe that place is written in stone but... I don't think we can say that for the majority of people. To this day, the question of "Are Video Games Art?" is one of the biggest and toughest to answer in the industry. I can't say with a straight face that the artistic merit of games is cemented regardless of what happens here because I've had plenty of people in my life who refused to believe games could be art before this happened.

I get what you're saying; IF games are art, then this won't affect their artistic status with those who love the medium. But what about everyone else? What happens with the perception of gaming in the minds of those who are not so ingrained in gamer culture? I believe there will be aftershocks to this, both on the business and social levels in terms of artistic acceptance, and by refusing to stand by their vision whether it was right or wrong, those who pointed to Mass Effect as a great example of games as art (I know I did) no longer have any ground on which to stand.

WHO GIVES A FUCK if people who don't play video games don't consider video games to be art?!
The whole "gaming is art" argument was started by a bunch of professional game journalists who wished they were film critics.

To me the fact that everyone is working so hard to prove to Roger Ebert e co. that games should be taken "seriously" as art just shows how insecure gamers are about themselves and their choice in entertainment.

Video Games have nothing to prove to other mediums, and I think the sheer amount of money the industry makes every year supports this.

The only people who need to consider video games as an art form are the people who FUCKING PLAY THEM!!

 

[Virmire]

They can kill everyone of importance in the series, literally everyone, and it wouldn't be that bad of an ending. No ending gives any sort of closure...

Spoiler

In all endings, all the Mass Relays are destroyed. I don't know if you can end the game with NO allied fleets, but even if you try to re-take earth with only one fleet, say the Turians, you will have millions, if not billions of Turians in the Sol system, only to be stranded there for the rest of their lives when the Relays close. They can never go home.

Say if you have all possible fleets. An incredible amount of people would be trapped in Earth's space, unable to ever return to their homes. I would assume from the sheer amount of ships, that Earth, the only habitable planet in the region, would have issues with overcrowding. (Yes it is just a game, but Mass Effect isn't your average shallow on-rails shoot 'em up, it has some depth to it's storyline.)

I am not sure if the Normandy crashes because of the shock wave released by the crucible, or if it was in-transit in a Mass Relay (which doesn't have a great deal of sense) but say if it was purely from the shock wave of the crucible, then all of the above mentioned fleets would be destroyed.

If these were addressed in either a positive a negative way, if some deus ex machina method of making new Relays was shown, or if the allied fleets dispared about being unable to return home (on a tangent, damn poor Quarians, getting their planet, and then being unable to return in force) then I would, at least, feel better, as the issue would be stated, not simply ignored. A tragedy is better than loose ends unable to be wound to make a new game.