MovieBob's thoughts on the ME3 ending controversy

[MrLumber]

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.

First things first, the line that I pseudo-highlighted doesn't actually fit the definition of art very well, but whatever. If you don't feel that an artists word is his own thats your deal, also I'm unsure how thats naive (or even a viewpoint in general), but again thats neither here nor there.

While I was simply trying to explain what Bob's point actually was, which as far as I could tell is VASTLY misinterpreted by the good majority of this thread, I do see where your coming from. I actually somewhat agree with you that art is not exclusive from being a product, but you still seem to be hooked upon the thought that changes designed to make a more appealing entity equates to changes made purely at the behest of the consumer. There is a fundamental difference between those to courses of action, as one (usually) maintains the authors original intent for the material, while the other is forced compromise, which can easily ruin the intended message or narrative. I sincerely doubt that any of the artists you mentioned were ever requited with such bile that they might change their, original or edited, works. For one, because its downright silly to begin with, and two, the level of communication and unification then is infinitely less than it is today.

Unfortunately I doubt that this thread is really going to deal with the actual ramifications of the prospective change, though, and will instead just be a place for a bunch of people to keep being pissed that ME3 wasn't what they wanted.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I think the majority of people agree that the ending was terrible. Bioware clearly think that it's big enough of an issue to change it. They have also said they are going to work within the boundaries of the existing ending but make it less vague. I personally think that will make it a lot better.

It's no different to Arthur Conan Doyle bringing Sherlock Holmes back from the dead due to his fans complaining. Books are still a valid art form last time I checked.

Conan Doyle wrote the first set of stories over the course of a decade. Wanting to devote more time to his historical novels, he killed off Holmes in "The Final Problem," which appeared in print in 1893. After resisting public pressure for eight years, the author wrote The Hound of the Baskervilles, which appeared in 1901, implicitly setting it before Holmes's "death" (some theorise that it actually took place after "The Return" but with Watson planting clues to an earlier date). The public, while pleased with the story, was not satisfied with a posthumous Holmes, and so Conan Doyle revived Holmes two years later.

Yeah we wouldn't have the renowned classic ' The Hound of the Baskervilles' if not for those dastardly entitled readers!

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

I agree absolutely.

Where part of your art is to please a certain group of people; if the vast majority of people vehemently deride your work you(r) art has failed, in it's most basic essence.

As far as I was concerned Mass Effect was intended to entertain me first and then, make any artistic/philosophical statements it wished. Both of these can certainly contribute to entertainment value.

Aye, I found myself thinking and feeling along those lines, too.

To me, it seems like too many 'creative minds' were involved in concocting this half-baked conclusion, starting with n writers and ending with putting that compound vision into animated 3D. I think Mass Effect 3's ending(s) is seriously flawed, a proper botched job.

Should they change it? No, because the huge and expensive mistake was decided upon, created, made, crafted, produced long before us unlucky consumers got it shoved in our faces. Should they try and explain it? Well, if you're seriously going for a mystery element, having to explain it and setting things straight is just as sad as having to explain a joke to your confused and non-laughing audience.

It's clear that something as ridiculously big/bloated as Mass Effect would inevitably lead to ad hominem attacks to anyone daring to criticize it, even if they just pointed out the obvious and well established deficiencies in the final product.

While I intended to stay the melonfarming farm away from Mass Effect, I did feel that it would help me better define my criticism and dislike if I actually played it through at least once. That, I did. I did not want to be bothered with being forced to play the multiplayer, I did not want to play other, crap games on mobile platforms, I just wanted to see for myself how they handled and presented that thing for which they've been hailed as a modern, compound hive mind borg incarnation of Charles Dickens - and I was already confused and put off a bit when confronted with a multiple choice at the very beginning. How did I want to play the game? Are you serious? The very moment you attempt to please everyone, you risk pleasing no one in the very end.

I read a lot about the indoctrination theory after I was done with my attempt to squeeze some fun and sense out of the much anticipated and hailed in advance end and - hopefully - closure to the Mass Effect trilogy. I know it is rather improbable any publisher would properly kill off an established, milkable franchise these days... they just keep coming back, some getting just sillier and more twisted in the process.

Still... the ending of Mass Effect 3 genuinely managed to annoy me, even though I decidedly did not really care. But - and this is a big issue, I think - if you build up the series finale as the be-all end-all to everything, and you got a critical mass of followers, sympathizers and buyers built up over years, I think it qualifies as a proper failure if, instead of bringing closure, you confuse and annoy the crap out of the many hands that really wanted to keep on throwing money your way.

As I said - I don't really care about the Mass Effect franchise, I have my very own issues with anything Bioware ever since wanting to be nice to people had me going down and dirty with way too many characters, making me a friendly whore when my intentions were to experience an adventure well beyond carnal pleasures.

So, yeah, I think I am just not compatible with what Bioware considers to be a good game, but I ended up feeling sorry for all the folks that really looked forward to Mass Effect 3. And that's hardly a good thing. Do I agree with everything Moviebob says? Nope. But I think it qualifies as a rather special occasion when, after five years and three titles, someone manages to mess up so severely on their golden cash cow, seeing their fan following confronted with an ending a majority of them didn't get and just about all of them didn't like. I don't intend to troll around on this one, but it really looks like a major failure to me.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Not the same thing. We wouldn't be bitching just cause Shepard died. We're bitching because the actual story itself is crap. Rife with plot holes, inconsistencies, contradictions, Deus ex machina and the ending isn't even a real ending because it makes no attempt to actually explain what happens after my choice.

My point was that the public have changed things before and it hasn't had medium ending consequences, not the whole death issue. Sorry if that was unclear.

 

[Pontifex]

Here's the thing: if you look at the core of the ideas contained in the endings, they're not all that bad. It's just the way they're presented that is awful. If Bioware were to modify things to remove the plotholes, provide a little bit more explanation, and add some closure, the choices we were given would become far more palatable. They can fix many of their problems without having to sacrifice their artistic vision.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Here's the thing: if you look at the core of the ideas contained in the endings, they're not all that bad. It's just the way they're presented that is awful. If Bioware were to modify things to remove the plotholes, provide a little bit more explanation, and add some closure, the choices we were given would become far more palatable. They can fix many of their problems without having to sacrifice their artistic vision.

Correct. It's not like I'm thrilled with the "vision", but it's the least of the many crimes on display.

 

[SilentVirus]

I agree with Movie Bob. If I go to a restaurant and order a steak, but the waiter comes back with a little spoon and some apple sauce because the chef feels that I should get apple sauce, I will not feel mad or cheated. I will not send the apple sauce and demand my steak, even if that's what I paid for. If the chef want's there to be apple sauce instead of steak simply because he wants it to be that way, let there be apple sauce! Who ever said you should have input about what you want? It's the chef's restaurant and profession. You THINK you want steak, but the chef KNOWS you want apple sauce! Why should you, the consumer, have a voice? If you send back the apple sauce, then the chef's artistic integrity will be at risk! Culinary Art will be at risk!

That was sarcasm by the way.

 

[Gigatoast]

The whole "defending Bioware's artistic vision" excuse falls apart when you take into account that this ending goes against the entire artistic premise of the series and most likely WASN'T Bioware's actual vision. There is NO WAY the writers intended for the series to end this way, something must have happened to force them into this conclusion.

It was a rushed cop-out, despite what anyone speaking from a PR filter says this ending wasn't supposed to exist. It goes against everything the writers stand for, and I'm sure most, if not all of Bioware's writing staff would take it back if they could.

 

[Pontifex]

Here's the thing: if you look at the core of the ideas contained in the endings, they're not all that bad. It's just the way they're presented that is awful. If Bioware were to modify things to remove the plotholes, provide a little bit more explanation, and add some closure, the choices we were given would become far more palatable. They can fix many of their problems without having to sacrifice their artistic vision.

Correct. It's not like I'm thrilled with the "vision", but it's the least of the many crimes on display.

Honestly, I think the destroy and control endings could be just fine, if they would deal with the aforementioned issues. Synthesis is a bit trickier, since it seems to rely heavily on Space Magic, but I would be willing to bite the bullet and accept it if they would just fix everything else.

Have Hackett say something like "The Crucible is firing, all ships fall back" to explain why the Normandy is leaving. Edit a few variables, so that the people on the ground with you don't suddenly show up on a different planet. Let Shepard argue against the Star Child, even if said arguments are ultimately futile. And give us something afterwards to show that while having everyone trapped in a devastated Sol system is grim, there is still hope for the future.

The whole "defending Bioware's artistic vision" excuse falls apart when you take into account that this ending goes against the entire artistic premise of the series and most likely WASN'T Bioware's actual vision. There is NO WAY the writers intended for the series to end this way, something must have happened to force them into this conclusion.

It was a rushed cop-out, despite what anyone speaking from a PR filter says this ending wasn't supposed to exist. It goes against everything the writers stand for, and I'm sure most, if not all of Bioware's writing staff would take it back if they could.

Also, it should be mentioned that Bioware is not a single person, with a single vision. ME3 had around eight writers. From everything I've heard, the ending was written by only one of them, with little to no input from the rest of the team. I have trouble buying the "Artistic vision" excuse from something like that.

 

[War Penguin]

But gamers are also gonna look bad for raging, incoherently yelling, and, hell, even accusing of reviewers of being bribed. That... that's just too far, guys. That's not okay.

Uh...

I don't know how to tell you this, but...

Look. It's not a question of "bribes", necessarily. I don't think developers are sauntering up with thick envelopes full of cash. But if you can't see the incestuous nature that exists between game developers/publishers and game critics, then you're not looking hard enough. Game magazines, gaming review sites...they exist almost ENTIRELY off the revenue gained from advertising, that comes almost ENTIRELY from game developers and publishers. That is not a healthy relationship. Did you read about the Kane and Lynch debacle over at GameSpot? That's the kind of thing that happens. Only 95% of the time, the guy doesn't write an unflattering review of an advertising product and get fired. 95% of the time, the guy writes a puff review of an advertising product, which is why virtually every single AAA game released lives in the 8-10 range of review scores, and why you're seeing more "perfect" scores than ever before. It's like being asked to write a performance review for your boss, and if he doesn't like it, there's an unspoken threat that he might yank your paycheck. Think about that situation, and tell me you don't think there's a problem with the state of games journalism. Tell me you don't raise an eyebrow when gaming sites IGN and GameSpot go on the attack for Bioware, calling their audience "entitled crybabies", while non-gaming related site Forbes strangely takes up an entirely different position.

I'm gonna do something crazy and say...I understand both points of view and am pretty conflicted about it myself.

I'm gonna say something that either gonna comfort you or make you even more scared: I feel completely the same way.

Maybe not counting Bob's view, specifically, [small](I like the guy and all, but I feel that he's not too much in touch with the gaming scene right now)[/small] but I feel that the people who say that things have gone too far are right... but only to a certain extent.

I don't think there's going to be a "right side" at the end of all of this controversy. Both parties will look bad. EA/Bioware is gonna look bad for the lack of promises they kept and for the inevitable over priced DLC. But gamers are also gonna look bad for raging, incoherently yelling, and, hell, even accusing of reviewers of being bribed. That... that's just too far, guys. That's not okay.

I'll have to argue that last point.

It's a major, well known problem with gaming "journalism" and media.

Some of the outright accusations with no direct evidence behind them, I can understand dismissing.
But there is nothing wrong with being skeptical and mentioning that.

I assume you know about the Gamespot story with Kane and Lynch?

Here is an article discussing another similar incident:
http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=6228583&publicUserId=5379799

I've actually read another two this month, but I didn't save those, but just spend 5 minutes on google, I'm sure they'll turn up.

edit: I should note, "Bribed" seems to be the wrong word to use. But there is a conflict of interest. Threats about Advertisements and Early promo's being cutoff from a magazine are the real issues (not big sacks of money being dumped through any letter boxes).

I use "bribed" because I've seen people use that exact word, accusing reviewers of that exact thing. I do see your point, though. There does seem to be a suspicious connection between publishers and reviewers. However, you have to admit, there's a better way to handle this as a gamer.

Quite frankly, the way people have been handling this is just immature. You can't just accuse anyone of accepting money, or lowering themselves to blindly give 8-10 scores to AAA games, or anything like that without any proof to those claims. You can't just yell whatever you think will sting publishers and reviewers and type any incoherent garbage of cursing and raging. We have to handle this in a much more mature manner. Now, I'll admit, I'm not sure what that would include. Would that be keeping calm and not resort to name calling? I'd be surprised if it wasn't that. Would it be noting your skepticism and mentioning that to the reviewer? Well, that's a pretty slippery slope to go down, but as long as you don't insult the person you're accusing and stay level headed, then it might be acceptable. But that's something that I haven't been seeing, and that concerns me.

However, that's not to say that the other side isn't guilty of these same exact things [small](Colin Moriarty, I'm looking straight at you)[/small].

Like I said before, neither side is gonna look good at the end of this.

 

[George Francis Gaspar]

I agree with Movie Bob. If I go to a restaurant and order a steak, but the waiter comes back with a little spoon and some apple sauce because the chef feels that I should get apple sauce, I will not feel mad or cheated. I will not send the apple sauce and demand my steak, even if that's what I paid for. If the chef want's there to be apple sauce instead of steak simply because he wants it to be that way, let there be apple sauce! Who ever said you should have input about what you want? It's the chef's restaurant and profession. You THINK you want steak, but the chef KNOWS you want apple sauce! Why should you, the consumer, have a voice? If you send back the apple sauce, then the chef's artistic integrity will be at risk! Culinary Art will be at risk!

That was sarcasm by the way.

As EDI would put it: That was a joke.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. If I was the Catholic Church and asked Michaelangelo for a painting of God in Heaven for the Sistine Chapel and see the devil painted nailed on the cross....yeah...my input wouldn't matter at all...

OFF WITH YOUR HEAD.

 

[Savagezion]

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.

I forgot he does that Nintendo heavy fanboy show I don't care for. I don't care for Bob's game journalism so much I forgot he even did that show. If you watch his one about Gamestop being a "monopoly" (He uses that terms at least 30 time) he will go on to tell you to shop at other gaming retailers which even sell used games. He defends instigator arguments like the Arkham City was sexist issue and such. He rarely looks at things from both sides and then rambles on and on from one side until he reaches what he thinks is an epiphany that is actually just a really deluded perspective. I rarely agree with him about animation and comic issues as well. I can count on one hand the times I have. It honestly amazes me he has a following and I am not saying that to be mean. I see him as just one or two steps above Kenji from Katawa Shoujo. Think maybe Mel Gibson from conspiracy theory, but he is never right.

 

[Hyper-space]

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.

No, they are just blowing everything out of proportion, going on a whine-crusade for the better part of 3 weeks now. They only tried to use child's play as a vehicle for their own selfish ambitions and to shame people who actually called them out on their bullshit with "Oh, you must not like CHARITY".

Shrugging all of the sudden and saying "We didn't do anything" doesn't cut it.

EDIT: Okay, I read up on this Karpyshyn guy and apparently he left because of *gasp* his own personal project (something called Child of Fire), also that he is going to write a TOR novel. Meaning that he probably wasn't canned because of his artistic integrity, considering hes still pursuing projects for Bioware.

 

[Busard]

Oh man, some video game ending was disappointing and not what we expected. That never happened before. Welp, I better go sign some petition right the fuck now

 

[Darren716]

I look forward to The Big Picture episode where he gets on his soapbox and starts hurling insults at us.

He used his other show The Gme overthinker to do that or at least I'm assuming that's what he did since you need an advantage account on screwattack to see the video until it gets officially released on Sunday, but the advantage program is a different rant for a different time.