When you make your own damn game you can end it however you want, simple as that. The fact that "art" cannot be divorced from the economics (there would be no game without paying customers) doesn't mean those paying customers get to backseat develop. If mob mentality ruled artistic vision, why bother have artists at all? We could just crowd source the game and add in whatever people say they want. Course, this would make for horribly bland and repetitive games, cause people don't know shit.
MovieBob's thoughts on the ME3 ending controversy
- Thread starter Sentox6
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Bob is absolutely right! Art should never undergo revision for any reason! Movies never change their endings based on test audience reactions to the material! It's not like video games ever add new content after release to add to or build upon a story; nope, what's shipped on launch day is the finished product and nothing can change the immutable work of art the creators produced!
And who cares what the fans think about an interactive medium? Hey, it's not like they're input matters in a game that's touted to be built around choice! And how dare they say the ending was subpar! It's art! Honestly, people, if you don't grow up, Uncle Ebert might not call us up to sit at the Big Kid's table where we can talk about "post-modernism" and use the term "avant-garde" unironically. That's what gaming is all about after all; getting legitimized by an arbitrary and imaginary committee as "art."
Bravo, Bob! You're knowledge of movies has well equipped you to comment on a completely different medium and I wait in joyful hope for any future wisdom you can dispense upon us hapless, ill-bred, peons
And who cares what the fans think about an interactive medium? Hey, it's not like they're input matters in a game that's touted to be built around choice! And how dare they say the ending was subpar! It's art! Honestly, people, if you don't grow up, Uncle Ebert might not call us up to sit at the Big Kid's table where we can talk about "post-modernism" and use the term "avant-garde" unironically. That's what gaming is all about after all; getting legitimized by an arbitrary and imaginary committee as "art."
Bravo, Bob! You're knowledge of movies has well equipped you to comment on a completely different medium and I wait in joyful hope for any future wisdom you can dispense upon us hapless, ill-bred, peons
Lost points with me Bob. Not for disagreeing with my point of view, you are more than welcome to, but for insulting and belittling something you clearly haven't taken any time to try to understand from the other person's perspective. Shame on you.
How in the world could it have been a lot worse? What else could it possibly have screwed up?VoidWanderer said:
Don't forget Shakespeare was forced to rewrite Romeo and Juliet so that Juliet woke up just in time. Both versions are still told today. Theatre is no longer an art either. Darn it.Darkmantle said:
Captcha: labour of love
It's 100% valid, if people just can't see it I guess their minds aren't clear and can't see it. I'm done with this argument, because it just seems there is too much unresolved anger for the opposition to see properly, or people just don't understand how a game like ME3 is art, and that is sad.Darkmantle said:
And I suppose that cutting out the Javik character and selling him at an extra $7 was a completely artistic move on Bioware's part, right?
Including a major review site's employee in the game itself?
And actually making the last words of the series be "get more downloadable content!"
Why is everyone in mainstream gaming media either only half informing themselves on the issue or just being a hypocritical asshole?
All we heard about was how "Bioware is a business at the end of the day...." during the DLC controversy, and now during THIS one, all we're getting is "They're ARTISTS! Leave them Aloooooone!"
The ending isn't some deep artistic statement.
It wasn't set up, foreshadowed, nor does it fit the themes of the series.
This isn't some kind of Metal Gear Solid 2.
It isn't 2001: A Space Odyssey.
It's not even Evangelion.
It's just something Mac Walters threw together in the last week of development he had left, and he didn't consult anyone else.
I wouldn't be surprised if word came from EA, and that the hope was to get people to have to re-buy the "real" ending, but who knows honestly.
Check this article out:
One of the other writers lost his composer and posted this gem about what was happening in the Bioware offices near the end of development.
http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/5695/article/mass-effect-3-writer-allegedly-slams-controversial-ending/
Including a major review site's employee in the game itself?
And actually making the last words of the series be "get more downloadable content!"
Why is everyone in mainstream gaming media either only half informing themselves on the issue or just being a hypocritical asshole?
All we heard about was how "Bioware is a business at the end of the day...." during the DLC controversy, and now during THIS one, all we're getting is "They're ARTISTS! Leave them Aloooooone!"
The ending isn't some deep artistic statement.
It wasn't set up, foreshadowed, nor does it fit the themes of the series.
This isn't some kind of Metal Gear Solid 2.
It isn't 2001: A Space Odyssey.
It's not even Evangelion.
It's just something Mac Walters threw together in the last week of development he had left, and he didn't consult anyone else.
I wouldn't be surprised if word came from EA, and that the hope was to get people to have to re-buy the "real" ending, but who knows honestly.
Check this article out:
One of the other writers lost his composer and posted this gem about what was happening in the Bioware offices near the end of development.
http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/5695/article/mass-effect-3-writer-allegedly-slams-controversial-ending/
I normally listen to what Chipman has to say in good faith because he, at least in my view, backs up his arguments with some sort of logical/evidentiary framework. It's not great, but it is better than most internet denizens. This is for movies and the like - I never really gave his arguments much weight in the realm of video games. He really likes Nintendo and older generation games, and that is cool - just not really my thing.
Here, I really can't get on board with him. I think of myself as a pretty level headed gamer, but, when I finished ME3, I had the same reaction a lot of you did: "WTF?" I was pretty shocked/dissatisfied, and went to the internet to see if anyone was talking about it. Lo and behold - the internet was ablaze.
Here is the thing - Chipman wants to wave the flag of "videogames are art", which is cool - in a sense, video games can be and are art. But, as a lot of people have noted here, "art" is a very subjective label, and further, I am really not sure one could consider ME1, 2, or 3 art. The following illustrates my point pretty well:
"Don't talk to me about artistic integrity when you can have sex with an IGN employee, buy a major lore based character for $10 and end your game with a "Buy DLC screen"."
It's a little glib, but, I think it's illustrates the point well. ME3 is a money grab. A really, really awesome moneygrab (I liked 99% of the game), but still a moneygrab. How the hell else could you explain the on disk Day 1 DLC, the ending that, to my mind, clearly sets the stage for some epilogue DLC (check out the AngryJoe video on the Indoctrination Ending - It's really insightful and makes a good argument for "ending" DLC coming down the pipe), and then even ENDS the game with a "make sure to buy your DLC kids" message.
I really think the "Bioware is cheapening the medium by caving into a vocal minority" argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense when applied to a game that, for all intents and purposes, has attempted at every juncture to wring as much money out of it's playerbase as it can. They gave up the "art for art's sake" when they stripped a lore-centric character out of the game to make another $10. Further, if the "Indoctrination Theory" is true (which I happen to think is likely), Bioware is basically the greatest troll ever and has fooled all of us into buying a game without an ending. Any pretense of "art for art's sake" was flushed down the toilet before this argument ever came up.
Anyway, I am not surprised as to Bob's reaction. He does not like (dare I say, hates) modern gaming. He dislikes first person shooters, dislikes the fanbase, and dislikes the AAA paradigm. Anything he can do to voice his opinion that "those young punks and their AAA games are ruining it for me and my Nintendo body pillow", he will take. He's welcome to his opinion.
Doesn't make him any less of an asshole though. Flinging hyperbole around and scolding people with valid criticism simply because he can doesn't help anyone and makes him look like a douchebag.
Here, I really can't get on board with him. I think of myself as a pretty level headed gamer, but, when I finished ME3, I had the same reaction a lot of you did: "WTF?" I was pretty shocked/dissatisfied, and went to the internet to see if anyone was talking about it. Lo and behold - the internet was ablaze.
Here is the thing - Chipman wants to wave the flag of "videogames are art", which is cool - in a sense, video games can be and are art. But, as a lot of people have noted here, "art" is a very subjective label, and further, I am really not sure one could consider ME1, 2, or 3 art. The following illustrates my point pretty well:
"Don't talk to me about artistic integrity when you can have sex with an IGN employee, buy a major lore based character for $10 and end your game with a "Buy DLC screen"."
It's a little glib, but, I think it's illustrates the point well. ME3 is a money grab. A really, really awesome moneygrab (I liked 99% of the game), but still a moneygrab. How the hell else could you explain the on disk Day 1 DLC, the ending that, to my mind, clearly sets the stage for some epilogue DLC (check out the AngryJoe video on the Indoctrination Ending - It's really insightful and makes a good argument for "ending" DLC coming down the pipe), and then even ENDS the game with a "make sure to buy your DLC kids" message.
I really think the "Bioware is cheapening the medium by caving into a vocal minority" argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense when applied to a game that, for all intents and purposes, has attempted at every juncture to wring as much money out of it's playerbase as it can. They gave up the "art for art's sake" when they stripped a lore-centric character out of the game to make another $10. Further, if the "Indoctrination Theory" is true (which I happen to think is likely), Bioware is basically the greatest troll ever and has fooled all of us into buying a game without an ending. Any pretense of "art for art's sake" was flushed down the toilet before this argument ever came up.
Anyway, I am not surprised as to Bob's reaction. He does not like (dare I say, hates) modern gaming. He dislikes first person shooters, dislikes the fanbase, and dislikes the AAA paradigm. Anything he can do to voice his opinion that "those young punks and their AAA games are ruining it for me and my Nintendo body pillow", he will take. He's welcome to his opinion.
Doesn't make him any less of an asshole though. Flinging hyperbole around and scolding people with valid criticism simply because he can doesn't help anyone and makes him look like a douchebag.
Thank you! Thank you, a thousand times, thank you.Sentox6 said:
Yes, the majority of anger that I have seen isn't that the ending was simply bad (although it was, and I have seen a lot of angry posts about that) The anger comes from the fact that the ending is directly contradictory to explicit promises made. We were promised 32 flavors and all we got were chocolate, vanilla and strawberry.
I appreciate that Mass Effect 3 is Bioware's product, I can no more expect or demand them to change it than I could expect James Cameron to reedit the Titanic so it's just constant shots of naked Kate Winslet and Lionardo Dicaprio drowning just because I asked nicely.
Bioware has already caved on another product that went out with their seal of approval, or have we forgotten about Mass Effect Deception? It was so poorly received that they're rewriting it.
Even if you look at this from a further perspective, artists have been whores for centuries. Almost the entirety of the renaissance was funded by the church, and you bet your ass they'd make revisions if a cardinal or a pope told them to. Frankly art has been a product for a long time, it's a means through which an artist can sustain themselves, from simple digital commissions to the damn Sistine Chapel, the art was bought, paid for, and then approved.
Movie Bob, you need to calm your tits. Yes, I see why you would be upset, but you're behaving as badly as those hardcore fans who freaked out and made hundreds of angry non-sensical posts as soon as they beat the game.
I'll be honest, I wasn't as ANGRY about the ending as many people were, dissapointed? put out? let down? yes, I was, but not angry. The only thing that really PISSED ME OFF about the ending was the fact that it ended with an advertisement to buy more DLC. I found that nothing short of insulting.
...Yeah, let me just say: the idea that this somehow invalidates the game's artistry is not a leg this argument can stand on. Heck, this isn't even a new phenomenon (though it is far more in the public eye than most other instances). Games have long been and continue to be subjective to a variety of criteria not under the devs' control, hindering what may well be their 'artistic vision' as some might call it. Heck, the devs in this case even acknowledged as much when they point to how they had to cut content because they couldn't make the required gameplay mechanics work. And fan input ruining artistic integrety? Yeah, right. The phrase 'test audience' is kinda the elephant in the room in that regard, as their primary function is to check for the exact reaction we're seeing here so that the production team can make changes if needed. And let's not forget, this is hardly a new concept for the storytelling medium in general. Ever hear of "The Adventures of the Empty House", by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle? Or perhaps any of the subsequent works involving Holmes after "The Final Solution"? Doyle quite literally brought Holmes back from the dead (having originally killed him off so he could focus on other works) due to public demand.
Furthermore, I'd argue that the very premise is anathema to artistry in general as it implies that an artist should be loathe to accept criticism, which should truthfully be the lifeblood of any form of artists as it forces them to adapt and eliminate their flaws. The ability to take criticism and adapt to it is not a flaw.
Furthermore, I'd argue that the very premise is anathema to artistry in general as it implies that an artist should be loathe to accept criticism, which should truthfully be the lifeblood of any form of artists as it forces them to adapt and eliminate their flaws. The ability to take criticism and adapt to it is not a flaw.
Bob Chipman said:
Moviebob... Stick with your name. You are a movie critic, not a game critic, and this is one of the most poignant examples of this fact that I have seen to date. The fact remains that this event is not the first, nor will it be the last of a video game company catering its product (note: product, not art) to serve the fans/consumers. The belief that anything can be 'art' or 'product' and that the two are inherently differentiated is biased and untrue by all regards.Art can be a product, and a product can be art. Games, to my mind, are actually one of the truest mediums for expressing this. All games are product, from the first person shooters to the RPGs. At the same time, many games are art, as well. Mass Effect is a good example of this. Throughout the series, it has provided one of the deepest and most touching stories I've experienced in any medium, including books or movies.
And have we not seen that public opinion can change other mediums as well? At the outset, J.K. Rowling had decided on Harry dying at the end of the Harry Potter series, lending increasing amounts of foreshadowing that suggested at a mutual end to both Voldemort and the protagonist. After seeing fan reaction to the series, however, she eventually decided to make this fact not happen.
Mass Effect, from what I've seen, has followed a similar path. Throughout the series, the emphasis has been on player choice shaping the experience, changing the outset of the games. How is this protest any different? In truth, this may just be the most widespread example of 'player choice' that this medium has ever seen. Bioware should be proud of the Mass Effect series, not just because of the fascinating world and capturing characters that they have created, but also because of their fans complete and utter dedication to not only the series itself, but also the spirit of choice behind the series. Be proud, Bioware. Your fans are among the most dedicated and true I have ever seen to your games.
You're spot on with Sherlock Holmes, although that isn't generally considered high art.KingofMadCows said:
And, I'll admit I don't know enough about Clockwork Orange. I've seen the movie. **shrug**
But I don't get your point about Hamlet. Shakespeare didn't change the ending - he just had an "extended version" and several "edited versions" for different audiences. He wrote them all in advance, and never changed things based on fan response. He wrote them because he knew that the King wanted to see different stuff than the commoners in the penny 'seats', so he made sure the play was ready to appeal to either crowd, or both, at need.
That's just good planning/marketing. Shakespeare knew how to handle fans. Bioware seems to be having trouble there lately. Obviously they could take a lesson from the Bard.
After this I have honestly lost all respect for Movie Bob. He is going out of his way to insult people because they do not share the same view as him, and that is not something I can respect at all.
Firstly, the art defence. BS. First, lest assume it is art. Have you ever heard of commissioned art? If you are commissioned to paint a pony, but instead paint a Ferris Wheel, is it wrong for the commissioner to ask for their money back, or for you to paint a new picture?
No. They paid for the piece, and you made it for them. We paid for Mass Effect, and Mass Effect was made for us. Bioware was free to go about things as they would, but if we weren't satisfied we were going to demand changes, or not give Bioware any business at all. They did not create the commissioned piece they promised, and we want that fixed.
Second, lets take this at face value: Mass Effect 3 is a product. It is what it was created for, and everyone expected it to be. It was financed not to look pretty, but to move sales and earn revenue. If Bioware had funded this 100% themselves, and not cared whether they got sales or not, THEN I could understand the art defence - they didn't make it for you, they made it either for themselves, or for art's sake. Instead, they made it with EA's funding for EA customers to buy. Thereby, we have a right to say that what was delivered was not what was promised.
Finally, consider this:
What has actually happened here?
Movements have been made asking Bioware to change the ending.
An FTC complaint has been filed because Bioware did not stay true to what they said pre-release.
Is either of these wrong in any way?
No.
If you say that us telling Bioware we'll take our business elsewhere is strongarming them into changing their ending, what do you expect us to do? Keep buying Bioware games even though we've started to hate them? That's stupid. Bioware is not entitled to our sales. They have to earn them.
You may disagree that the FTC complaint was necessary, but it is being taken somewhat seriously. It IS within the FTC jurisdiction, and they have to decide whether the statements are specific enough to warrant advertising. Personally, I don't see how you can get more specific than basically saying 'No ending A, B or C', but W/E. The way the group presented it even I don't like - they complain that it doesn't have a happy ending, which is a BS complaint IMO, but the fact that Bioware did not keep true to what it was saying pre release is some cause for concern.
Movie Bob, simply because you disagree with us does not mean you should insult us. All respect lost. It is possible to have a nice, proper discussion.
Firstly, the art defence. BS. First, lest assume it is art. Have you ever heard of commissioned art? If you are commissioned to paint a pony, but instead paint a Ferris Wheel, is it wrong for the commissioner to ask for their money back, or for you to paint a new picture?
No. They paid for the piece, and you made it for them. We paid for Mass Effect, and Mass Effect was made for us. Bioware was free to go about things as they would, but if we weren't satisfied we were going to demand changes, or not give Bioware any business at all. They did not create the commissioned piece they promised, and we want that fixed.
Second, lets take this at face value: Mass Effect 3 is a product. It is what it was created for, and everyone expected it to be. It was financed not to look pretty, but to move sales and earn revenue. If Bioware had funded this 100% themselves, and not cared whether they got sales or not, THEN I could understand the art defence - they didn't make it for you, they made it either for themselves, or for art's sake. Instead, they made it with EA's funding for EA customers to buy. Thereby, we have a right to say that what was delivered was not what was promised.
Finally, consider this:
What has actually happened here?
Movements have been made asking Bioware to change the ending.
An FTC complaint has been filed because Bioware did not stay true to what they said pre-release.
Is either of these wrong in any way?
No.
If you say that us telling Bioware we'll take our business elsewhere is strongarming them into changing their ending, what do you expect us to do? Keep buying Bioware games even though we've started to hate them? That's stupid. Bioware is not entitled to our sales. They have to earn them.
You may disagree that the FTC complaint was necessary, but it is being taken somewhat seriously. It IS within the FTC jurisdiction, and they have to decide whether the statements are specific enough to warrant advertising. Personally, I don't see how you can get more specific than basically saying 'No ending A, B or C', but W/E. The way the group presented it even I don't like - they complain that it doesn't have a happy ending, which is a BS complaint IMO, but the fact that Bioware did not keep true to what it was saying pre release is some cause for concern.
Movie Bob, simply because you disagree with us does not mean you should insult us. All respect lost. It is possible to have a nice, proper discussion.