So, I wanted to share my thoughts (for what they're worth) on MovieBob's tweets regarding the ME3 ending controversy:
The next point, I agree with. It's not about whether you liked the ending or not. Subjective dissatisfaction with narrative content is not really a compelling reason for a change to that content. It's perfectly reasonable to assert that you don't like the content - there's nothing wrong with fan feedback - but it's not really a campaign platform.
It's the final two quotes that I really take issue with. They're a surprisingly binary perspective (they seem to imply that a game can be either art or a product, with no middle ground), and frankly, they strike me as a little naive. Part of the issue is clarifying exactly what Bob feels subverts the artistic integrity (if you will) of a game. I can see two possible interpretations:
1) Changing the content of a game as a result of external criticism by financially contributing parties is a betrayal of artistic integrity. If this is the intended meaning, then games are already lost as art. There is no way that publishers (especially since BioWare is now a division of its publisher) and investors (and therefore consumers, albeit indirectly) don't have an impact on the creative direction and development of the game. Mass Effect 3 was a commercial project developed by commercial artists in order to generate revenue. Art or not, the decision-making process undoubtedly involved concerns relating to product sales.
2) Changing the content of a game as a result of external criticism subsequent to release is a betrayal of artistic integrity. I don't find this line of reasoning convincing at all (so financial and fan interests can dictate the development of art, but not any amendment of it?). Either way, though, the existence of the Broken Steel DLC renders this interpretation irrelevant. The 'damage' is already done; the precedent is set. There's nothing new to see here.
Returning back to the point that it's not about one's subjective preference for the ending, the real problem in my mind is that - whether you call it art or a product - gamers did not receive what they were lead to believe they would. Here is one pre-release quote (of many in the same theme):
Whether or not you want games to be considered art instead of products (if indeed those two concepts are entirely mutually exclusive), the fact remains that this game was sold as a product, and many indications of the content of that product were given. Those indications turned out to be patent falsehoods, and consequently some consumers are upset. Apparently they can't have the product they were lead to believe they would receive, though, because that would violate "art".
To be blunt, I wrote the first three tweets off largely as hyperbole. I'm not saying that invalidates the underlying viewpoint, but it's very hard to build any sort of reasonable discussion from them. Let's say they release a new Fast and Furious movie, and fans hate the ending so much they release a new cut with different footage. Has the medium been set back 10 years? Can it no longer be called art in any context? Clearly not (I would hope).Bob Chipman said:
The next point, I agree with. It's not about whether you liked the ending or not. Subjective dissatisfaction with narrative content is not really a compelling reason for a change to that content. It's perfectly reasonable to assert that you don't like the content - there's nothing wrong with fan feedback - but it's not really a campaign platform.
It's the final two quotes that I really take issue with. They're a surprisingly binary perspective (they seem to imply that a game can be either art or a product, with no middle ground), and frankly, they strike me as a little naive. Part of the issue is clarifying exactly what Bob feels subverts the artistic integrity (if you will) of a game. I can see two possible interpretations:
1) Changing the content of a game as a result of external criticism by financially contributing parties is a betrayal of artistic integrity. If this is the intended meaning, then games are already lost as art. There is no way that publishers (especially since BioWare is now a division of its publisher) and investors (and therefore consumers, albeit indirectly) don't have an impact on the creative direction and development of the game. Mass Effect 3 was a commercial project developed by commercial artists in order to generate revenue. Art or not, the decision-making process undoubtedly involved concerns relating to product sales.
2) Changing the content of a game as a result of external criticism subsequent to release is a betrayal of artistic integrity. I don't find this line of reasoning convincing at all (so financial and fan interests can dictate the development of art, but not any amendment of it?). Either way, though, the existence of the Broken Steel DLC renders this interpretation irrelevant. The 'damage' is already done; the precedent is set. There's nothing new to see here.
Returning back to the point that it's not about one's subjective preference for the ending, the real problem in my mind is that - whether you call it art or a product - gamers did not receive what they were lead to believe they would. Here is one pre-release quote (of many in the same theme):
Anyone who has experienced the endings of ME3 can attest that this is the exact opposite of the actual content we received. The importance of "artistic integrity" should not be used as a shield to avoid this. Clear statements were made about the type of ending players would receive, and those statements were not adhered to. Is moral integrity worth less than a concept of artistic integrity? Is artistic integrity a defence against simple bad business?Casey Hudson said:
Whether or not you want games to be considered art instead of products (if indeed those two concepts are entirely mutually exclusive), the fact remains that this game was sold as a product, and many indications of the content of that product were given. Those indications turned out to be patent falsehoods, and consequently some consumers are upset. Apparently they can't have the product they were lead to believe they would receive, though, because that would violate "art".
![Fr]anc[is](https://eg-forums-escapist-data.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/93/93202.jpg?1620797781){kind=avatar}
