MovieBob's thoughts on the ME3 ending controversy

[The Ubermensch]

Maybe you think the ends justify the means. Maybe you think getting a proper ending for this great franchise is worth it. That's fine...in the short term. In the long term, the repercussions of this will last far longer than this series, and I think we as gamers will regret this in the long run.

Can I ask you a question?

What makes games unique as an art form? What is the element that separates them from, say, books, or films?

I'll Answer! The player is an integral active part of the piece as opposed to a passive viewer/reader... which if anything undermines Bobs position further.

 

[kasperbbs]

I would rather have a game that i enjoy than some artsy piece of **** that nobody likes or understands except for a selected few. And whats so terrible about changing it? Does it stop being art if it gets modified? Every other art form changes their creations constantly to make them better, take music, movies for example, don't know shit about paintings but Mona Lisa is an ugly painting, well painted i guess but still ugly.

 

[Mr. Omega]

It happened to Arthur Conan Doyle when fans forced him to keep writing Sherlock Holmes, not once but twice! (And he had to bring him back from the dead...)

If I may weigh in on just a couple parts: I'm sick of this comparison, because it is wrong.

The only way this comparison could be accurate is if people were demanding Mass Effect 4, with it possibly undoing the ending of ME3. The whole argument would be "We want more Mass Effect!", not "We want a different ending!".

It happens all the time with movies in Hollywood, it's just they test it with audiences first.

But this is before the product is considered "finished" and sold to the public.

It's not an ending and thus an incomplete product. Bioware released an incomplete product and should complete it.

The ending is there, it just sucks. It's a terrible ending filled with plotholes. But it's an ending.

There are actual complaints to be made about the ending besides it just sucking, but these aren't the best choices to be using.

 

[Aurgelmir]

I agree a lot with Bob. I do not think the ending should be changed. That doesn't mean they can make DLC that explains some of the weird questions the ending brought up. And it doesn't change the fact that the ending was bad.
But I finished the Horus Heresy Decent of Angles yesterday, and I didn't like the ending for a lot of the same reasons I disliked ME3s ending, lack of closure, little to no explanation as to what happened etc. But will I write angry forum posts stating they should release a new book with a better ending? no.
Do I hope they release another book explaining more about the Dark Angles and what happened? Yes.

 

[PingoBlack]

Bob. Bob ...
You obviously didn't see the ending yourself, have you?

If you are claiming Ending-O-Tron is ART then we cannot agree on definition of art. It has been done before (DeusEx:HR, with actual story details stolen from DeusEx).

You don't quite call a person that copied a Leonardo the same thing as you call the master himself, right? Besides, BioWare were never into art, they do pulp fiction.

And no, ending should not be changed. It should stay bad cheap pulp fiction rip off it is. Just stop calling it art. It's still and Ending-o-Tron.

 

[Ticonderoga117]

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 agree a lot with Bob. I do not think the ending should be changed. That doesn't mean they can make DLC that explains some of the weird questions the ending brought up. And it doesn't change the fact that the ending was bad.
But I finished the Horus Heresy Decent of Angles yesterday, and I didn't like the ending for a lot of the same reasons I disliked ME3s ending, lack of closure, little to no explanation as to what happened etc. But will I write angry forum posts stating they should release a new book with a better ending? no.
Do I hope they release another book explaining more about the Dark Angles and what happened? Yes.

Ah, but the last time I checked, that book is not the end of the Horus Heresy series no?
Also, see above.

 

[luvd1]

Isnt this really a conflict with "artistic intregrity" and "professionalism". And they've gone with the renagrade option. Oh the irony.

 

[Pandabearparade]

Why does anyone listen to what Moviebob has to say? He's not particularly insightful or entertaining. All he does is yell fallacious arguments into his microphone and ignore any and all counterpoints.

 

[LokiArchetype]

It happens all the time with movies in Hollywood, it's just they test it with audiences first.

But this is before the product is considered "finished" and sold to the public.

So?

And how can you even truly say the game was "finished" when it already had DLC planned for it?

Even after games are released, they are altered through patches, expansions, DLC packs, some of which alter or add story elements.

Adding DLC is a financially motivated decision that adds content to a "finished" product, whether or not the fans are the ones calling for it.

 

[MrFalconfly]

I'm just gonna throw my two cents out there.

The people who dislike the ending because of "lack of variety" seem a bit shallow to be honest.

I mean sure the animation and cutscenes are very similar (well technically they are the same cutscene with different color-palettes and different crew-members stepping out of the Normandy), but to me it seems the variety is behind the scenes. The first ending (Destroy) will destroy any synthetic lifeform including the Geth and EDI, the second (Control) will give everybody a free ride home (and possibly make Sherpard a megalomaniacal dictator with Reapers at his/her disposal), and the third (Synthesis) merges all synthetic and organic life (enabling Joker and EDI to live happily ever after and possibly extend lives so they can develop a substitute for those Mass Relay thingies).

That seems like huge variety in my eyes (Destroy all Reapers at total disregard to the possible consequences, try to control them with the possibility of going power-hungry, merge synthetic and organic life) . Or maybe I'm just blinded by the automatic rose-tint I have when I hear Buzz Aldrin's voice.

 

[Wintermute_v1legacy]

I don't get it... they're losing their "artistic integrity" if they change the ending (which concerns mainly the story elements of the game), but games constantly have their gameplay mechanics changed, especially between sequels, and more often than not because of fan feedback and that's apparently fine with everyone.

So, fan feedback resulting in different gameplay is alright, but fan feedback resulting in a different story isn't, because it's ruining the developers' original vision of the game. I love games with a good story, and I love the Mass Effect games, but the way I see it, gameplay and interactivity is what sets games apart from movies or books, and yet gameplay doesn't seem to be considered art at all, since it's changed all the time, for better or worse.

But don't you dare touching the story.

 

[wintercoat]

It happened to Arthur Conan Doyle when fans forced him to keep writing Sherlock Holmes, not once but twice! (And he had to bring him back from the dead...)

If I may weigh in on just a couple parts: I'm sick of this comparison, because it is wrong.

The only way this comparison could be accurate is if people were demanding Mass Effect 4, with it possibly undoing the ending of ME3. The whole argument would be "We want more Mass Effect!", not "We want a different ending!".

Actually, if we get a change that makes the indoctrination theory true, it would be in the form of a ret-con. The ending wouldn't be rewritten, so much as added on to in the same fashion that Doyle made it so that Holmes only faked his death, but the ending of The Final Problem was still true.

 

[Promethax]

This is proof prime that taking the absolute opposite stance of a viewpoint doesn't make you better than the people that hold that viewpoint. Movie Bob, as seen in these statements, shows himself to be no better than the more obnoxious ME3 haters although he's apparently the opposite. Still the same total value of stupid.

 

[Sparrow]

Oh, fuck MovieBob. I don't like something so I don't like the right to complain? Isn't that what you do about every Michael Bay movie, Bob?

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I'm not talking about just the ending, I'm talking about works of art where the artists were influenced by the audience or by factors other than their own vision.

... um, ALL artists are influenced by the audience or by factors other than their own vision. One of the first things you learn as a writer is to consider your audience. Besides, writing in any media (from novels to TV to movies to stage plays to games to comics) requires sacrificing certain parts of your vision in favor of others. That's just part of the biz - and always has been.

For instance, Shakespeare would likely have preferred to work with female actresses, but he wasn't allowed to, so he had to use young male actresses in his female roles. That was sacrificing part of his vision for his audience, but it was also a requirement of the media he wrote in.

A good artist accommodates before hand. A bad artist folds after the fact. Movie Bob is upset about the later, where as I was suggesting that where Bioware failed was the former - Casey should have let his teem peer-review him.

Sherlock Holmes may not be high art but neither is "Mass Effect." ME is not "Blade Runner" or the Mars trilogy. It's more on the level of Star Trek, Star Wars, or Babylon 5.

I'd argue with you about Babylon 5 (ie, that B5 is high art) but this is neither the time, nor the forum. I won't argue for either of the other two - and they make your point quite well.

The last chapter of "A Clockwork Orange" is really inconsistent with the rest of the book. Most people did not like it. Most publishers did not include it. Kubrick did not include it in the movie adaptation. The version of the book without the last chapter is pretty much considered the definitive version.

Ah. Well, that was more of a publisher issue. Anyway, I didn't know that before (and I've never read the book) so thanks for the literary trivia. ^^

As for Hamlet, whether or not Shakespeare was influenced by response from his audience can be debated but he was certainly influenced by what he thought the audience wanted to see and he altered his "vision" to compensate for that.

Again, I don't think that's a loss of artistic integrity. Shakespeare knew his media by that point - he'd been writing in it for years and years. When you're that versed in a genre, it is almost automatic.

Besides, he did things in that play that weren't popular. He made some very radical decisions - and they paid off because it is considered one of his best plays. If you want to talk about Romeo and Juliet, then I'll give you that one, but I'd hold Hamlet up as an example of Shakespeare sticking to his guns. The different versions were more about not boring the pleebs with too much politics or not offending the King with too much baudyness - neither of which was central to the main story. In all versions he manages to tell the tale - and have his ending - which was the important part.

 

[Exile714]

If Michaelangelo had gotten to the end of the Sistine Chapel and said "You know what, I'm just going to draw God as a stick figure," what would the church officials have done? They would have scolded him and made him finish the damn ceiling.

Mass Effect (the series) is a work of art with a stick figure in place of a poignant ending. It's not artistic vision, it's laziness. It's not revisionism, it's a desire for completeness.

 

[nightwolf667]

I've been up all night, so I might not have been clear:

If I may weigh in on just a couple parts: I'm sick of this comparison, because it is wrong.

The only way this comparison could be accurate is if people were demanding Mass Effect 4, with it possibly undoing the ending of ME3. The whole argument would be "We want more Mass Effect!", not "We want a different ending!".

It doesn't change the fact that it happens and it's actually not wrong. The death of Sherlock Holmes was supposed to be final, this was Conan Doyle getting out in such a way that he could not possibly ever come back in because the character was dead! This was the end. That it no more. He changed the ending, not to that particular story no. So in a literal sense you're right, he didn't change the writing, he just changed what happened. He changed the ending. Whether it was off book or not doesn't even matter, it was popular opinion that got him to do so. So many people were so fanatic about Sherlock Holmes they forced him to continue writing. In an age without internet.

They shouted: "We want a different ending! He can't die!"

Comparatively, this is nothing. But his fans did force him to change his ending, not the ending of the story, but the death of the character. Given that Sherlock Holmes' fight with Moriarty was supposed to be his final, ultimate battle, well, it ends up being the same thing.

It happens all the time with movies in Hollywood, it's just they test it with audiences first.

But this is before the product is considered "finished" and sold to the public.

Yes, but they have to go back and re-shoot because someone somewhere didn't like it or didn't like it enough. I may not have been perfectly clear with that argument, this is about how the artistic integrity argument doesn't mesh up. With a video game, very much like with a movie, someone during production even close to the very end of the film (if they are high enough up) can say: "I don't like it, change it, it won't sell."

It happens to directors, it happens to writers, it happens to painters. People are making an argument that the "writers" can do whatever they want. It's not true, they can't. It would be nice if it were but we live in an era where people use art as an entertainment medium. They use to make money. Can something be art as much as it can be entertainment? Yes. Is a video game a one person process that lives solely by their vision alone? No. (Clarification: I mean AAA titles, not indie games)

They can't do whatever they want. Because in the end the art they create is made to entertain, they make it for an audience, it's made to make money, and if someone anywhere with enough power on the production line doesn't like it: they can force them to change it.

It may be art, but it does lack integrity. Lying to their customers is also a bad sign.

The ending is there, it just sucks. It's a terrible ending filled with plotholes. But it's an ending.

There are actual complaints to be made about the ending besides it just sucking, but these aren't the best choices to be using.

It's not though. It's not actually an ending, it stops. From a story telling perspective, it actually fails to fulfill the obligations that an ending must have in order to actually fit the description. The game also lacks a denouement and an epilogue. We have the final moments, yes, but for an ending to be an ending there must be a satisfaction that comes with it, good or bad. It must tie up the loose ends. There is a contract someone posted earlier in the thread, it's the unspoken agreement between an author and their reader.

It's right and the same agreement really does (more loosely) exist between a player and a game developer. For the ending to be an ending, it must conclude the narrative. Shepard's death isn't actually a conclusion, it doesn't count. Just like the Normandy crashing into the planet isn't a denouement, and the crappily acted grandfather talking to kid scene isn't an epilogue. It ties nothing up, it leaves us with more questions, and is ultimately unsatisfactory.

Worse, the entire thing is a sequel hook. It didn't end.

Some might argue that we didn't need to see the cast of Return of the Jedi reuniting with their friends in the Ewok village or Luke Skywalker lighting the pyre for his father's body. Some might argue that we didn't even need to see the Death Star explode to know they won. But think about all the questions that would be left over. What happened?

Captcha: know your nights. Oh, I do. I do!

 

[Hyper-space]

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.

 

[Terminate421]

Ha! Movie bob is attempting to make a point and still calls us all idiots! That adds to me still never taking him seriously as a human being. Either way I dont believe he's ever played mass effect.

The main reason I am a bit pissed is I wanted closure to a game I payed $60 for I understand that it's art but the ending proves that there is a thing called bad art. The rest of the game is perfect but the past 5 minutes is we were looking to mess with.