Regarding Mass Effect 3: Artistic Integrity and the doom of gaming as an artistic medium

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

To recap: Mass Effect 3 [http://masseffect.com/] was released. A lot of people didn't like the ending and responded in some interesting ways. Then a lot of columnists did a lot of dude, not cool explaining how this is going to ruin gaming or stories or something.

The word entitled was used a lot in an accusatory fashion. Entitled lost its meaning, except to deride someone you don't like for wanting something you don't think they deserve.

And then the issue of art came up. Art, we've learned, can't be product. We would go on to learn that product is what happens when your audience wants you to change something and you do. Like Cheez Whiz. Art is what you have when you leave it the way it is. Ergo changing the Mass Effect 3 ending would de-Art it. Whizify it.

And that's bullshit. As in shit. From a bovine male, and not Shinola [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/know_shit_from_Shinola].

I'm not an art critic, but I tend to have respect for art critics[footnote]...including critics of specific subcategories of artistic content, such as film critics or game reviewers[/footnote] who are aware that their opinion is not the only one out there, and the fine line between art and crap is in the eye of every beholder. I've yet to see someone effectively dilineate the threshold where art becomes non-art and vice versa.

That said, Mass Effect 3, for all its weaknesses is art. It may be bad art. It may be good art with some very bad aspects. But it's art.

And Mass Effect 3, should it be edited or fixed with a DLC that provides a better ending will still be art.

I'm pretty sure that when Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle[footnote]Author and The Final Problem [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conan_doyle.jpg][/I], the stories retained their artiness.

I'm pretty sure that after George Lucas edited and re-edited the Star Wars trilogies, oftimes for the worse and sometimes at the behest of his audience, it was still art, and continues to be so, no matter how Cheez Whizzy it may presently seem, so quit it already, George!

I'm pretty sure that Terry Gilliam's Brazil [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_%28film%29] is art, both the Love Conquers All version and the one with the real ending.

Ergo, I'm pretty sure that whether Mass Effect 3 is held fast to its current ending or given a new super-happy Scooby-Doo ending, it will still be art.

And given that audiences have demanded artistic changes before, sometimes with the artists conceding, I'm confident changes to the Mass Effect canon is not going to evoke some major Cheez Whizzy apocalypse, or jeopardize the artistic merits of computer games.

So chill out, guys.

238U

 

[Tanakh]

I'm pretty sure that Terry Gilliam's Brazil [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_%28film%29] is art, both the Love Conquers All version and the one with the real ending.

There is a Love Conquers All version? Blasphemy!

OT: Mhee, I am not sure if game journalist are ignorant or just try to ignore facts about the history of art; i am not saying they are idiots, but seem to be entrenched sooo deep into Bioware's butcrack defending it from stupid fans that they can't smell the stench of their own fallacies or of Bioware own actions.

Is Rembrandt's Night Watch a piece of crap because it was comissioned and made to please the audience? Because he had to redo several aspects after they were painted and dry? Or because it's obviously a product, sold at a high price even before concived? Being a mostly ignorant of art person, it surprises me that critics and journalist are even more ignorant by saying that a product and art are two different things, specially since they are mostly (all?) from capitalist countries, and in the capitalist system everything is a product.

And I don't get what they are defending anyway... a third person cover based shooter with some nice elements here and there, but a cheesy plot and lines, choices that don't change anything but some emotional manipulative minutes and some terribly umpolished parts here and there (that lipsync is the worst i remember on a AAA game).

Also, why defend a AAA game against his fans? To get the industry to be taken seriously and videogames as art? To prevent a bad precedent? I am quite sure EA and Bioware interest of making art is several orders of magnitude than their interest of making money, so if they don't care about I found quite miopic that the jounralist do; also there is no way AAA games this days will be relevant as anything but products, they simply can't take risks, in ME 3 that meant a generic gameplay, a generic summer bluckbuster story and a generic "videogamy" bad ending, and some very nice use of run of the mill graphics, a nicely done multiplayer trademill, and some spice up on the gameplay by the inclusion of RPG elements. If anything ME 3 greatest achivement for me is that last point, it is a third person shooter that includes several classes in a decent way, maybe we will see RPG elements in Gears of War 4. As for the bad precedent... well, Blizard has been doing massive changes due fan pressure for more than half a decade, Frozen Synapse changed it's ending as a resoult of an internet movement, and journalist didn't cared there.

At the end of the day I think ME 3 is a nice generic AAA game well executed but riddled with flaws, that got more fan hate than deserved and also way more paladin journalist protection. The sad part is that said journalistic movement was ill informed, badly written and advocating against strawmen for the most part.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

All of the examples were the artists choosing to do so of their own accord, not being petitioned into changing the ending to their stories by the audience. The audience and the artists are different parts of the process of making art. The audience is allowed to criticize and raise all the hell that they want, as long as they are not demanding the art to be changed. The artist must accept criticism and respond, sometimes they can change their work and are totally allowed to do so. There is a difference between the two. And before someone comes quoting me about how I'm completely missing the point and that nobody who's part of the movement to change the ending is demanding anything I'm going to say that I understand that, I'm just saying there is a difference and that some, not all, members of this group of angry fans have crossed that line.

 

[Blizzard36]

What you say is true of art Revnak, but it does not hold true of a product. And as the OP points out, ME3 is both art AND a product. A product which made certain promises concerning content it would include.

A fan upset by the lack of happy ending is upset with the art presented, and while it's an understandable and popular stance to take it deals purely with the art side of the equation. I'd like to see a better ending be available to attain for those who have put in so much effort over the trilogy (or even just the last game), but I'm ok with having a less than fairy tale ending now and then. Similarly a fan who is upset that there is no explanation on how the destruction of the mass relays effects the galaxy is upset with the art side of the equation, and the artist is well within thier rights to leave it open for the viewer to draw thier own conclusions, to decide how bad it is themselves for thier own particular story. For example, in the ending I made up for myself I'm of the opinion that the Vaporization ending, the worst possible one, is the only one like the Battarian relay's explosion. Something about the rest of the options is different so while the relay system is gone at least they didn't take 80% of the galaxy's population with them. And since regular, if slower FTL technology exists and so does sleeper technology the galaxy isn't completely SOL. Things are much worse than before, but there's hope. And Shepard's actions making that hope possible is why he's a legend.

But someone upset with the fact that they had no real choices in picking the different endings, that those different endings were so similar as to almost be only one ending, or that thier choices and actions were not reflected or have any impact at the end is upset with the product. Given that all of these things were promised ahead of time, that person has very valid complaints. Complaints that they are within thier rights to demand be acted upon and resolved. They paid for a product with certain features, and those features were not delivered by that product.

 

[Lunar Templar]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/know_shit_from_Shinola

and that's something i didn't know, wondered about but never enough to hunt it down yay, i learned a new thing today

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

What you say is true of art Revnak, but it does not hold true of a product. And as the OP points out, ME3 is both art AND a product. A product which made certain promises concerning content it would include.

A fan upset by the lack of happy ending is upset with the art presented, and while it's an understandable and popular stance to take it deals purely with the art side of the equation. I'd like to see a better ending be available to attain for those who have put in so much effort over the trilogy (or even just the last game), but I'm ok with having a less than fairy tale ending now and then. Similarly a fan who is upset that there is no explanation on how the destruction of the mass relays effects the galaxy is upset with the art side of the equation, and the artist is well within thier rights to leave it open for the viewer to draw thier own conclusions, to decide how bad it is themselves for thier own particular story. For example, in the ending I made up for myself I'm of the opinion that the Vaporization ending, the worst possible one, is the only one like the Battarian relay's explosion. Something about the rest of the options is different so while the relay system is gone at least they didn't take 80% of the galaxy's population with them. And since regular, if slower FTL technology exists and so does sleeper technology the galaxy isn't completely SOL. Things are much worse than before, but there's hope. And Shepard's actions making that hope possible is why he's a legend.

But someone upset with the fact that they had no real choices in picking the different endings, that those different endings were so similar as to almost be only one ending, or that thier choices and actions were not reflected or have any impact at the end is upset with the product. Given that all of these things were promised ahead of time, that person has very valid complaints. Complaints that they are within thier rights to demand be acted upon and resolved. They paid for a product with certain features, and those features were not delivered by that product.

They paid for a product that was made by Bioware, was a sequel to earlier games within the series, was advertised as a game with multiple endings, one notable time saying that the game had more than three endings, and that was an ending. All of their advertisements were honest except for one, and that's debatable. The audience was not cheated, they just feel like they were. They have every right to feel cheated and to throw a fit, but they cannot, should not demand that the ending be changed to suit their desires. All the features they were promised were there.

 

[Candidus]

All of the examples were the artists choosing to do so of their own accord, not being petitioned into changing the ending to their stories by the audience. The audience and the artists are different parts of the process of making art. The audience is allowed to criticize and raise all the hell that they want, as long as they are not demanding the art to be changed.

Sorry, but there's no infringement of artistic integrity when the artists in questions are the ones who violate it.

Stories are not pictures or paintings. You can't stand there and say "well, there is no good or bad, there's just the vision of the artist". Stories have a certain structure, and stories must go from beginning to end without shitting on their own established lore. The failure to convey intent is the definition of failed art, and the ending of Mass Effect 3 calls into question the legitimacy of the first game with nothing but the *appearance* of the God Child alone, and it only gets worse from there. It diminishes and lessens the entire trilogy by the time it's done; and not because of the narrative direction, but because of the technical failures.

There are "artistic decisions", and then there are writing MISTAKES. The sort of cut and dried, objective mistakes that you hope to God your editor catches before the work goes out the door. Bioware deposited unbelievable quantities of the latter into their ending, and a redo is nothing but a necessary repair job.

It has to succeed as art in the first place to have any artistic integrity. When it gets some, I'll be sure to pay it the proper respect, whether I like the end result or not.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

All of the examples were the artists choosing to do so of their own accord, not being petitioned into changing the ending to their stories by the audience. The audience and the artists are different parts of the process of making art. The audience is allowed to criticize and raise all the hell that they want, as long as they are not demanding the art to be changed.

Sorry, but there's no infringement of artistic integrity when the artists in questions are the ones who violate it.

Stories are not pictures or paintings. You can't stand there and say "well, there is no good or bad, there's just the vision of the artist". Stories have a certain structure, and stories must go from beginning to end without shitting on their own established lore. The failure to convey meaning is the definition of failed art, and the ending of Mass Effect 3 calls into question the legitimacy of the first game with nothing but the *appearance* of the God Child alone, and it only gets worse from there. It diminishes and lessens the entire trilogy by the time it's done; and not because of the narrative direction, but because of the technical failures.

There are "artistic decisions", and then there are writing MISTAKES. The sort of cut and dried, objective mistakes that you hope to God your editor catches before the work goes out the door. Bioware deposited unbelievable quantities of the latter into their ending, and a redo is nothing but a necessary repair job.

It has to succeed as art in the first place to have any artistic integrity.

Did I say you're not allowed to criticize? Wait, no, I didn't say that. In fact, I wrote you could right inside of the part of my post you quoted. There is a difference between criticism and demanding a change. As long as one sticks to the former they have not stepped outside of the role of audience. The ending may be a mistake, but it is not yours to correct, only yours to bicker about.

 

[Therumancer]

To recap: Mass Effect 3 [http://masseffect.com/] was released. A lot of people didn't like the ending and responded in some interesting ways. Then a lot of columnists did a lot of dude, not cool explaining how this is going to ruin gaming or stories or something.

The word entitled was used a lot in an accusatory fashion. Entitled lost its meaning, except to deride someone you don't like for wanting something you don't think they deserve.

And then the issue of art came up. Art, we've learned, can't be product. We would go on to learn that product is what happens when your audience wants you to change something and you do. Like Cheez Whiz. Art is what you have when you leave it the way it is. Ergo changing the Mass Effect 3 ending would de-Art it. Whizify it.

And that's bullshit. As in shit. From a bovine male, and not Shinola [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/know_shit_from_Shinola].

I'm not an art critic, but I tend to have respect for art critics[footnote]...including critics of specific subcategories of artistic content, such as film critics or game reviewers[/footnote] who are aware that their opinion is not the only one out there, and the fine line between art and crap is in the eye of every beholder. I've yet to see someone effectively dilineate the threshold where art becomes non-art and vice versa.

That said, Mass Effect 3, for all its weaknesses is art. It may be bad art. It may be good art with some very bad aspects. But it's art.

And Mass Effect 3, should it be edited or fixed with a DLC that provides a better ending will still be art.

I'm pretty sure that when Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle[footnote]Author and The Final Problem [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conan_doyle.jpg][/I], the stories retained their artiness.

I'm pretty sure that after George Lucas edited and re-edited the Star Wars trilogies, oftimes for the worse and sometimes at the behest of his audience, it was still art, and continues to be so, no matter how Cheez Whizzy it may presently seem, so quit it already, George!

I'm pretty sure that Terry Gilliam's Brazil [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_%28film%29] is art, both the Love Conquers All version and the one with the real ending.

Ergo, I'm pretty sure that whether Mass Effect 3 is held fast to its current ending or given a new super-happy Scooby-Doo ending, it will still be art.

And given that audiences have demanded artistic changes before, sometimes with the artists conceding, I'm confident changes to the Mass Effect canon is not going to evoke some major Cheez Whizzy apocalypse, or jeopardize the artistic merits of computer games.

So chill out, guys.

238U

Well, my usual point is simply that the current ending is being complainted about because it sold out it's artistic integrity for money to begin with (which I have gone into at lengh in other posts, including some I've written today). Arguably people demanding the ending be changed are argueing that the series regain it's artistic integrity, and be given an ending that fits, rather than one that is best from a business perspective and exists to generate hype for franchise purposes.

The "Hold The Line" movement is not people demanding that Bioware sell out their integrity, but rather yelling at an artist for selling out... which happens all the time (with mixed results).

That said, art can be a product, but the key is that the art has to come first with the profit being a secondary concern. When something is being done purely on the merits of how much hype it can general, or how much money it can make, it's no longer art, and that's the problem with the ending we're dealing with.

From what I've read about Norman Rockwell (painter, famous for scenes of small town Americana, even if he was a city boy through and through) he was an artist who created his products and image with an eye towards what was salable. However his attitude was more or less that the art still came first, and basically if people didn't want to work with him or deal with his style, they shouldn't hire him. There are apparently a few fairly famous cases of him getting into fights with magazines and such on that point. He might actually be a bad example, but I'm going by what I've heard about him, I'm no expert on him.

That image of Rockwell is more or less what Bioware needs to maintain, the problem in this case is that the ending we got doesn't fit, and is clearly not what was intended during the planning of ME1 since it's designed to be monetized using things that weren't viable during the devleopment of the first game. We know from interviews that they were making up the ending at the very end, and chose to deliberatly contridict statements already made by the ddevelopment team about the ending they were going to give us (ie what was planned) by creating an ending designed to generate hype and not give the promised answers which were intended. Like many people I see EA's hand in all of this.

I support this because I want Bioware to finish this properly, and hopefully reason with EA to let them do their own thing, and to lay off with the over-marketing and let it take care of itself. To be art, a game has to be developed to stand seperate from it's sheer money making potential, as soon as "how much money can we wring out of this" comes up and changes are made to it purely for that objective, it ceases ot be art. Mass Effect 3 went too far in that direction.

 

[Flailing Escapist]

Bioware > artistic integrity? Not after the 50th ass shot during conversation they don't! Every talk in ME2&3 comes practically complete with it's own wack off material. It's still art though, somebody had to draw and pixelate that ass.

Ahh, how I've missed being able to stare at someone's butt while they're talking to me (while maintaining eye contact [sub]don't ask how[/sub]). I haven't been able to talk to someone's ass this much since FFX-2.

 

[Candidus]

Did I say you're not allowed to criticize? Wait, no, I didn't say that. In fact, I wrote you could right inside of the part of my post you quoted. There is a difference between criticism and demanding a change. As long as one sticks to the former they have not stepped outside of the role of audience. The ending may be a mistake, but it is not yours to correct, only yours to bicker about.

Yes, that's what you said, we're not allowed to demand change. That's actually what my post is entirely disagreeing with.

If it were art, I'd agree that we can't demand change.

But it isn't art. Not as it stands. And alterations are nothing more than a necessary fix. It's a shame that we've had to demand them to get them- any self respecting artist wouldn't have let it out the door in its current form- but we *have* had to and we *are* right to.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Did I say you're not allowed to criticize? Wait, no, I didn't say that. In fact, I wrote you could right inside of the part of my post you quoted. There is a difference between criticism and demanding a change. As long as one sticks to the former they have not stepped outside of the role of audience. The ending may be a mistake, but it is not yours to correct, only yours to bicker about.

Yes, that's what you said, we're not allowed to demand change. That's actually what my post is entirely disagreeing with.

If it were art, I'd agree that we can't demand change.

But it isn't art. Not as it stands. And alterations are nothing more than a necessary fix. It's a shame that we've had to demand them to get them- any self respecting artist wouldn't have let it out the door in its current form- but we *have* had to and we *are* right to.

It wasn't art, so you're allowed to demand that it becomes art. So all those fantastic early hours aren't art then? I mean, I wouldn't know, I stopped playing the series after the first, but most people who are for changing the ending liked the rest of the game. They still think the whole thing is art, but that the ending is disappointing. If you're saying the ending isn't art and therefore people can demand change, then why not demand that every non-artistic product that has not met up to your standards become art. Do you go into McDonald's and demand a more succulent burger? Do you complain to the waiter that your water wasn't lemon flavored when you go to a restaurant? Hell no, because that would be entirely unreasonable. Even when we break this down to consumers and producers, consumers do not have the right to demand better, only what they were promised. They can and should criticize, which allows for the producer to respond and make something better. Simply demanding that what you already have be altered to your specifications at little or no additional cost despite it being everything it was advertised to be is ludicrous.

 

[Candidus]

despite it being everything it was advertised to be

That's the line that absolutely blew me away.
Especially coming from someone who stopped at ME1.

I don't think we have anything to talk about any more.
You're also conflating definitions on purpose, just to bog me down and force me to answer points that you know full well are flawed. That's poor form, but hey... This is the internet, and that's how people do things.

A burger isn't supposed to be art, the makers- hopefully- don't propose that it should be art.

The writers of a story, who would prefer that their work be considered in an artistic context, have a responsibility to make sure that it works as a story. If it shits on its own lore and demolishes the whole premise for its first instalment at the very end of its final instalment, which it ADVERTISED EXPLICITLY AND REPEATEDLY would be about answers and closure-- and this is only one of dozens of breaches of this and other promises-- then it isn't art.

And if I've paid for it on the basis that it is art, and on the basis of certain explicit and repeated promises about the nature of the story and the finale? Yeah, then I do have the right. That's pretty much the bottom line there.

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10056886/1 Useful link, although far easier to penetrate if you've played ME3. If you want to get informed, that's a good first stop.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

despite it being everything it was advertised to be

That's the line that absolutely blew me away.
Especially coming from someone who stopped at ME1.

I don't think we have anything to talk about any more.
You're also conflating definitions on purpose, just to bog me down and force me to answer points that you know full well are flawed. That's poor form, but hey... This is the internet, and that's how people do things.

A burger isn't supposed to be art, the makers- hopefully- don't propose that it should be art.

The writers of a story, who would prefer that their work be considered in an artistic context, have a responsibility to make sure that it works as a story. If it shits on its own lore and demolishes the whole premise for its first instalment at the very end of its final instalment, which it ADVERTISED EXPLICITLY AND REPEATEDLY would be about answers and closure-- and this is only one of dozens of breaches of this and other promises-- then it isn't art.

And if I've paid for it on the basis that it is art? Yeah, I do have the right. That's pretty much the bottom line there.

If you want to argue about advertising that's fine. I think there are a few points they messed up, but I honestly don't know enough about the advertisement campaign or the game itself to make a solid argument either way. I was actually hoping you'd bring that up as I feel it is the only possible reason people would have to demand a change, but that would require a better argument than I can reasonably provide.

As for your point that if they were trying to make an artistic product and wound up dropping the ball as far as lore consistency is considered, that is also a place which is a mistake that must be considered unless it is a retcon or a reasonable artistic decision of some sort (ex. inconsistently characterizing someone based on the perspective character). I don't know enough about all this to argue either way on this point either, so I won't.

Spoiler

I'll just say I'm pretty certain the mass relays don't explode at the end, it's... something else. At least that's what I've heard.

Edit- and I refuse to go to social bioware for entirely unrelated reasons. I do not like that site.

 

[XtDK]

There is no artistic integrity in lying to fans, that's the big issue here. Bioware specifically, and repeatedly described the current ending as something that was not going to happen. Of course at the time the game was done and going for certification, Casey knew that the ending was simple A, B, C but said otherwise.

There's a simple reason for that. The leaked script was basically the same as the finished game. The fans who read it -hated- the ending. They -hated- the A, B, C ending and the terrible wrap-up. So, Bioware claimed it was changed and acted like it was in all pre-release interviews.

Those things irreparably mar their 'artistic integrity'. A large part of being a successful commercial artist is respecting your consumers by being transparent with your product. Even if the person doesn't like it, they should -never- feel misled or lied to.

I look at other terrible endings the same way (Dragon Age 2, Lost, Sopranos), all of those things had bad endings. But they never promised me the ending wouldn't be something it was.

EDIT (Besides Fallout 3's Broken Steel which cost money, Witcher 1 and 2 were both modified after release due to fan and critic response, for free. They deserve major props for it and are most amazing developer/publisher there is because of their mindfulness of the consumer)

 

[Candidus]

despite it being everything it was advertised to be

That's the line that absolutely blew me away.
Especially coming from someone who stopped at ME1.

I don't think we have anything to talk about any more.
You're also conflating definitions on purpose, just to bog me down and force me to answer points that you know full well are flawed. That's poor form, but hey... This is the internet, and that's how people do things.

A burger isn't supposed to be art, the makers- hopefully- don't propose that it should be art.

The writers of a story, who would prefer that their work be considered in an artistic context, have a responsibility to make sure that it works as a story. If it shits on its own lore and demolishes the whole premise for its first instalment at the very end of its final instalment, which it ADVERTISED EXPLICITLY AND REPEATEDLY would be about answers and closure-- and this is only one of dozens of breaches of this and other promises-- then it isn't art.

And if I've paid for it on the basis that it is art? Yeah, I do have the right. That's pretty much the bottom line there.

If you want to argue about advertising that's fine. I think there are a few points they messed up, but I honestly don't know enough about the advertisement campaign or the game itself to make a solid argument either way. I was actually hoping you'd bring that up as I feel it is the only possible reason people would have to demand a change, but that would require a better argument than I can reasonably provide.

As for your point that if they were trying to make an artistic product and wound up dropping the ball as far as lore consistency is considered, that is also a place which is a mistake that must be considered unless it is a retcon or a reasonable artistic decision of some sort (ex. inconsistently characterizing someone based on the perspective character). I don't know enough about all this to argue either way on this point either, so I won't.

Spoiler

I'll just say I'm pretty certain the mass relays don't explode at the end, it's... something else. At least that's what I've heard.

Edit- and I refuse to go to social bioware for entirely unrelated reasons. I do not like that site.

Yes, well.. Ever since I got temporarily banned for helping people to leave TOR when they removed the button for doing so- for doing nothing more than explaining how it could still be done- I've had a similar opinion of those forums. So no blame there.

Well, I've got another link-- normally I'd pan out the point(s) for you in my own words, because that's more respectful, but this is just a whole `lot` of stuff. I won't accuse you of clinging to a bias if you don't go read it; you haven't played the game yet, and this article necessarily covers the *whole* ending and a load of the problems it introduces. Perhaps somehow, miraculously, it hasn't been completely spoiled for you yet. Avoiding the link for that or any other reason is your prerogative.

http://jmstevenson.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/all-that-matters-is-the-ending-part-2-mass-effect-3/

On the relays, yeah.. the popular theory is that creating the shockwave depletes the energies normally suffusing the relays just before they explode, reducing the system-annihilating strength of the explosion as seen in Arrival.

But even that is a problem, and possibly only the smallest example of its sort. They promised over and over, resolution, wrapping up, answers, sweeping differences in the finale for everyone, closure. All we have are questions, speculation and plot holes like singularities where the basis for the whole trilogy *used* to be.

Anyway, sorry about the tone of some what has gone before. That's my arguments all made.

Edit: By the way, I'm hugely envious. I'd still adore ME if I'd stopped where you did.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

despite it being everything it was advertised to be

That's the line that absolutely blew me away.
Especially coming from someone who stopped at ME1.

I don't think we have anything to talk about any more.
You're also conflating definitions on purpose, just to bog me down and force me to answer points that you know full well are flawed. That's poor form, but hey... This is the internet, and that's how people do things.

A burger isn't supposed to be art, the makers- hopefully- don't propose that it should be art.

The writers of a story, who would prefer that their work be considered in an artistic context, have a responsibility to make sure that it works as a story. If it shits on its own lore and demolishes the whole premise for its first instalment at the very end of its final instalment, which it ADVERTISED EXPLICITLY AND REPEATEDLY would be about answers and closure-- and this is only one of dozens of breaches of this and other promises-- then it isn't art.

And if I've paid for it on the basis that it is art? Yeah, I do have the right. That's pretty much the bottom line there.

If you want to argue about advertising that's fine. I think there are a few points they messed up, but I honestly don't know enough about the advertisement campaign or the game itself to make a solid argument either way. I was actually hoping you'd bring that up as I feel it is the only possible reason people would have to demand a change, but that would require a better argument than I can reasonably provide.

As for your point that if they were trying to make an artistic product and wound up dropping the ball as far as lore consistency is considered, that is also a place which is a mistake that must be considered unless it is a retcon or a reasonable artistic decision of some sort (ex. inconsistently characterizing someone based on the perspective character). I don't know enough about all this to argue either way on this point either, so I won't.

Spoiler

I'll just say I'm pretty certain the mass relays don't explode at the end, it's... something else. At least that's what I've heard.

Edit- and I refuse to go to social bioware for entirely unrelated reasons. I do not like that site.

Yes, well.. Ever since I got temporarily banned for helping people to leave TOR when they removed the button for doing so- for doing nothing more than explaining how it could still be done- I've had a similar opinion of those forums. So no blame there.

Well, I've got another link-- normally I'd pan out the point(s) for you in my own words, because that's more respectful, but this is just a whole `lot` of stuff. I won't accuse you of clinging to a bias if you don't go read it; you haven't played the game yet, and this article necessarily covers the *whole* ending and a load of the problems it introduces. Perhaps somehow, miraculously, it hasn't been completely spoiled for you yet. Avoiding the link for that or any other reason is your prerogative.

http://jmstevenson.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/all-that-matters-is-the-ending-part-2-mass-effect-3/

On the relays, yeah.. the popular theory is that creating the shockwave depletes the energies normally suffusing the relays just before they explode, reducing the system-annihilating strength of the explosion as seen in Arrival.

But even that is a problem, and possibly only the smallest example of its sort. They promised over and over, resolution, wrapping up, answers, sweeping differences in the finale for everyone, closure. All we have are questions, speculation and plot holes like singularities where the basis for the whole trilogy *used* to be.

Anyway, sorry about the tone of some what has gone before. That's my arguments all made.

Edit: By the way, I'm hugely envious. I'd still adore ME if I'd stopped where you did.

I'm going to agree with the conclusion of the writer. The ending should be changed, but they are within their rights not to. The flaws with the ending seem to be largely thematic, which means that you can't really justify calling them objective flaws. For this reason a change can't be demanded in my opinion. You have pushed me over to where I'll admit that it is entirely reasonable to request a change, as the thematic problems are much larger than I had originally thought.

And I am quite happy I didn't play the rest of the series. They completely lost me when they decided the ammo mechanic was a decent skill set for the soldier. If you're going to completely change the play-style of my favorite class at least turn it into something I didn't hate from the previous game.

 

[Tanakh]

All of the examples were the artists choosing to do so of their own accord, not being petitioned into changing the ending to their stories by the audience.

I will go out a limb and assume you are not familiar with the work of Shakespeare, Puccini or Janáček just off the top of my head. All of them were in the road when their works were debuted, all of them made changes to improve them based on the audience feedback.

"Classic masters" changing their work to fit the audience is very common, if anything artist now feel entitled, but do they have the legal rights not to? Hell yes, do the consumers deserve a reinbursment if they want for false advertisement? that remains to be decided, in EU probably in US probably not.

 

[boag]

To recap: Mass Effect 3 [http://masseffect.com/] was released. A lot of people didn't like the ending and responded in some interesting ways. Then a lot of columnists did a lot of dude, not cool explaining how this is going to ruin gaming or stories or something.

The word entitled was used a lot in an accusatory fashion. Entitled lost its meaning, except to deride someone you don't like for wanting something you don't think they deserve.

And then the issue of art came up. Art, we've learned, can't be product. We would go on to learn that product is what happens when your audience wants you to change something and you do. Like Cheez Whiz. Art is what you have when you leave it the way it is. Ergo changing the Mass Effect 3 ending would de-Art it. Whizify it.

And that's bullshit. As in shit. From a bovine male, and not Shinola [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/know_shit_from_Shinola].

I'm not an art critic, but I tend to have respect for art critics[footnote]...including critics of specific subcategories of artistic content, such as film critics or game reviewers[/footnote] who are aware that their opinion is not the only one out there, and the fine line between art and crap is in the eye of every beholder. I've yet to see someone effectively dilineate the threshold where art becomes non-art and vice versa.

That said, Mass Effect 3, for all its weaknesses is art. It may be bad art. It may be good art with some very bad aspects. But it's art.

And Mass Effect 3, should it be edited or fixed with a DLC that provides a better ending will still be art.

I'm pretty sure that when Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle[footnote]Author and The Final Problem [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conan_doyle.jpg][/I], the stories retained their artiness.

I'm pretty sure that after George Lucas edited and re-edited the Star Wars trilogies, oftimes for the worse and sometimes at the behest of his audience, it was still art, and continues to be so, no matter how Cheez Whizzy it may presently seem, so quit it already, George!

I'm pretty sure that Terry Gilliam's Brazil [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_%28film%29] is art, both the Love Conquers All version and the one with the real ending.

Ergo, I'm pretty sure that whether Mass Effect 3 is held fast to its current ending or given a new super-happy Scooby-Doo ending, it will still be art.

And given that audiences have demanded artistic changes before, sometimes with the artists conceding, I'm confident changes to the Mass Effect canon is not going to evoke some major Cheez Whizzy apocalypse, or jeopardize the artistic merits of computer games.

So chill out, guys.

238U

Add to this, that the Mass Effect already had an ending changing DLC and the whole thing becomes even more ridiculous

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

All of the examples were the artists choosing to do so of their own accord, not being petitioned into changing the ending to their stories by the audience.

I will go out a limb and assume you are not familiar with the work of Shakespeare, Puccini or Janáček just off the top of my head. All of them were in the road when their works were debuted, all of them made changes to improve them based on the audience feedback.

"Classic masters" changing their work to fit the audience is very common, if anything artist now feel entitled, but do they have the legal rights not to? Hell yes, do the consumers deserve a reinbursment if they want for false advertisement? that remains to be decided, in EU probably in US probably not.

There is a difference between an artist responding to an audience and an audience demanding a change. I think that was in my post somewhere.