Art is made with artistic expression as the driving force, then sold (Sometimes).
Games are made with money and profit as the driving force, then claim to be art.
Do you see the problem here? Not all games are art. People seem to require this black and white approach that ALL games MUST be art, or none are.
I find it amusing that after ragging on Transformers and god knows how many other geek things that were done wrong, Bob defends Bioware when they step wrong.
I'm still not entirely sure what they did wrong, apart from doing something that nearly every single developer does (false advertising/marketing). I disliked the ending immensely, but I will never join the group that demands the ending to be changed. Complaining (fully justified) and demanding/threatening and whatnot are two completely different things.
What they did wrong was finish an epic series that touted its varied choices and options with a trinary choice without meaning or perceivable consequence and which undermined all your actions up until that point.
Donating to a charity to demonstrate your passion to have the ending changed isn't a bad thing. It's even interesting how valid the legal action is when you read Bioware's marketing about every one of your decisions in the previous games mattering in the end and compare it to the actuality in which everything is thrown away to trim you options down to 'pick your favourite primary colour!' Not saying I support it, but it's a bad sign that such a thing can even pass casual inspection. Also, it would be nice to see laws against false advertising being brought up again, and to have publishers reminded about just how far they can spin the truth. They have enough power as it is without being able to lie to us about the content of their product - don't start defending them over that!
I find it amusing that after ragging on Transformers and god knows how many other geek things that were done wrong, Bob defends Bioware when they step wrong. Seems a little ironic/hypocritical. When things are done horribly, are not the fans entitled to complain, or should they just take the blow quietly and be happy for some perverse reason?
Once again, we have knee-jerk reactions that failed to listen hard enough to get the point. Bob never said you couldn't ***** about TMNT or ME3 being a betrayal. He just said that when you storm into their offices demanding that the product be changed to conform to your arbitrary expectations, you're going to do damage to the medium, in addition to just looking silly.
And Bob's critique of the Bay-Transformers films while then defending Bioware is in no way hypocracy. The Bay films warrant criticism because they're crap from a storytelling and filmmaking standpoint, not just because they aren't what the fans wanted. But while ME3's endings deserve their own criticism, that doesn't give the fans the power to force Bioware into changing it because it doesn't conform to their expectations.
Hypocracy means saying one thing and then proceeding to do the exact opposite thing. It doesn't mean taking an opposing stance when the conditions and circumstances change and the issue shifts from one thing to another. In fact, being able to turn around and take the other side when the first position starts supporting a more extreme view is part of being a rational person.
Whilst the extents some fans have gone to to protest against Bioware's ending may well be too far, from his video I took away that Bob was happy for Bioware to do absolutely anything they wanted, and people should shut up about seeing a story that they had sculpted for years brought to a shallow, unfulfilling close. As Bob complained about Bay and his treatment of the Transformers IP, Mass Effect fans complain about the ending for the game.
If his comments were limited to purely to the types filing lawsuits then fine, but the campaign to have the ending changed or extended is still valid; gaming is an interactive medium, people want to have their say. It's not like people have just spent one and a half hours watching thin exposition over explosions, they've spend in the region of 100+ hours being the main character, being told that they are changing the game world with their actions. Should anyone be surprised that they seek to change the ending by their actions too?
I think fans are entirely within their rights to petition and campaign to have the ending changed, or at least expanded and explained. I've seen the footage and it's quite disappointing for the media setup that preceded the game's release. Of course, that's an opinion, and Bioware's well within their rights to stick to their guns but that's not what we've been hearing from their announcements - they don't seem to know whether they intended to make a fuss for publicity or whether they're disappointed by the outcry, whether they're going to change the ending or sell a new one, or just sell more DLC to expand on it. They've not come out conclusively defending the ending as the one that they really wanted to do, as the one that wraps the series up.
Also, you have to remember that games are a medium where the product is never necessarily final; patches and DLC, mods and expansions - game worlds these days are mutable, currently so publishers can squeeze games out on time before they're quite finished, or so they can continue making money off a released product. Isn't it about time that fans were able to harness these publisher and developer-centric mechanics and turned them to their own use?
I disagree that players are within their rights to petition, etc, to have the ending changed. Well, maybe not "within their rights", because they always have the choice of doing so, but do I think it's okay to do? No.
Bob wasn't saying that you had to be okay with the ending, which was what that entire segment about TMNT was about. He's saying that you're perfectly okay to complain and ***** and moan all you want, but as soon as you start writing angry letters to the developer and signing petitions to the artist to change their work, that's when you cross the line. There's a line between "not being happy" and "entitled".
Anyways, while yes, gaming is an interactive medium, I'd argue that the player's actual freedom in the game is limited. The creators are still telling you a story, interactive or not, and you don't have complete freedom in how that story goes. Now it may be a choose your own adventure story, but the artist is still in control. You only have freedom insofar as choosing the options that the artist gives to you. The only games I can think of that the player has complete control over the story are games like The Sims, and even then you're limited by the tools the artist gives you and what you are and are not allowed to do within the rules of the universe.
Wow, that was a cheap swing (and a miss) at the whole ME3 "controversy."
You'd think this was something new. Thing is, it isn't even the first (or last) time this has happened. Public pressure is far from a new concept.
2 gaming related ones come straight to mind. First being Fallout 3s DLC that extended the ending and gave what the fans want. I heard no one from the games media jump at that one.
2nd one not everyone remembers. A particular game called InFamous 2. When it first showed up with trailers, the main character, Cole, had suddenly changed from a grizzle voiced, bald guy with a scar going down his face to a Nathon Drake 2.0s. And the fans went nuts. So what did they do? Changed him into his original look and all where happy.
So did the games media go on about artistic integrity or any of that? Course not. Actually, one of the IGN guys has been very loud about all this is. Colin Moriarty, who has gone on about how it goes against the artistic integrity and how people shouldn't demand this or that and entitlement this and that and rabble, rabble, rabble.
But skip back to when this happened with InFamous and suddenly:
"But with the new Cole design, Sucker Punch heard loud and clear what fans of Infamous wanted, and they delivered. Infinite amounts of kudos to them for doing right by their community. Fans of Infamous won?t soon forget it. Sucker Punch is one of Sony?s most valuable developers. They are tuned-in with the PS3 faithful, and it?s things like this that prove it."
Hell, the this aint uncommon outside of games either. Sherlock Holmes was killed off by Doyle and for 8 years people protested for a change and eventually gave in. This gave us some of the best Sherlock books.
Blade Runner, a great sci-fi by Ridley Scott had its whole ending changed after early preview showings.
Go back far enough and you see that Beethoven revised his opera Fidelio multiple times at the behest of his fans, cast members, and creative peers. I dare someone to say Beethoven lost his artistic integrity.
How many forms of completely interactive art is there anyway? We've even gotten to a point where we a consumers are funding game projects. Which is wonderful.
Gaming can't be just lumped into one category of "art" and then leave it as that as some form of blockade.
Art can change depending on the audience, depending on the demand and so much more. Again, this is hardly the first time this has been done or ever will be done. Just the biggest highlighted one by gaming media.
This whole "entitlement" accusation just need to stop. If you can't back away from that kind of attitude, we eventually pass the point of having meaningful dialog on this topic anymore. Then neither side is listening anymore. Everyone has made up their mind about not only the ending, but about everyone who disagrees with them as well.
If you liked the ending, then everyone who didn't is a crybaby whiner who has nothing better to do than throw fits about video games. If you disliked the ending, then everyone who didn't is a judgmental douche that's either too stupid to understand why the ending sucked, or too far up EA/Bioware's a**es to acknowledge it.
There can be no middle ground anymore at that point and are no longer allowed to have different opinions. Then comes the name calling and things you generally see from 10 year olds.
First of all, something like the Infamous 2 model is a relatively minor change and has nothing to do with the actual story.
But as long as you're giving me good examples of changes, let me show you a few more bad ones.
The movie I Am Legend originally had an ending that was more faithful to the book. But after showing it to test audiences, they didn't like it, so the movie's ending was drastically changed. Now the movie ending has nothing to do with the book, and the entire message that the author was trying to get across in the book is gone.
Inuyasha was reportedly supposed to end a long time before it actually did. But fans demanded that they have more Inuyasha and Rumiko Takahashi bowed to pressure. So the overall quality of the anime went down the drain continuing and continuing and continuing until it finally ended with a giant middle finger to all of the fans.
Blade Runner is a poor example. First of all, it's an adaptation of the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? The original ending has the main character willingly do something knowing that she will die for it. It was sad, it was poignant, it had a message. The movie adaptation changed that, feeling that it made the movie "too bleak". They added a narrator to explain everything for the audience in case they wouldn't get it, and then who continued to explain that the main character actually lived happily ever after and there goes the poignancy point of the story.
It's apparent that you really haven't researched into the whole Mass Effect 3 debacle, so be prepared to hear that the Mass Effect series is a special case, BioWare didn't deliver on ANY of their promises, and they pretty much slapped their own IP in the face in the last 5 minutes of their game.
Remember: BioWare has stated that their fans are equal creators in the story along with their actual writing staff.
EDIT: Before you go crying about how you're sick of people complaining, I think I should point you to THIS. [http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-role-of-the-player]
Once again Bob demonstrates an extreme unwillingness to even consider a different viewpoint than his own, much less engage with the actual arguments, as well as an abject lack of ability to do even cursory research on the subject at hand, and not to mention a tendency towards derogatory language and the overall dismissive attitude of his ill-conceived points. This attempt to create a false parallel between games and other kinds of media in the name of artistic integrity is, in a word, laughable.
Dammit. You read my mind then took a time machine into the past and posted my thoughts before I could.
Well said, sir, very well said.
The problem with Bob is that he has all the smug self-assurance of a great commentator without any of the talent (Extra Credits) or entertainment value (Jimquisition) to actually back it up.
Bob thinks he's a lot smarter than he actually is, which is why you'll see him shout his poorly reasoned rants from his ivory tower, but he'll never leave the tower and reply to rebuttals of his points.
I find it amusing that after ragging on Transformers and god knows how many other geek things that were done wrong, Bob defends Bioware when they step wrong. Seems a little ironic/hypocritical. When things are done horribly, are not the fans entitled to complain, or should they just take the blow quietly and be happy for some perverse reason?
Once again, we have knee-jerk reactions that failed to listen hard enough to get the point. Bob never said you couldn't ***** about TMNT or ME3 being a betrayal. He just said that when you storm into their offices demanding that the product be changed to conform to your arbitrary expectations, you're going to do damage to the medium, in addition to just looking silly.
And Bob's critique of the Bay-Transformers films while then defending Bioware is in no way hypocracy. The Bay films warrant criticism because they're crap from a storytelling and filmmaking standpoint, not just because they aren't what the fans wanted. But while ME3's endings deserve their own criticism, that doesn't give the fans the power to force Bioware into changing it because it doesn't conform to their expectations.
Hypocracy means saying one thing and then proceeding to do the exact opposite thing. It doesn't mean taking an opposing stance when the conditions and circumstances change and the issue shifts from one thing to another. In fact, being able to turn around and take the other side when the first position starts supporting a more extreme view is part of being a rational person.
Whilst the extents some fans have gone to to protest against Bioware's ending may well be too far, from his video I took away that Bob was happy for Bioware to do absolutely anything they wanted, and people should shut up about seeing a story that they had sculpted for years brought to a shallow, unfulfilling close. As Bob complained about Bay and his treatment of the Transformers IP, Mass Effect fans complain about the ending for the game.
If his comments were limited to purely to the types filing lawsuits then fine, but the campaign to have the ending changed or extended is still valid; gaming is an interactive medium, people want to have their say. It's not like people have just spent one and a half hours watching thin exposition over explosions, they've spend in the region of 100+ hours being the main character, being told that they are changing the game world with their actions. Should anyone be surprised that they seek to change the ending by their actions too?
I think fans are entirely within their rights to petition and campaign to have the ending changed, or at least expanded and explained. I've seen the footage and it's quite disappointing for the media setup that preceded the game's release. Of course, that's an opinion, and Bioware's well within their rights to stick to their guns but that's not what we've been hearing from their announcements - they don't seem to know whether they intended to make a fuss for publicity or whether they're disappointed by the outcry, whether they're going to change the ending or sell a new one, or just sell more DLC to expand on it. They've not come out conclusively defending the ending as the one that they really wanted to do, as the one that wraps the series up.
Also, you have to remember that games are a medium where the product is never necessarily final; patches and DLC, mods and expansions - game worlds these days are mutable, currently so publishers can squeeze games out on time before they're quite finished, or so they can continue making money off a released product. Isn't it about time that fans were able to harness these publisher and developer-centric mechanics and turned them to their own use?
I disagree that players are within their rights to petition, etc, to have the ending changed. Well, maybe not "within their rights", because they always have the choice of doing so, but do I think it's okay to do? No.
Bob wasn't saying that you had to be okay with the ending, which was what that entire segment about TMNT was about. He's saying that you're perfectly okay to complain and ***** and moan all you want, but as soon as you start writing angry letters to the developer and signing petitions to the artist to change their work, that's when you cross the line. There's a line between "not being happy" and "entitled".
Anyways, while yes, gaming is an interactive medium, I'd argue that the player's actual freedom in the game is limited. The creators are still telling you a story, interactive or not, and you don't have complete freedom in how that story goes. Now it may be a choose your own adventure story, but the artist is still in control. You only have freedom insofar as choosing the options that the artist gives to you. The only games I can think of that the player has complete control over the story are games like The Sims, and even then you're limited by the tools the artist gives you and what you are and are not allowed to do within the rules of the universe.
Wow, that was a cheap swing (and a miss) at the whole ME3 "controversy."
You'd think this was something new. Thing is, it isn't even the first (or last) time this has happened. Public pressure is far from a new concept.
2 gaming related ones come straight to mind. First being Fallout 3s DLC that extended the ending and gave what the fans want. I heard no one from the games media jump at that one.
2nd one not everyone remembers. A particular game called InFamous 2. When it first showed up with trailers, the main character, Cole, had suddenly changed from a grizzle voiced, bald guy with a scar going down his face to a Nathon Drake 2.0s. And the fans went nuts. So what did they do? Changed him into his original look and all where happy.
So did the games media go on about artistic integrity or any of that? Course not. Actually, one of the IGN guys has been very loud about all this is. Colin Moriarty, who has gone on about how it goes against the artistic integrity and how people shouldn't demand this or that and entitlement this and that and rabble, rabble, rabble.
But skip back to when this happened with InFamous and suddenly:
"But with the new Cole design, Sucker Punch heard loud and clear what fans of Infamous wanted, and they delivered. Infinite amounts of kudos to them for doing right by their community. Fans of Infamous won?t soon forget it. Sucker Punch is one of Sony?s most valuable developers. They are tuned-in with the PS3 faithful, and it?s things like this that prove it."
Hell, the this aint uncommon outside of games either. Sherlock Holmes was killed off by Doyle and for 8 years people protested for a change and eventually gave in. This gave us some of the best Sherlock books.
Blade Runner, a great sci-fi by Ridley Scott had its whole ending changed after early preview showings.
Go back far enough and you see that Beethoven revised his opera Fidelio multiple times at the behest of his fans, cast members, and creative peers. I dare someone to say Beethoven lost his artistic integrity.
How many forms of completely interactive art is there anyway? We've even gotten to a point where we a consumers are funding game projects. Which is wonderful.
Gaming can't be just lumped into one category of "art" and then leave it as that as some form of blockade.
Art can change depending on the audience, depending on the demand and so much more. Again, this is hardly the first time this has been done or ever will be done. Just the biggest highlighted one by gaming media.
This whole "entitlement" accusation just need to stop. If you can't back away from that kind of attitude, we eventually pass the point of having meaningful dialog on this topic anymore. Then neither side is listening anymore. Everyone has made up their mind about not only the ending, but about everyone who disagrees with them as well.
If you liked the ending, then everyone who didn't is a crybaby whiner who has nothing better to do than throw fits about video games. If you disliked the ending, then everyone who didn't is a judgmental douche that's either too stupid to understand why the ending sucked, or too far up EA/Bioware's a**es to acknowledge it.
There can be no middle ground anymore at that point and are no longer allowed to have different opinions. Then comes the name calling and things you generally see from 10 year olds.
Here's the thing: I have no issue with fan complaints, or even creative works changing in response to fans. That stuff happens, because creators want to give people what they want, and fan response can carry things in a good direction. As a writer, I know that sometimes there are things I do that make more sense to me in a creative context than anyone else who reads what I wrote because I'm privy to a bunch of internal logic based on what's going on in my head that nobody else knows. Reader/fan response can be a valuable tool to making a better story.
If the "Retake Mass Effect" movement was a group of people coming together to tell Bioware what they disliked about the ending, fine. But that's not what it's about. Again, *neither Bob, nor I, nor a number of people who disagree with the movement disagree with complaining about the ending.* We disagree with the really nasty assertions being made about what fans deserve from creators. And what that position boils down to is this: YOU DON'T DESERVE ANYTHING. When Conan Doyle brought Holmes back from the dead, that was his choice. The changes to Cole? Sucker Punch's choice. Ridley Scott had a choice to change Blade Runner (and even then, there's now a longer Director's Cut that Scott theoretically feels is more faithful to his artistic vision).
When it comes right down to it: you were not sold a broken product. It is not incumbent upon Bioware to cater to your whims. If they want to clarify or change the ending to ME3, so be it. But that should be their choice. Bioware could have made Shepard a talking, stuffed elephant for ME3, and I would have supported them in keeping him elephantine. Because at the end of the day, they are the folks who own Mass Effect, and they can do whatever they want with it. If you have a problem with that, tough.
by this logic, i should be allowed to create a saw remake which consists entirely of a steady shot of a field of grass where nothing happens for 2 hours.
what? you buy the ticket, you take the risk, right? don't try to limit my artistic freedom!
Of course you would. Then people would complain about it, even ask for their money back... and that would be IT.
No threats, no lawsuits, no "Ohhh... Saxnot lied to us", no "We DEMAND that you change the ending, because WE know better". Nothing of that is excusable (especially the threats part)
threats are never permissable, and people are always free to try and sue each other for a percieved wrong (though it wont work, evidently)
people demanding of me that i do right by my own art though, i don't view as unreasonable in their demands. clearly the question of whether i want to respond to that in any way is up to me.
i think we agree with one another, and your point is directed at people who feel the artist should be FORCED to change their product. if these people actually exist (i don't think anyone really meant that, but i could be wrong), they are silly and should be ignored.
Well, I like Bob's shows and respect his opinion. But today I simply have to disagree. If there is a medium where fans have a right to complain, it's videogames. "classical" art can exist without the observer, art rarely is created to sell well and even movies can exist without someone watching it. But videogames need the interaction with the viewer, they exist thought the viewer. And yes, Developers and Producers can do with their "product" whatever they want but they should keep a sense of obligation towards their fans, especially when the main protagonist is to tightly linked to the player.... but I guess Bioware sold their sense of obligation to EA...
...
To bow to public pressure is something no one that creates something should aspire to.
Under those terms, why can't we have Romeo and Juliet 2? or Kill Bill Vol 3? I believe the end of Fight Club was not epic enough, so we should all force Palahniuk to make a sequel. I also believe Indiana Jones wasn't clear enough, so George Lucas should work on a 5th one. Why not? It worked great with us fans clamoring for a better ending for Watchmen. Someone already mention how this public lynching was getting close to the villain of Misery, which sounds like a fair comparison too...
1) Romeo and Juliet had a strong, if tragic, ending.
2) Kill Bill Vol 2 wrapped up the story conclusively, with almost all the characters dead.
3) Fight Club had said its piece; the character's arc had reached an end.
4) George Lucas has already taken liberties with his Star Wars films - I think he was the wrong person to invoke with your strawman-ship
5) Watchman's ending was changed from the comic, and as far as I can see was the better for it for the purposes of the big screen.
If you notice, none of those (well, maybe bar the Watchmen thing - some comic fans did want to see a giant psychic squid, but then that's comic fans for you) do actually have any sort of public support; they are mostly examples of things that ended well.
Mass Effect 3 is not one of those.
You may also notice that all the example you chose are non-interactive films.
Mass Effect 3 is not one of those.
Your strawmen are weak, your protestations weaker. As has been posted and re-posted before, history is full of creative decisions being aided and directed by feedback; why should Bioware be any different?
1 to 5- "It wasn't fulfilling enough. I want it changed !!!" That is by far the logic most posted here.
4- George Lucas is the perfect example to invoke. He is one of the best (if not the best) creators that measures his visions in terms of merchandise, money and profitability. He is the one that hates his previous work (THX and American Graffiti) because "they didn't make any money". He is the one that added Jar Jar Binks because it ranked high in kids test audiences. He is the epitome of what you want Bioware to imitate: a creative person directed by audience feedback.
I must point out that your opinion on "Mass Effect not ending well" is just that, an opinion. I am not claiming mine is more than that, but based on the people that supported the author of the games, I believe its far from unique.
You are free to express your dislike about an ending. I have posted in this forum before how I deeply dislike the endings of Metal Gear Solid 4 and Borderlands... but that is only my opinion and I treated like it... That is all.
Sorry but considering the topic I think it would have been wise to take the same precautions as when you said the Hunger Games was mediocre
--------------
I actually agree with your point which is "Its theirs, not yours. You can't form the ending just because you liked it up until the end."
I actually liked the ending. Its cleaver and it makes you really puzzle over what the fuck is going on... also you see Shepard hallucinating all the time so... indoctrination much? Two options are to give in and the final one is to resist... as you see his armour and what looks like a breath.
Looking at all other media's secrets intended by the creator only come out much much later... Blade Runner... turns out the guy hunting the androids was meant to be an android.
The best stories in my opinion are not those that have a clear defined ending but have multiple interpritations... multiple aspects where a literal reading or suggestive meaning could be true...
So yeah in short as you put it:
This is why we can't have nice things.
Because this is a nice thing (maybe a tiny bit too unclear)... and everyone fucking rejected it outright...
Even in his own Game-Overthinker show he stated he has not played the games, nor does he know what the endings are. THAT'S THE FUCKING PROBLEM BOB! You lack context and investment and can easily stand on your damn soapbox and act as a superior while spewing pretentious dribble.
So Bob, shut up, play the games, see the endings and then voice your opinion, otherwise your input is worthless on the matter.
To play Devil's Advocate with the FTC complaint, it wasn't "I hated the ending," which is what most people are complaining about. It was "they lied about the product."
It doesn't make the complaint any more valid. Companies lie about their upcoming products a LOT and get away with it with the simple "subject to change at any time" disclaimer during every damned interview. Just saying, you seem to imply the FTC complaint was over the ending being BAD, which it wasn't. It was over Bioware straight up lying about it.
I find it amusing that after ragging on Transformers and god knows how many other geek things that were done wrong, Bob defends Bioware when they step wrong. Seems a little ironic/hypocritical. When things are done horribly, are not the fans entitled to complain, or should they just take the blow quietly and be happy for some perverse reason?
Once again, we have knee-jerk reactions that failed to listen hard enough to get the point. Bob never said you couldn't ***** about TMNT or ME3 being a betrayal. He just said that when you storm into their offices demanding that the product be changed to conform to your arbitrary expectations, you're going to do damage to the medium, in addition to just looking silly.
And Bob's critique of the Bay-Transformers films while then defending Bioware is in no way hypocracy. The Bay films warrant criticism because they're crap from a storytelling and filmmaking standpoint, not just because they aren't what the fans wanted. But while ME3's endings deserve their own criticism, that doesn't give the fans the power to force Bioware into changing it because it doesn't conform to their expectations.
Hypocracy means saying one thing and then proceeding to do the exact opposite thing. It doesn't mean taking an opposing stance when the conditions and circumstances change and the issue shifts from one thing to another. In fact, being able to turn around and take the other side when the first position starts supporting a more extreme view is part of being a rational person.
Whilst the extents some fans have gone to to protest against Bioware's ending may well be too far, from his video I took away that Bob was happy for Bioware to do absolutely anything they wanted, and people should shut up about seeing a story that they had sculpted for years brought to a shallow, unfulfilling close. As Bob complained about Bay and his treatment of the Transformers IP, Mass Effect fans complain about the ending for the game.
If his comments were limited to purely to the types filing lawsuits then fine, but the campaign to have the ending changed or extended is still valid; gaming is an interactive medium, people want to have their say. It's not like people have just spent one and a half hours watching thin exposition over explosions, they've spend in the region of 100+ hours being the main character, being told that they are changing the game world with their actions. Should anyone be surprised that they seek to change the ending by their actions too?
I think fans are entirely within their rights to petition and campaign to have the ending changed, or at least expanded and explained. I've seen the footage and it's quite disappointing for the media setup that preceded the game's release. Of course, that's an opinion, and Bioware's well within their rights to stick to their guns but that's not what we've been hearing from their announcements - they don't seem to know whether they intended to make a fuss for publicity or whether they're disappointed by the outcry, whether they're going to change the ending or sell a new one, or just sell more DLC to expand on it. They've not come out conclusively defending the ending as the one that they really wanted to do, as the one that wraps the series up.
Also, you have to remember that games are a medium where the product is never necessarily final; patches and DLC, mods and expansions - game worlds these days are mutable, currently so publishers can squeeze games out on time before they're quite finished, or so they can continue making money off a released product. Isn't it about time that fans were able to harness these publisher and developer-centric mechanics and turned them to their own use?
I disagree that players are within their rights to petition, etc, to have the ending changed. Well, maybe not "within their rights", because they always have the choice of doing so, but do I think it's okay to do? No.
Bob wasn't saying that you had to be okay with the ending, which was what that entire segment about TMNT was about. He's saying that you're perfectly okay to complain and ***** and moan all you want, but as soon as you start writing angry letters to the developer and signing petitions to the artist to change their work, that's when you cross the line. There's a line between "not being happy" and "entitled".
Anyways, while yes, gaming is an interactive medium, I'd argue that the player's actual freedom in the game is limited. The creators are still telling you a story, interactive or not, and you don't have complete freedom in how that story goes. Now it may be a choose your own adventure story, but the artist is still in control. You only have freedom insofar as choosing the options that the artist gives to you. The only games I can think of that the player has complete control over the story are games like The Sims, and even then you're limited by the tools the artist gives you and what you are and are not allowed to do within the rules of the universe.
Wow, that was a cheap swing (and a miss) at the whole ME3 "controversy."
You'd think this was something new. Thing is, it isn't even the first (or last) time this has happened. Public pressure is far from a new concept.
2 gaming related ones come straight to mind. First being Fallout 3s DLC that extended the ending and gave what the fans want. I heard no one from the games media jump at that one.
2nd one not everyone remembers. A particular game called InFamous 2. When it first showed up with trailers, the main character, Cole, had suddenly changed from a grizzle voiced, bald guy with a scar going down his face to a Nathon Drake 2.0s. And the fans went nuts. So what did they do? Changed him into his original look and all where happy.
So did the games media go on about artistic integrity or any of that? Course not. Actually, one of the IGN guys has been very loud about all this is. Colin Moriarty, who has gone on about how it goes against the artistic integrity and how people shouldn't demand this or that and entitlement this and that and rabble, rabble, rabble.
But skip back to when this happened with InFamous and suddenly:
"But with the new Cole design, Sucker Punch heard loud and clear what fans of Infamous wanted, and they delivered. Infinite amounts of kudos to them for doing right by their community. Fans of Infamous won?t soon forget it. Sucker Punch is one of Sony?s most valuable developers. They are tuned-in with the PS3 faithful, and it?s things like this that prove it."
Hell, the this aint uncommon outside of games either. Sherlock Holmes was killed off by Doyle and for 8 years people protested for a change and eventually gave in. This gave us some of the best Sherlock books.
Blade Runner, a great sci-fi by Ridley Scott had its whole ending changed after early preview showings.
Go back far enough and you see that Beethoven revised his opera Fidelio multiple times at the behest of his fans, cast members, and creative peers. I dare someone to say Beethoven lost his artistic integrity.
How many forms of completely interactive art is there anyway? We've even gotten to a point where we a consumers are funding game projects. Which is wonderful.
Gaming can't be just lumped into one category of "art" and then leave it as that as some form of blockade.
Art can change depending on the audience, depending on the demand and so much more. Again, this is hardly the first time this has been done or ever will be done. Just the biggest highlighted one by gaming media.
This whole "entitlement" accusation just need to stop. If you can't back away from that kind of attitude, we eventually pass the point of having meaningful dialog on this topic anymore. Then neither side is listening anymore. Everyone has made up their mind about not only the ending, but about everyone who disagrees with them as well.
If you liked the ending, then everyone who didn't is a crybaby whiner who has nothing better to do than throw fits about video games. If you disliked the ending, then everyone who didn't is a judgmental douche that's either too stupid to understand why the ending sucked, or too far up EA/Bioware's a**es to acknowledge it.
There can be no middle ground anymore at that point and are no longer allowed to have different opinions. Then comes the name calling and things you generally see from 10 year olds.
Here's the thing: I have no issue with fan complaints, or even creative works changing in response to fans. That stuff happens, because creators want to give people what they want, and fan response can carry things in a good direction. As a writer, I know that sometimes there are things I do that make more sense to me in a creative context than anyone else who reads what I wrote because I'm privy to a bunch of internal logic based on what's going on in my head that nobody else knows. Reader/fan response can be a valuable tool to making a better story.
If the "Retake Mass Effect" movement was a group of people coming together to tell Bioware what they disliked about the ending, fine. But that's not what it's about. Again, *neither Bob, nor I, nor a number of people who disagree with the movement disagree with complaining about the ending.* We disagree with the really nasty assertions being made about what fans deserve from creators. And what that position boils down to is this: YOU DON'T DESERVE ANYTHING. When Conan Doyle brought Holmes back from the dead, that was his choice. The changes to Cole? Sucker Punch's choice. Ridley Scott had a choice to change Blade Runner (and even then, there's now a longer Director's Cut that Scott theoretically feels is more faithful to his artistic vision).
When it comes right down to it: you were not sold a broken product. It is not incumbent upon Bioware to cater to your whims. If they want to clarify or change the ending to ME3, so be it. But that should be their choice. Bioware could have made Shepard a talking, stuffed elephant for ME3, and I would have supported them in keeping him elephantine. Because at the end of the day, they are the folks who own Mass Effect, and they can do whatever they want with it. If you have a problem with that, tough.
Ah, so they are using the wrong word? Is that really all you complainer-haters are being so angry about - that the fans used "demand" rather than "desire" or "want"? That they feel the relationship between them and Bioware to be the reciprocal sort where they give them money, pour time into their product, buy the DLC, talk about the stories with friends, publish articles etc etc and expect the next instalment to be a rewarding, satisfying experience that builds on the previous games, wrapping up the epic trilogy in a fitting manner? Rather than as a series of throw-away experiences churned out of an uncaring machine that expects the consumer to mindlessly choke down whatever they put out?
I dunno, I would have hoped that the industry was a bit more special than that and whilst I can see your anti-entitlement sentiments (as I have seen brought out against political protesters with a cause), I can't help but feel that, as with the political protests, you're missing the point, the root of the issue in favour of something you can comfortably attack and dismiss.
Even in his own Game-Overthinker show he stated he has not played the games, nor does he know what the endings are. THAT'S THE FUCKING PROBLEM BOB! You lack context and investment and can easily stand on your damn soapbox and act as a superior spewing pretentious dribble.
So Bob, shut up, play the games, see the endings and then voice your opinion, otherwise your input is worthless on the matter.
You're missing the point. Whether or not he would like the ending doesn't matter. It's not about liking the ending, it's about crossing that boundary between creator and audience and feeling like you DESERVE a new ending.
That's what the entire segment about TMNT is about. He knows he's probably not gonna like the new treatment of it, but is he going to fly into a rage because this is not the movie that he is entitled to? No. The artist isn't here to please you.
There is a line between being displeased with the ending and feeling like you deserve something else.
...
Agreed. Also, incase you don't know, the ending to ME3 got changed due to leaked info a few months before it got released. I'm expecting the "real" ending to get released via DLC eventually.
...I wouldn't advice them to specifically market it as "the real/actual ending" though.
If they start to say that the original product was never meant to be a complete whole, but was from the start dependant on making further unannounced purchases to see it through, then that complaint might actually gain a bit of merit. It'd then be about whether the design was purposefully kept incomplete, rather than just about full product whose ending people thought didn't live up to a rather unspecified hype (...probably still wouldn't be enough though, as it could be easily argued that it was a complete whole, and the DLC is just a mini-sequel).
Actually never did play Mass Effect, as I can't say that a series whose supposed fans apparently spend most of their time lambasting it for pretty consistently not living up to their expectations hold much draw to me[footnote]As well as a few guys in a user group I trust voicing reasoned criticism of the storyline of the third game, though they did praise the gameplay.[/footnote]. But I know a bullshit consumer complaint when I see one.
Okay, picture this:
You order a portrait of your friend from a highly-respected artist.
Said artist ,after 1-2 months ,hands you a canvas with shit smeared all over it.
Do you say A:What a fine piece of art, thank you for pouring you emotions into capturing the magic.
OR B: TAKE THAT SHIT AWAY FROM ME!
And than do you demand back your money, which you paid up-front.
(oh and when you are leaving he tries to sell you the bottom-right piece of the picture, which is lovely painted with golden dust)
The game was FINE (not excellent) until the very end, even the main themes were intriguing ,like Shepard finally sacrificing himself,and the whole cycle-business, but it was riddled with plot-holes and unanswered questions.
Granted ,this hissyfit people are throwing is disgusting.
Wait! Mario gets the Tanooki suit from a leaf!?
The Leaf is only supposed to give him a raccoon tail!
I say we all boycott and send nintendo tons of hate mail and start petitions to fix this monstrosity.
The main difference between these incidents is that one has the original creator boutching it but the other one is some guy no one wanted on the project.
Bioware made Mass Effect and therefore know how the story, characters, and ending works better than the fans do. They're not above doing something retarding with the ending but it was theirs to fuck up.
However, when it comes to TMNT, one of the guys that actually created them went on record as saying Michael Bay's idea is stupid. Its some totally unrelated guy coming and fucking with someone else's creation.
Oh, and the 2003 turtles cartoon is awesome. Everyone should watch that.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
