The Story Doesn't Matter

[Woodsey]

Certainly explains the absence of anything regarding the ending in all the launch-day reviews and I had figured it went like that, but it still doesn't explain why, after the controversy picked up steam, the entirety of the gaming "press" unanimously took a shit on the fans who hated the ending. "...the ending went over your heads!", "...must never be changed!", "...dangerous precedent!", "...artistic integrity!" and "...setting back gaming as an art form!" they all went...

And... so? Those are all valid counter-arguments. If you want to moan about the press insulting you in some way, go nuts, but cite proper examples (and no, saying something went over people's heads is not an insult). At the minute you're just moaning about the majority of them embodying a different opinion.

(Likewise, it's more interesting to counter popular opinion. If every Tom, Dick and Harry's yelling the same thing, for a couple of different reasons, then its far more interesting to write a counter-piece.)

And I think we can all agree by now that the ending is intentionally a mind-fuck of contradictions, impossibilities and inaccuracies. It's far more far-fetched to suggest they lost all writing capabilities for the final 10 minutes then it is to consider the most popular theory doing the rounds - not that that doesn't then introduce other problems we should be worried about, like the fact that there is really a portion of the ending seemingly missing (although if that really is where they're ending it, and the DLC rumour is wrong, then I can understand that, even if I'd prefer it done differently). But it at least makes what's there an intelligent and thematically cohesive piece of writing.

OT: I guess I've not really considered that before. Personally, any reviews I look for are restricted to RPS - they reflect the sensibilities I'm most interested in (a game's themes, writing, etc - basically, what other reviews tend to push aside).

People seem to think that all reviewers should apply to them, or that there should be a degree of coherency between all reviewers, and that anyone offering a different view is a dissenter or has been paid off (not to say that those are impossible occurences). Best policy: find a publication which most often considers the aspects of games you most often consider, and stick with them.

I agree with your point about scoring too (yet another reason why its pointless): how the hell do you reflect what you might consider to be a poor ending in a score? Do 5 minutes, no matter how important, really destroy the rest of a 30-hour game (all of which you loved) and drag it by the balls from a 9/10 to a 2/10?

 

[disappointed]

Clearly, though the story absolutely should be a major part of any review, it being a major part of the experience of playing the game. Why do games bother with characters and stories if no-one really cares? Actually, I'm not be facetious with that question - I genuinely wonder. Very few games have a story sufficiently above the level of crud for it to be worth my while listening to anything anyone says in the game. They seem to be there more for the purpose of evoking popular cinematic tropes than as a significant game element.

I understand your point about why reviews ignore the story. And it's really little good complaining about it. Game reviewing is a job not a craft. Reviews need to be out on day one or else it's a job someone else will be doing. Game reviewers are under the same pressures as film reviewers but they're dealing with something more multi-faceted and much more time consuming.

Ultimately, if you insist on buying a game on day one, you take your chances. There will be bugs yet to be patched, the game may easily have serious flaws that have evaded the reviewers and it will never be more expensive than it is today. If anything comes of all this craziness, I'd like it to be a shared understanding among the gaming community that day one purchases are basically stupid and repeatedly rewarding publishers for treating us like idiots is our own fault.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Here are the facts: reviews said how it's the great and satisfying conclusion to the trilogy.

There are only two reason they would say that:

1. They are retarded.

2. THEY ALL GOT PAYED TO GIVE A POSITIVE REVIEW!

Seriously, who would buy this game if any major reviewer were to say how the ending destroys the entire trilogy and makes you feel empty and dead inside? NO ONE!

It's so fuckin' obvious what happened in those reviews. There is no justification.

Well, I thought it was a great and satisfying conclusion to the trilogy, even if it had a crappy ending. Thanks for calling me retarded for having a different opinion. :/

 

[BreakfastMan]

Certainly explains the absence of anything regarding the ending in all the launch-day reviews and I had figured it went like that, but it still doesn't explain why, after the controversy picked up steam, the entirety of the gaming "press" unanimously took a shit on the fans who hated the ending. "...the ending went over your heads!", "...must never be changed!", "...dangerous precedent!", "...artistic integrity!" and "...setting back gaming as an art form!" they all went...

Well, I have my own theory. It is because of responses like this:

Here are the facts: reviews said how it's the great and satisfying conclusion to the trilogy.

There are only two reason they would say that:

1. They are retarded.

2. THEY ALL GOT PAYED TO GIVE A POSITIVE REVIEW!

Seriously, who would buy this game if any major reviewer were to say how the ending destroys the entire trilogy and makes you feel empty and dead inside? NO ONE!

It's so fuckin' obvious what happened in those reviews. There is no justification.

That they are getting mad with fans. When people directly insult you and call your integrity into question, it is a little hard to keep a level head, don't you know. Sadly, this is not even unique. There was a guy in the ME3 review thread who kept trying to tell Susan that she was payed off and had her integrity compromised. This drew ire both from her and Andy. Hell, look at the DA2 review, or any review of any major game in the last couple years. You will have people screaming "PAYED OFF!!!" left and right.

 

[Zhukov]

I understand the logic of, "the first thirty hours were good, it's not fair to condemn it for the last ten minutes."

On the other hand, a story without a decent ending is like a house without a roof. The rest of the house might be fine, but the roof is kind of important.

 

[370999]

Hell, look at the DA2 review, or any review of any major game in the last couple years. You will have people screaming "PAYED OFF!!!" left and right.

That they are getting mad with fans. When people directly insult you and call your integrity into question, it is a little hard to keep a level head, don't you know. Sadly, this is not even unique. There was a guy in the ME3 review thread who kept trying to tell Susan that she was payed off and had her integrity compromised. This drew ire both from her and Andy. Hell, look at the DA2 review, or any review of any major game in the last couple years. You will have people screaming "PAYED OFF!!!" left and right.[/quote]

In fairness the DA2 review was baffling. Now I sincerely doubt that Tito was paid off but that review was awful, like a complete refusal to mention DA2 glaring faults. So yes crying corruption immediately is wrong but some reviews are well crap, like completely incompetent.

Capthca: mend fences

 

[CIB]

@numbers: I think a lot of reviewers do take these things into account. However, not in the way you might expect. It is very safe and easy to produce media with soundtracks, art and story that seem "decent" simply by sticking to a general "trend".

The issue is, all the media that follows this safe principle, will end up looking and feeling very similar, and thus it becomes impossible to actually distinguish them based on these criteria, unless it obviously fails. When you read a review with a good score, and art or soundtracks aren't discussed much, that just means that this game doesn't "offend" this taste.

On the other hand, if you really care for innovation or exceptional quality, most reviews won't help you much. There's simply no place on a numeric scale, for a game that many people might find exceptionally good. Why? Because in those cases, there's usually at least as many people who have a different taste, and who will hate it for the same reasons those other guys loved it.


The story is similar. I'm active in game-development on a small freeware game, and personally I'm someone who cares a ton about consistency and good story-telling. On the other hand, if I bring those points up to the community of that game, I will be shunned. Yes, they will absolutely hate me for it, because they don't nearly have the same requirements towards consistency that I do, and they will view any discussion of it as a waste of time.

Does that mean I'm right and they're all stupid? No. Does that mean I'm being silly because I don't agree with the masses? Hardly. It just means that there are different tastes, and sometimes to make a small group of people with unusual taste happy, you have to make your game absolutely awful for everyone else.

Neither are there many game developers who would take this burden on themselves, nor are there many reviewers who aim to make money by appeasing niche communities.

 

[Trishbot]

I'd just prefer "reviewers" not insulting people who hate the endings and asked for better ones as "drooling idiots", "entitled brats", "Mountain Dew-chugging nerds" (according to Yahtzee, IGN, and The New Yorker).

FORBES has been the only website to analyze it from a business perspective; happy customers are good business after all.

I have a problem with reviewers who realized a large portion disagrees with their opinion and decided to retaliate with name-calling and petty insults instead of opening up the floor to a rational discussion.

 

[370999]

I'd just prefer "reviewers" not insulting people who hate the endings and asked for better ones as "drooling idiots", "entitled brats", "Mountain Dew-chugging nerds" (according to Yahtzee, IGN, and The New Yorker).

FORBES has been the only website to analyze it from a business perspective; happy customers are good business after all.

I have a problem with reviewers who realized a large portion disagrees with their opinion and decided to retaliate with name-calling and petty insults instead of opening up the floor to a rational discussion.

Indeed, I mean this is actually really interesting, in that we are actually discussing the unique ability of video games to have a do over. This is fascinating and should be discussed and if that mean some people say no we shouldn't then good. But just flinging about insults is pointless

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Here are the facts: reviews said how it's the great and satisfying conclusion to the trilogy.

There are only two reason they would say that:

1. They are retarded.

2. THEY ALL GOT PAYED TO GIVE A POSITIVE REVIEW!

Seriously, who would buy this game if any major reviewer were to say how the ending destroys the entire trilogy and makes you feel empty and dead inside? NO ONE!

It's so fuckin' obvious what happened in those reviews. There is no justification.

Or maybe they just didn't think the ending was that bad. I know, shocking right?

I personally didn't think it was very good, but at the same time it certainly hasn't inspired as much bitterness in me as it has many other long running fans. Of course everybody is entitled to their opinion, but anyone would think the game disk had ejected itself during the end credits and physically assaulted the player judging by much of the fan reaction. It was bad sure, but was it really that bad? I can think of far worse endings to games I've liked, such as the game that you've taken your profile name and avatar from.

So yeah, when someone is only given time to play one of the endings, and even then not given too much time to think about it, I can see how it could pass muster with them.

P.S. Shamus, thank you.

 

[bombadilillo]

The cool part about Mass Effect, is that you PLAY the STORY. The story changing with the players literal button inputs. You can't hide behind, "Some people don't care about story" Its simply not the case for this game franchise. That is the game. The professionalism game people (whatever you choose to call them) dropped the ball by using straw man arguments and generally misrepresenting people who complain about the ending as entitled...blah blah blah all that crap.

By whining so hard about the "artistic integrity" you are treating your legitimately upset audience like the 10 year old kids you desperately want them to not be.

But everything aside, if story doesn't matter, why the HELL do all these "pundits" (seriously?) have such a hard time with the idea it might get changed?

 

[disappointed]

I'd just prefer "reviewers" not insulting people who hate the endings and asked for better ones as "drooling idiots", "entitled brats", "Mountain Dew-chugging nerds" (according to Yahtzee, IGN, and The New Yorker).

FORBES has been the only website to analyze it from a business perspective; happy customers are good business after all.

I have a problem with reviewers who realized a large portion disagrees with their opinion and decided to retaliate with name-calling and petty insults instead of opening up the floor to a rational discussion.

But some of them were drooling idiots, etc. and people tend to focus on the worst of everything, just like you did right there. The discussion was already rife with name calling and petty insults long before the pros ever got involved. Creating an organised movement stepped rather heavily on any debate that might have been going on. The whole thing became binary - them and us - no subtlety, no intelligence, no value, just the repeated assertion of two opposing positions. You know, politics.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

I'd just prefer "reviewers" not insulting people who hate the endings and asked for better ones as "drooling idiots", "entitled brats", "Mountain Dew-chugging nerds" (according to Yahtzee, IGN, and The New Yorker).

FORBES has been the only website to analyze it from a business perspective; happy customers are good business after all.

I have a problem with reviewers who realized a large portion disagrees with their opinion and decided to retaliate with name-calling and petty insults instead of opening up the floor to a rational discussion.

Bear in mind probably half the correspondence your average game reviewer has with the rest of the gaming world will be butt hurt fanboys berating them for disliking a game/not liking a game enough/liking a game/not disliking a game enough/getting some minor detail about a game wrong, I think I can understand why they are inclined to assume the worst when it comes to fans.

This doesn't make them right of course, and their response has indeed been almost as hyperbolic as what they're critisising. However, it's all a matter of perspective and were I in their shoes I hate to admit I'd probably jump to conclusions and just accuse everyone of being spoiled too.

Edit: The way I see it, It's kinda like the boy who cried wolf. This time around I believe fans do really have a legitimate reason to be angry, but when internet/gaming fandom (Bioware fandom being a front runner) has such an infamous reputation for throwing shit fits over just about anything, can we really be surprised when people in the industry don't take fan rage seriously, even when there does turn out to be a good reason for it?

 

[Trishbot]

I'd just prefer "reviewers" not insulting people who hate the endings and asked for better ones as "drooling idiots", "entitled brats", "Mountain Dew-chugging nerds" (according to Yahtzee, IGN, and The New Yorker).

FORBES has been the only website to analyze it from a business perspective; happy customers are good business after all.

I have a problem with reviewers who realized a large portion disagrees with their opinion and decided to retaliate with name-calling and petty insults instead of opening up the floor to a rational discussion.

But some of them were drooling idiots, etc. and people tend to focus on the worst of everything, just like you did right there. The discussion was already rife with name calling and petty insults long before the pros ever got involved. Creating an organised movement stepped rather heavily on any debate that might have been going on. The whole thing became binary - them and us - no subtlety, no intelligence, no value, just the repeated assertion of two opposing positions. You know, politics.

Oh, I'm fine with people disagreeing. More than fine. But if you disagree, don't do what Yahtzee and IGN did and just outright call everyone who disagrees an "idiot".

I'm a game designer myself AND a fan of video games. I can see both sides. I want what's best for the industry, and taking an "us vs. them" stance is bad for everyone. But I have a problem being insulted for my opinion by "professional" reviewers who get PAID to say the crap they do. They resort to fanboyism and trolling when I would like the industry to act like the paid professionals they claim to be.

 

[RaikuFA]

I'll just put this here for reviewers. Hopefully Mr. Young will do an article on this double standard.

WRPG: Save the world = best story ever made
JRPG: Save the world = JRPG cliche would not play again

 

[CIB]

I'd just prefer "reviewers" not insulting people who hate the endings and asked for better ones as "drooling idiots", "entitled brats", "Mountain Dew-chugging nerds" (according to Yahtzee, IGN, and The New Yorker).

FORBES has been the only website to analyze it from a business perspective; happy customers are good business after all.

I have a problem with reviewers who realized a large portion disagrees with their opinion and decided to retaliate with name-calling and petty insults instead of opening up the floor to a rational discussion.

Yahztee does insulting for a job, no sense criticizing him for it.

Other than that, I'm not sure what to say. People may think of the ending what they will, and they may be requesting changes to the game if they wish. It may not make a lot of sense, but there's nothing wrong with it either. There's no real point to get this worked up.

Also, don't forget that authors here on escapist and elsewhere actually profit from this whole controversy, so I really wouldn't take any insults very personally.

 

[lacktheknack]

Here are the facts: reviews said how it's the great and satisfying conclusion to the trilogy.

There are only two reason they would say that:

1. They are retarded.

2. THEY ALL GOT PAYED TO GIVE A POSITIVE REVIEW!

Seriously, who would buy this game if any major reviewer were to say how the ending destroys the entire trilogy and makes you feel empty and dead inside? NO ONE!

It's so fuckin' obvious what happened in those reviews. There is no justification.

How many reviewers do you want to bet got to the end? I'll bet less than 30%.

"Oh balls! My deadline is in one day, and I've still got six hours of game left! Gah, it's been great so far..."

 

[disappointed]

I'd just prefer "reviewers" not insulting people who hate the endings and asked for better ones as "drooling idiots", "entitled brats", "Mountain Dew-chugging nerds" (according to Yahtzee, IGN, and The New Yorker).

But some of them were drooling idiots, etc. and people tend to focus on the worst of everything, just like you did right there.

Oh, I'm fine with people disagreeing. More than fine. But if you disagree, don't do what Yahtzee and IGN did and just outright call everyone who disagrees an "idiot".

I'm a game designer myself AND a fan of video games. I can see both sides. I want what's best for the industry, and taking an "us vs. them" stance is bad for everyone. But I have a problem being insulted for my opinion by "professional" reviewers who get PAID to say the crap they do. They resort to fanboyism and trolling when I would like the industry to act like the paid professionals they claim to be.

So is this the first time you've decided you don't like Yahtzee casually throwing insults around? He's not successful for holding his tongue. The gaming community thrives on foul language and casual aggressiveness. If you don't like such things, you should never have been watching or reading the things that you did. There's hypocrisy in this sudden prudishness that's sweeping through the forums.

I go back to my point that both you and Yahtzee and IGN and me and everyone else focus on the worst of things. You have picked the worst, most extreme and most boring quotes from otherwise interesting takes on the affair (I dunno about IGN - I never read it). As long as you focus on that part of it, you'll never get to the good stuff.

And are we now saying that fans being dicks is OK because they do it for the love of douchery and that only people paid to write should be held to account for their words? That seems quite convenient.

Really, the whole affair was ugly and messy and the way forward is to forget all the crap that was said by both sides and focus on the interesting parts of the discussion because it brings out a lot that could use improving in the industry, from the Molyneux-esque feature promising that led to people expecting considerably more from the ending than was delivered to the generally shoddy nature of reviews. And the community is not without culpability in either of those issues either.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Here are the facts: reviews said how it's the great and satisfying conclusion to the trilogy.

There are only two reason they would say that:

1. They are retarded.

2. THEY ALL GOT PAYED TO GIVE A POSITIVE REVIEW!

Seriously, who would buy this game if any major reviewer were to say how the ending destroys the entire trilogy and makes you feel empty and dead inside? NO ONE!

It's so fuckin' obvious what happened in those reviews. There is no justification.

Well, I thought it was a great and satisfying conclusion to the trilogy, even if it had a crappy ending. Thanks for calling me retarded for having a different opinion. :/

I'm not calling you retarded. It's OK to have an opinion like that. Especially if you're not a professional reviewer. But EVERY FUCKIN' REVIEWER HAD THE SAME OPINION??? And it never crossed their mind that not all fans will be satisfied with such an ending? I'm sorry but that is just impossible.

How many reviewers do you want to bet got to the end? I'll bet less than 30%.

"Oh balls! My deadline is in one day, and I've still got six hours of game left! Gah, it's been great so far..."

My point still stands if that's the case. If they didn't finish the game they shouldn't comment on the story at all. They shouldn't even make a fuckin' review. They are being deliberately dishonest.

 

[applesandoranges]

edit