Why changing ME3 ending is a good thing...looking at this in a broader sense.

[Ticonderoga117]

*snip*

That is a good point, but if someone doesn't call out something bad, who's to say that it won't get worse. However, I remain hopeful that both Bioware and the fans can truly create a great ending here that fits what they tried to sell us, that maintains a good to high quality of writing that has been the strong point of Bioware generally, and won't just be fan service. A bit too naive? Maybe, but if the effort to try to make art (since that is the term of the week now) the best it can be is not there, then something is wrong here, especially since Bioware has already done such a good job in creating such a great universe for people to enjoy. I know I certainly do, and by the evidence around here and all over the net, so have millions of others.

 

[Hyper-space]

(foreword)
Can any one tell me what the ending to Mass Effect 3 did wrong objectively? Its not that different from the other previous game in which that it didn't matter what choices you made during the game, the ending always are the same (Save/Let the council die and preserve/destroy the reaper station). The funny thing being that how much EMS you have can unlock the synthesis choice, which is more of an effect that in Mass Effect 1 and 2.

Now, the only difference from what I can tell is that it didn't end like every other Bioware game with a short epilogue of what happened to the character. But is that it? Your personal preference and expectation didn't match the game itself so you want to change it?

Please explain.

snip

How the fuck does the rights of an artist shit up the medium? or any other for that matter.

Let me give you an even broader sense of what you will accomplish by changing the ending: You know how most block-buster movies and video-games have test audiences behind most design-choices? Yeah, well that is because they want to be sure that what they are doing reaches the most demographics therefore making the most money, its cynical as hell and its this check-box mentality that is the bane of all creativity.

Letting the developer do their own thing works the best, I don't care what kind of fan you are but you probably don't know shit. Allowing a greater degree of creative control on the part of the developer helps encourage experimentation which leads to innovation.

Now, you may be wondering what that has to do with your demands for a changed ending and the answer is simple: You validate everything that shitty publishers and Hollywood studios do. You are validating it by going all mob-rule on the creative-process of developers.

If this ends up as the general reaction to every thing ("Waaah, this movie/video-game doesn't match my exact personal preference and therefore it has to be changed") you will see a lot more focus-group games that only do what they think the majority of people will like. That is, artistically-bankrupt piles of mediocrity. Should every developer use polls to determine the outcome of stories? Probably not, because that would be terrible.

Ask yourself this: Could you imagine a world, where the broest of FPS players would demand that they change the ending of Deus Ex: Human Revolution to feature more tits and explosions? The collective standards of people is pretty abysmal and allowing that to rule the industry more than it already does is pretty stupid. Its a can of worms that you really, really don't want to open.

 

[Von Strimmer]

I have three wishes for this entire affair...
1) Everyone stops referring to this as art, every game labelled as art (with the exception of Minecraft) IMO, has been a disappointment.
2)Bioware gives us some damn closure, I must know what happened to Garrus!
3)Everyone has some goddamn faith in Bioware to pull this off!

 

[Lurchibald]

Did you know that Movies have test screens during development and they actually change things in the movie (Even the end of the movie) based on the reaction of the people watching it... Maybe game developers should look at doing that more often... It might have even prevented the crappy DA2 "ending".

Here is a random list of Movies that could have ended badly if they kept their original endings http://www.ifc.com/fix/2011/05/five-alternate-endings-that-co


@Hyper-space

The problem with the ending is that

Spoiler

it conflicts with already established Mass Effect lore/canon, for instance, Mass Effect 1 establishes that there is no atmosphere on the outside of the Citadel (When you are making your way to stop Saren) Yet, when you meet the Catalyst you can breathe fine.... on the outside of the Citadel.... where (with no explanation) there is now suddenly air...

It conflicts with Mass Effect 2's Arrival DLC that shows that the destruction of a Mass Relay will wipe out a whole system.

It conflicts with Shepard's character, Shepard apparently believes everything the Catalyst tells her even though throughout the whole series Shepard doesn't believe anything a Reaper (Or anything associated with Reaper tech) tells her. Why the sudden trust?

Your crew is adamant about how they are willing to "Die for the cause" yet they are running away for no apparent reason. This is doubly confusing if you have the Prothean DLC where he states that he is going to stay and stop the Reapers no matter what as it is his only goal now, but he is seen (on my play-through at least) exiting the crashed Normandy.

That's not all, but it's all I can be bothered writing at the moment

 

[Canadamus Prime]

*snip*

That is a good point, but if someone doesn't call out something bad, who's to say that it won't get worse. However, I remain hopeful that both Bioware and the fans can truly create a great ending here that fits what they tried to sell us, that maintains a good to high quality of writing that has been the strong point of Bioware generally, and won't just be fan service. A bit too naive? Maybe, but if the effort to try to make art (since that is the term of the week now) the best it can be is not there, then something is wrong here, especially since Bioware has already done such a good job in creating such a great universe for people to enjoy. I know I certainly do, and by the evidence around here and all over the net, so have millions of others.

It's not the calling out I have a problem with, although I could do a rant about that too, no my issue is with the idea of arbitrarily changing something once it's already hit the market. There has to be a point where you say "Nope, for better or for worse, this project is finished." Otherwise you'll end up like George Lucas.

 

[TheCommanders]

It is my opinion that Bioware stopped caring about writing before they made Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect 1 is the last well written game they've made in my opinion.

Now theres a unsupported generalization if I've ever heard one. I am getting a bit tired of people throwing around the term of "bad writing" without any explanation or defense. I think the Mass Effect Trilogy as a whole displays remarkable writing throughout, and I'm willing to expand on that if anyone would like to hear it.

-snip-

I agree with a lot of the points you bring up, and thats one of the reasons so many people (myself included) subscribe the Indoctrination Theory. As one article put it, it's hard to believe that a company frequently praised for their writing ability would forget how to make a story in the last 5 minutes. That article also contains some decently explored evidence supporting the theory, if you are interested:

http://www.gameseyeview.com/2012/03/15/why-i-liked-the-mass-effect-3-ending-eventually/

If nothing else, the Theory can make some of us feel a *little* better about the ending, but obviously (preferably free) DLC would have to confirm, elaborate on, and satisfyingly end the story for this to make it ok.

 

[geK0]

Not that I've played the game; but I suspect the poor ending was a ploy to get people to buy DLC for the real ending.

Personally, I've never felt that story telling is all that essential to games, just a nice little add-on. Honestly, as great as the scenery, voice acting and story in Mass Effect 1 was, I never really felt compelled to finish it because the game-play was sort of lacking in my opinion.

 

[Nomanslander]

(foreword)

Let me give you an even broader sense of what you will accomplish by changing the ending: You know how most block-buster movies and video-games have test audiences behind most design-choices? Yeah, well that is because they want to be sure that what they are doing reaches the most demographics therefore making the most money, its cynical as hell and its this check-box mentality that is the bane of all creativity.

Letting the developer do their own thing works the best, I don't care what kind of fan you are but you probably don't know shit. Allowing a greater degree of creative control on the part of the developer helps encourage experimentation which leads to innovation.

Now, you may be wondering what that has to do with your demands for a changed ending and the answer is simple: You validate everything that shitty publishers and Hollywood studios do. You are validating it by going all mob-rule on the creative-process of developers.

If this ends up as the general reaction to every thing ("Waaah, this movie/video-game doesn't match my exact personal preference and therefore it has to be changed") you will see a lot more focus-group games that only do what they think the majority of people will like. That is, artistically-bankrupt piles of mediocrity. Should every developer use polls to determine the outcome of stories? Probably not, because that would be terrible.

Ask yourself this: Could you imagine a world, where the broest of FPS players would demand that they change the ending of Deus Ex: Human Revolution to feature more tits and explosions? The collective standards of people is pretty abysmal and allowing that to rule the industry more than it already does is pretty stupid. Its a can of worms that you really, really don't want to open.

It seems as if though there's something about "art" itself that you don't seem to understand. You see unlike most professions that require study and years of commitment to understand. For example psychiatry or engineering, if I was to pop into a surgery and start criticizing the surgeon in his/her efforts to remove a tumor, I'd be drown out and probably have the cops called on me.

But with art, there is no real doctrine that would give you the qualifications to criticize it. I can walk into a room of an artist, look at the work he/she has spent the last two months working on. Criticize it, and my criticism would still hold merit.

Actually I am an artist. I'm currently a student where I'm learning to use such programs as Maya and Zbrush, plus the Unreal engine. Oh and here's some of my work:

Spoiler

Now if I was to ask you who those this model look like, and if you were to tell me he looks Hispanic, do I have the right to get upset and say you're blind. Can't you tell it's Lando Calarrisian from Star Wars? Well I can't trust your opinion because I'm the one that's spent the last 3 weeks modeling and tweaking his face out to make it look like Billy Dee Williams. I know more about this stuff than you do.

Well anyways, the fact of the matter is NO I DON"T! As an artist I can tell you honestly an outside opinion makes all the difference, after 10 hours working on this piece I couldn't even tell if it was good or not anymore because my mind had gone numb from the work.

It's like telling a joke. You might laugh your ass off but I won't because I've probably told it a thousands times already, so the joke is no longer funny.

So another words, I completely disagree with you. Especially in this case because I know the work they were doing at Bioware was half assed at the end. And that if anything DOES merit criticism and changes being made, it's artist half assing it.

 

[Lurchibald]

--SNIP--

I know all about the indoctrination theory, In fact I was probably one of the first to get behind it (and contribute to it) as it makes a lot of sense with ME canon.

Spoiler

I think i may have been one of the first to state that considering the crucible gets blown up if you take too long to make your A, B or C ending choice makes no sense for the simple reason that The Reapers wouldn't blow it up because the Catalyst apparently controls the Reapers and your allied forces wouldn't blow it up either since, you know, they risked a lot to build it... so how does the crucible get destroyed? My thinking is that It took Shepard too long to break from (or give in to) the indoctrination and Shepard died.

 

[Hyper-space]

snip

The right to criticize something =/= The right to change it.

Just because someone provides you with criticism doesn't mean that you are automatically obligated to abide by it. That's the right of the artist, for what separates just plain criticism of the ending (which I am fine with) and the demands to change the ending is pure entitlement. We shouldn't shackle ourselves to mass-appeal, when we create something and get feedback, we have a right to take it into account in our later works or not. It would be like if you made a 3D-model of something (say an elf) and I would demand that you change it to an Orc, just because I said so.

Hell, if you chalk it up as simply "the will of the people" consider this: Last time I heard, Bioware had sold 3.5 million copies of ME3, you're asking them to change according to the feedback of 50.000 people (or 1.4 percent of everyone who bought the game).

 

[TheCommanders]

--SNIP--

I know all about the indoctrination theory, In fact I was probably one of the first to get behind it (and contribute to it) as it makes a lot of sense with ME canon.

Spoiler

I think i may have been one of the first to state that considering the crucible gets blown up if you take too long to make your A, B or C ending choice makes no sense for the simple reason that The Reapers wouldn't blow it up because the Catalyst apparently controls the Reapers and your allied forces wouldn't blow it up either since, you know, they risked a lot to build it... so how does the crucible get destroyed? My thinking is that It took Shepard too long to break from (or give in to) the indoctrination and Shepard died.

Interesting, I actually hadn't seen the part about the crucible... that's compelling evidence, but sadly, still not conclusive I guess we'll have to wait until april.

 

[Nomanslander]

That's the right of the artist.

Yes, it is the right of the artist, I completely agree with you on that. If Bioware said no, they would have all the right to stick by that decision and that ending and the fans can just go suck it if they didn't like it. But, the artist has chosen to change the ending. You can complain that he was forced to, but I don't believe in that, artist don't just decide on such things unless they general feel themselves they might have made the wrong chose. I don't think Bioware was really that sure of themselves with the ending they made. The game was wrapping up, the writers were scratching their heads on what to do, the money was running out and that's the crap they came up with. Among writers endings are always known to be painfully hard to write, and with a budget and time restrictions I truly believe the half assed it, and now that decision has come to bite them in the ass. They have decided to change it because they know what they did there was wrong, and that what I believe.

 

[Hyper-space]

That's the right of the artist.

But, the artist has chosen to change the ending. You can complain that he was forced to, but I don't believe in that, artist don't just decide on such things unless they general feel themselves they might have made the wrong chose.

No, they did it because the negative buzz has become so fucking enormous and widespread that non-gaming news outlets are reporting on it. They did it because you guys used child's play in an attempt at shaming them into changing the ending.

You do not brew up a shit-storm of this proportion and then say that you didn't force the developer. Jesus fucking Christ I wished Bioware had told all of you to just fuck off and left the ending as it is.