Why I think the ME3 fans are actually mad

[ralfy]

No it isn't. There's nothing badly made about that game whatsoever except the ending you didn't like. And here's the thing, if you don't think it's well made, stop buying Bioware's stuff. I stopped buying Capcom and Konami's stuff because it's all crap (and fighting games).

It has nothing to do with whether or not I like the ending. It has to do with whether or not the C&Cs throughout the game significantly affect the ending.

The rest of your paragraph has nothing to do with the first part of the paragraph or my argument!

Your assumption is that your C&Cs exist in a vacuum. Even with those endings, assuming you didn't kill them on the red side or with C&Cs that the Geth and Quarians are living together on Rannoch, the Krogan are busy repopulating Tuchanka, and Joker and EDI are happy whereever the heck that crashed. Since no matter what ending you got the crew survived, so apparently the galaxy didn't get utterly destroyed. Do you have to be shown something for it to have happened?

It's the other way round! My assumption is that C&Cs DON'T exist in a vacuum. That's why they have to affect the outcome of the ending. YOUR assumption is that C&Cs exist in a vacuum, which is why the ending doesn't matter.

What's funny is that I don't even really need to justify the ending. It doesn't matter. They could have shown a happy face smiley, and some mismangled english like "YOU ARE MASS EFFECT 3 BEST PLAEYR EVER" like some terrible NES import from 1987 and they don't owe you a damn thing. You're welcome to return the thing, and some people did. Or keep it and complain, which a lot of people did. However, attempting to force Bioware to cave to "demands" is utterly ridiculous.

What's more ridiculous is the implication of your argument, that because developers will not "cave [in] to 'demands'" then gamers shouldn't complain. Given that, we might as well say that all games are fine!

This makes no sense. We evaluate games with multiple factors all the time. A lot of reviews judge games on things like graphics, sound, gameplay, replay value, etc. Sometimes great games have terrible music. Resonance of Fate was a pretty good game with some horrible VA (even Nolan North was pretty bad). KOA:Reckoning is a great game that happens to be way too easy (the last boss is pathetic). A lot of SquareSoft games are pretty and sound good, and some of them have terrible gameplay issues.

This makes absolutely ZERO sense. You DON'T evaluate games based on multiple factors. You evaluate games based on the developers' ability to use these factors and come up with something coherent. The same applies to books, movies, and even music. Otherwise, you might as well conclude that every game is good and bad, or following your first point (that since developers won't listen, then we might as well not complain) all games are good!

That's what a midline score is for. In your world, games either get a really high score or zero? Some of the game reviews were a little too high, but even with the mess, it would be hard to find a sane game reviewer who takes this game below 80/100 (or equivalent) even with the value of hindsight.

That still doesn't explain why most gamers are angry about this game. I think my explanation is better: the C&Cs, which are very likely the main aspect of this game (selecting allies, gathering war assets, etc.), hardly affected the ending except in "small ways." And that makes this a badly-made game. They can increase graphics capabilities, add more sceneries, and even add more characters, dialogue, and missions, and these won't fix this problem.

Who said developers don't listen? Apparently, the Bioware team listens all the time - perhaps even too much. They created DLC and changed some character arcs based on fan suggestions. Apparently a lot of you think the amount of fan interaction and listening Bioware does has given you permission to do some of the things you've been doing.

Wait a minute: didn't you imply otherwise in your own message? See the quotes above. What, are you now going against your own views?

If Bioware didn't listen to you guys, they'd be Capcom. Trust me, go talk to all those Mega Man fans who feel like Yoshitori Ono and the rest of guys at Capcom have not only been not listening but actually trolling them for the last year or so. Bioware has been listening the entire time, but the thing is, the correct response to being ignored IS NOT ESCALATION. Just because they don't give you what you want, doesn't give you carte blanche to yell and scream louder. You know that annoying kid in the grocery line who wants skittles, and when his/her mom says no, they start screaming, and when that doesn't work, they yell no and start throwing items out of that cart? THAT'S PEOPLE LIKE YOU. It may not be you, but there are people on your side of the fence who are doing that. You should be beating them down, because not only does it make all of you, and all of gaming look absolutely terrible, and give noted anti-gaming bastions like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times permission to make gamers look like indolent jacka**es, but it also doesn't help your cause because if I were the guys at Bioware, I wouldn't want to spend a hundred grand worth of salaries and other expenses to help people like that.

OK, so we can't complain because they won't listen, but because they listen a lot we shouldn't complain? Or should we complain "correctly" given that they make "a hundred grand worth of salaries and other expenses"? And that that also imply that if we made the same money and had the same expenses then we can complain, too? Of course, we can also argue that anyone who makes such money and has such expenses but complains is probably an "anti-gamer".

Give me a break.

 

[J.d. Scott]

What an utter mess. You're not good at the whole reading thing.

No it isn't. There's nothing badly made about that game whatsoever except the ending you didn't like. And here's the thing, if you don't think it's well made, stop buying Bioware's stuff. I stopped buying Capcom and Konami's stuff because it's all crap (and fighting games).

It has nothing to do with whether or not I like the ending. It has to do with whether or not the C&Cs throughout the game significantly affect the ending.

The rest of your paragraph has nothing to do with the first part of the paragraph or my argument!

I actually kinda misinterpreted your argument. I thought you didn't like the game (you said it wasn't well-made), but you'll only accept the game if the ending does what you want it to. Do you spend your life in perpetual disappointment? Beyond that, it's almost totally impossible without a complete rewrite. You're in for a bad day, even when Bioware does whatever it wants to do. They'd almost have to scrap the EMS/TMS system to meet your needs. I'm not saying you can't plug away, but your chances are less then zero.

Your assumption is that your C&Cs exist in a vacuum. Even with those endings, assuming you didn't kill them on the red side or with C&Cs that the Geth and Quarians are living together on Rannoch, the Krogan are busy repopulating Tuchanka, and Joker and EDI are happy whereever the heck that crashed. Since no matter what ending you got the crew survived, so apparently the galaxy didn't get utterly destroyed. Do you have to be shown something for it to have happened?

It's the other way round! My assumption is that C&Cs DON'T exist in a vacuum. That's why they have to affect the outcome of the ending. YOUR assumption is that C&Cs exist in a vacuum, which is why the ending doesn't matter.

I think you've still got it backwards. What I'm suggesting is just because they never showed you Krogans giving live birth, or the Geth's and Quarians terraforming Rannoch (or the opposites), immediately after the fact or as part of the ending doesn't mean it isn't happening. I think you just want a visual to confirm something that the game said was true and never said anything to make you question after the fact.

It's maybe not the same as a warm hug, but I think too much happiness would screw the tonal quality of the narrative.

What's funny is that I don't even really need to justify the ending. It doesn't matter. They could have shown a happy face smiley, and some mismangled english like "YOU ARE MASS EFFECT 3 BEST PLAEYR EVER" like some terrible NES import from 1987 and they don't owe you a damn thing. You're welcome to return the thing, and some people did. Or keep it and complain, which a lot of people did. However, attempting to force Bioware to cave to "demands" is utterly ridiculous.

What's more ridiculous is the implication of your argument, that because developers will not "cave [in] to 'demands'" then gamers shouldn't complain. Given that, we might as well say that all games are fine!

You're misintepreting me. I never said they wouldn't cave into fan demands - that would make no sense - they already have said they're going to alter the ending in some way. What I'm saying is that they don't have to, no matter how egregious the ending. They're entitled to make the ending whatever they want, and modify it in any way that they want. It's their narrative. They don't have to read any one of your posts, no matter how many cupcakes you buy. They certainly could.

You're definitely allowed to complain as much as you want. Trust me, if there was a direct line to Squaresoft, I'd be complaining to them about the endings to Deus Ex: HR and FFXIII (both of them, honestly) If this were just a series of complaints, and Bioware decided on their own to modify the ending - good for you guys. I may not agree with the rewrite, but that's my problem, not yours. The issue that I have is that I feel like gamers have attempted to force a company and a group of artists to modify a product that isn't broken against their will.

You may think the ending is broken (or not well-made, as you say), but it's not. It's just not good, and that opinion is subjective. I like the ending, for all it's flaws.

This makes no sense. We evaluate games with multiple factors all the time. A lot of reviews judge games on things like graphics, sound, gameplay, replay value, etc. Sometimes great games have terrible music. Resonance of Fate was a pretty good game with some horrible VA (even Nolan North was pretty bad). KOA:Reckoning is a great game that happens to be way too easy (the last boss is pathetic). A lot of SquareSoft games are pretty and sound good, and some of them have terrible gameplay issues.

This makes absolutely ZERO sense. You DON'T evaluate games based on multiple factors. You evaluate games based on the developers' ability to use these factors and come up with something coherent. The same applies to books, movies, and even music. Otherwise, you might as well conclude that every game is good and bad, or following your first point (that since developers won't listen, then we might as well not complain) all games are good!

You seem to think if there's no story, there's no game. I don't particular get that. Maybe it's just growing up in the "silver age" of gaming, where there was games with no discernible story. Serious Sam? Doom? Quake? Final Fantasy 1? There's a million games with no real plot besides you're a good guy, and you need to either kill everything that looks bad, or get to point X to solve issue. What about high concept games like Lumines, Journey, Flower, Rez, etc? Most of those games don't have a whole lot of plot at all?

On the flip side, ever played Lost Odyssey? You could have a strategy guide and the developers notes and script with you and still not make heads or tails out of the damn thing. The story's utter nonsense. Still a pretty neat game.

While story is an element of a good game, there's more to it then that. And it isn't like ME3 tells a bad story. I actually found it interesting to realize I was playing part of a mythos, and while I have a fondness and affinity towards my particular Shepard, there's nothing that says that that particular Shepard is correct, or that any set of choices are right. On a psychological level, it's interesting to experience that critical detachment.

That's what a midline score is for. In your world, games either get a really high score or zero? Some of the game reviews were a little too high, but even with the mess, it would be hard to find a sane game reviewer who takes this game below 80/100 (or equivalent) even with the value of hindsight.

That still doesn't explain why most gamers are angry about this game. I think my explanation is better: the C&Cs, which are very likely the main aspect of this game (selecting allies, gathering war assets, etc.), hardly affected the ending except in "small ways." And that makes this a badly-made game. They can increase graphics capabilities, add more sceneries, and even add more characters, dialogue, and missions, and these won't fix this problem.

I think the biggest issue most gamers have was the shock of not getting the really personalized ending they really wanted, and in fact getting the opposite - they found out that they were only special snowflakes in their own minds. I think Bioware overplayed the "fans as cowriters" idea, especially if they knew they were going to do this. People expected that their ending would be personalized to them - they connected to the character choices and wanted something that showed that they were the correct Shepard. What they got was the harsh reality that their Shepard was probably just one of a billion retellings of the "Shepard Mythos", forged from a lack of concrete details about just who the "Real Shepard" was.

It's sort of like in "Moon", when the main character realizes he's not the real person, but a clone, and his memories were artifically forged from the memories of the real person. There's a natural sadness and anger when you realize that what you thought was special and individual is not.

Part of the reason your C&Cs can't affect the ending is that it ruins their narrative. If there are concrete points you can see in the future from each of your choices, it ruins the idea that you're just playing a retelling of a myth. If there's facts, then some story has to be correct, and all the others have to be wrong. That's also why some choices are made for you.

Personally, it's a neat idea and a rather ballsy one. So many games either have one linear plot, or go back way after the fact and invalidate some of the choices that were able to be made just to be able to advance the narrative. Bioware made it so all your choices are exactly what they always were - choices in a story filtered through your personal lens. It's very interesting and kinda liberating to look back at the choices offered, go "What Would Shepard Do?" and realize the you and every other player has no clue.

Of course, it was bound to tick people off, but that's art. If you ever do get to where I am on this, this ending will seem way more thought provoking and interesting and wonderful then having an ending similar to 2, where it was - if do A, then get B.

Plus, there's a lot of gamers who expected a happy warm ending where Shepard saved the universe and killed the Reapers (and turned them into ice cream, perhaps). Those people are definitely up a creek on this.

Who said developers don't listen? Apparently, the Bioware team listens all the time - perhaps even too much. They created DLC and changed some character arcs based on fan suggestions. Apparently a lot of you think the amount of fan interaction and listening Bioware does has given you permission to do some of the things you've been doing.

Wait a minute: didn't you imply otherwise in your own message? See the quotes above. What, are you now going against your own views?

You're misinterpreting me. Some developers listen and some don't.

However, there's no requirement that Bioware (or any developer) listen to their fanbase, and there's no requirement that they honor your concerns with a response, either in an official statement or by modifying the ending.

In an example I gave later in the previous post, Capcom's basically ignored Mega Man fans, insulted them, trolled them in SFxTekken, and won't listen at all. We know Capcom developers read Capcom Unity, since some of them post on there regularly (especially SF's Seth Killian, who used to be a user when he played competitively). However, they don't listen and they don't have to.

If Bioware didn't listen to you guys, they'd be Capcom. Trust me, go talk to all those Mega Man fans who feel like Yoshitori Ono and the rest of guys at Capcom have not only been not listening but actually trolling them for the last year or so. Bioware has been listening the entire time, but the thing is, the correct response to being ignored IS NOT ESCALATION. Just because they don't give you what you want, doesn't give you carte blanche to yell and scream louder. You know that annoying kid in the grocery line who wants skittles, and when his/her mom says no, they start screaming, and when that doesn't work, they yell no and start throwing items out of that cart? THAT'S PEOPLE LIKE YOU. It may not be you, but there are people on your side of the fence who are doing that. You should be beating them down, because not only does it make all of you, and all of gaming look absolutely terrible, and give noted anti-gaming bastions like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times permission to make gamers look like indolent jacka**es, but it also doesn't help your cause because if I were the guys at Bioware, I wouldn't want to spend a hundred grand worth of salaries and other expenses to help people like that.

OK, so we can't complain because they won't listen, but because they listen a lot we shouldn't complain? Or should we complain "correctly" given that they make "a hundred grand worth of salaries and other expenses"? And that that also imply that if we made the same money and had the same expenses then we can complain, too? Of course, we can also argue that anyone who makes such money and has such expenses but complains is probably an "anti-gamer".

Give me a break.

Man, you really read things wrong. I think you're just looking for excuses to try and bite my head off or make it look like I'm double-talking or elitist. Or maybe you're just used to yelling "WE...ARE..THE NINETY-NINE PERCENT!" a little too much.

I never said they wouldn't listen - I said they don't have to. That's it. They can if they want to, but the choice belongs to them. Obviously, they do listen to fans, since they are altering the ending (at least, that's what they said), and they've created DLC based on fan suggestions. If they do listen, great. If they don't, and here's the thing, the community is not in the right to try and force them to listen. Just because they listened in the past doesn't mean they had to listen this time.

As for the "100 grand", based on the cost of producing DLC (which is fairly readily available - I got the number from an episode of Extra Credits), that's roughly the cost of a triple-A development team per month. I'd like to believe they can create a new ending in 30 days or less. It was just an estimate. It wasn't any particular salary - it was the cost of all the salaries and other costs necessary to produce a new ending.

That's rather expensive. Since developers don't really make all that much per copy - the cost of producing a new game will really eat away at their bottom line, for the game and the quarter. Could also affect their stock price.

 

[ralfy]

What an utter mess. You're not good at the whole reading thing.

See my next point.

I actually kinda misinterpreted your argument. I thought you didn't like the game (you said it wasn't well-made), but you'll only accept the game if the ending does what you want it to. Do you spend your life in perpetual disappointment? Beyond that, it's almost totally impossible without a complete rewrite. You're in for a bad day, even when Bioware does whatever it wants to do. They'd almost have to scrap the EMS/TMS system to meet your needs. I'm not saying you can't plug away, but your chances are less then zero.

How am I "not good at the whole reading thing" when you just stated that you "kinda misinterpreted [my] argument"?

"Spend your life in perpetual disappointment?" I don't see the point behind such melodramatic statements.

A complete rewrite? Scrap the EMS/TMS system? Probably not. One forum member came up with a very good suggestion in another thread, and I think that won't require such.

Less than zero? As Bioware already reported that they will be coming up with a DLC. Certainly not less than zero.

I think you've still got it backwards. What I'm suggesting is just because they never showed you Krogans giving live birth, or the Geth's and Quarians terraforming Rannoch (or the opposites), immediately after the fact or as part of the ending doesn't mean it isn't happening. I think you just want a visual to confirm something that the game said was true and never said anything to make you question after the fact.

Are you suggesting that we just imagine whatever was not shown visually? If so, then any criticism of any game would be a waste of time given imagination!

It's maybe not the same as a warm hug, but I think too much happiness would screw the tonal quality of the narrative.

The ending doesn't have to be the same as a "warm hug".

If too much is shown, then it "would screw the total quality of the narrative"? The idea is not to show more but to ensure that the ending is significantly influenced by C&C. Of course, if one can just imagine what is lacking, then there'd be no reason to complain.

You're misintepreting me. I never said they wouldn't cave into fan demands - that would make no sense - they already have said they're going to alter the ending in some way. What I'm saying is that they don't have to, no matter how egregious the ending. They're entitled to make the ending whatever they want, and modify it in any way that they want. It's their narrative. They don't have to read any one of your posts, no matter how many cupcakes you buy. They certainly could.

Actually, you insisted in your earlier message that gamers shouldn't complain because developers won't listen.

And the first sentence contradicts the rest of your paragraph.

You're definitely allowed to complain as much as you want. Trust me, if there was a direct line to Squaresoft, I'd be complaining to them about the endings to Deus Ex: HR and FFXIII (both of them, honestly) If this were just a series of complaints, and Bioware decided on their own to modify the ending - good for you guys. I may not agree with the rewrite, but that's my problem, not yours. The issue that I have is that I feel like gamers have attempted to force a company and a group of artists to modify a product that isn't broken against their will.

In the first part of your paragraph, you state that you have complaints about the endings of various games and you'd like to see them changed, but in the last part of the paragraph you think it is an "issue" for gamers to attempt "to force a company" to "modify a product that isn't broken" (your opinion?), which goes against what you wrote at the beginning of your paragraph!

If you think a game isn't broken, then it becomes wrong for gamers to complain about it. But if you think a game is broken, then they are right in complaining.

You may think the ending is broken (or not well-made, as you say), but it's not. It's just not good, and that opinion is subjective. I like the ending, for all it's flaws.

Why not go directly to this point? That is, explain why the ending is "just not good" and what those "flaws" are, and at the same time argue why the ending shouldn't be changed? Why waste my time with all sorts of assertions about developers not listening, etc., all of which you ended up contradicting in your subsequent posts?

You seem to think if there's no story, there's no game. I don't particular get that. Maybe it's just growing up in the "silver age" of gaming, where there was games with no discernible story. Serious Sam? Doom? Quake? Final Fantasy 1? There's a million games with no real plot besides you're a good guy, and you need to either kill everything that looks bad, or get to point X to solve issue. What about high concept games like Lumines, Journey, Flower, Rez, etc? Most of those games don't have a whole lot of plot at all?

Bad ending = no story????

This is a space opera game! It has to have a story. Or are you imagining something like BF2 in space, with a couple of missions played single-player or online, with players' ranks increasing and weapons unlocks? Will that be the same as the ME3 that has just been released?

On the flip side, ever played Lost Odyssey? You could have a strategy guide and the developers notes and script with you and still not make heads or tails out of the damn thing. The story's utter nonsense. Still a pretty neat game.

Are you implying that instead of fixing the ending, the developers can instead come up with a strategy guide and notes and script for the game?

While story is an element of a good game, there's more to it then that. And it isn't like ME3 tells a bad story. I actually found it interesting to realize I was playing part of a mythos, and while I have a fondness and affinity towards my particular Shepard, there's nothing that says that that particular Shepard is correct, or that any set of choices are right. On a psychological level, it's interesting to experience that critical detachment.

Of course, there's more to it, but because this is a space opera adventure coupled with a shooter and some RPG elements, then the important aspects to consider are the story, the combat system, and the RPG system. Anything else becomes secondary.

The reference to reacting to the work on a "pyschological level" is notable, but it doesn't counter my arguments.

I think the biggest issue most gamers have was the shock of not getting the really personalized ending they really wanted, and in fact getting the opposite - they found out that they were only special snowflakes in their own minds. I think Bioware overplayed the "fans as cowriters" idea, especially if they knew they were going to do this. People expected that their ending would be personalized to them - they connected to the character choices and wanted something that showed that they were the correct Shepard. What they got was the harsh reality that their Shepard was probably just one of a billion retellings of the "Shepard Mythos", forged from a lack of concrete details about just who the "Real Shepard" was.

Again, it's not a personalized ending that's needed but one that follows from the C&Cs made throughout the game. That's why gamers hardly complained about the first two games.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the company seeing fans as cowriters but with an ending that hardly follows from the C&Cs. Again, one should see this in light of the previous ME games.

Billion retellings? Not needed given the reception towards the first two games.

It's sort of like in "Moon", when the main character realizes he's not the real person, but a clone, and his memories were artifically forged from the memories of the real person. There's a natural sadness and anger when you realize that what you thought was special and individual is not.

Let's stick to this game. Musing over science fiction films in light of this just muddles the issue.

Part of the reason your C&Cs can't affect the ending is that it ruins their narrative. If there are concrete points you can see in the future from each of your choices, it ruins the idea that you're just playing a retelling of a myth. If there's facts, then some story has to be correct, and all the others have to be wrong. That's also why some choices are made for you.

It doesn't ruin the narrative because it's a computer game. In such media, what you do in one scene affects what happens in other. In fact, your character can even die, you can reload a saved game, repeat scenes, etc.

Personally, it's a neat idea and a rather ballsy one. So many games either have one linear plot, or go back way after the fact and invalidate some of the choices that were able to be made just to be able to advance the narrative. Bioware made it so all your choices are exactly what they always were - choices in a story filtered through your personal lens. It's very interesting and kinda liberating to look back at the choices offered, go "What Would Shepard Do?" and realize the you and every other player has no clue.

Some have suggested the same, i.e., the ending was made so that more DLCs can be sold. But that doesn't counter my arguments.

Of course, it was bound to tick people off, but that's art. If you ever do get to where I am on this, this ending will seem way more thought provoking and interesting and wonderful then having an ending similar to 2, where it was - if do A, then get B.

And if they did the opposite? That's not art?

Plus, there's a lot of gamers who expected a happy warm ending where Shepard saved the universe and killed the Reapers (and turned them into ice cream, perhaps). Those people are definitely up a creek on this.

It doesn't have to be a "happy warm ending," just several, and preferably influenced by C&Cs.

You're misinterpreting me. Some developers listen and some don't.

And what does this have to do with criticism concerning my arguments?

However, there's no requirement that Bioware (or any developer) listen to their fanbase, and there's no requirement that they honor your concerns with a response, either in an official statement or by modifying the ending.

Too late.

In an example I gave later in the previous post, Capcom's basically ignored Mega Man fans, insulted them, trolled them in SFxTekken, and won't listen at all. We know Capcom developers read Capcom Unity, since some of them post on there regularly (especially SF's Seth Killian, who used to be a user when he played competitively). However, they don't listen and they don't have to.

So, now you're not blaming gamers for complaining but Bioware for listening? Or are you blaming one for complaining and the other for listening? Or just the first for complaining, and by doing so forcing the second to listen?

Man, you really read things wrong. I think you're just looking for excuses to try and bite my head off or make it look like I'm double-talking or elitist. Or maybe you're just used to yelling "WE...ARE..THE NINETY-NINE PERCENT!" a little too much.

I don't think you're an elitist. Also, I don't see how this is connected to the content of my argument.

I never said they wouldn't listen - I said they don't have to. That's it. They can if they want to, but the choice belongs to them. Obviously, they do listen to fans, since they are altering the ending (at least, that's what they said), and they've created DLC based on fan suggestions. If they do listen, great. If they don't, and here's the thing, the community is not in the right to try and force them to listen. Just because they listened in the past doesn't mean they had to listen this time.

I cannot complain because that would imply that I am forcing them to listen. If I do complain and they don't listen, then I just wasted my time. If I complain and they listen, then I'm still wrong because I forced them to listen.

As for the "100 grand", based on the cost of producing DLC (which is fairly readily available - I got the number from an episode of Extra Credits), that's roughly the cost of a triple-A development team per month. I'd like to believe they can create a new ending in 30 days or less. It was just an estimate. It wasn't any particular salary - it was the cost of all the salaries and other costs necessary to produce a new ending.

That's rather expensive. Since developers don't really make all that much per copy - the cost of producing a new game will really eat away at their bottom line, for the game and the quarter. Could also affect their stock price.

I'm sure it's expensive, but probably not the same as producing a new game or even affecting stock prices. Not doing anything, though, will probably affect future sales, and from there stock prices.