Why I think the ME3 fans are actually mad

[Daystar Clarion]

Ah the escapist, where one comes to make a reasoned argument, and gets Fappy making masturbation jokes

Games are supposed to be fun though, and so we should have fun no matter how much others try to suck it out of them. But I for one thinks a new age is coming!

Why do you think he's called Fappy

Single track mind, that one.

Just because you guys didn't quote me doesn't mean I don't know you are talking behind me back! Jerks! >:O

I'm surprised you could keep your hands idle enough to type that

As it turns out asari can in fact masturbate and don't require hands to accomplish the task. Does it make you feel dirty that you're conversing with someone who is currently going solo on their own nervous system?

Okay, I've taken this too far haven't I?

I'm more interested to know how you cam across such... information.

I rolled my eyes back and said, "embrace eternity".

I was not prepared for what happened next. D:

Oh yeah, that's totally the one thing you don't want embraced.

 

[RafaelNegrus]

Gamers are consumers. We choose to buy games and accept the potential risk that we will not enjoy a particular game. If we do not enjoy a particular game (for whatever reason) we are allowed to voice our discontent both in word and deed. I do not think anyone is saying that ME3 Fans should not be able to voice their discontent regarding the ending of ME3.

What I have a problem with is that some ME3 fans seem to think that their subjective feedback means Bioware has done something objectively wrong and that Bioware must cater to fan reaction post launch. You see, it is one thing to complain about a given game, or to refuse to buy another title from a given company...but it is unprecedented to demand that a developer alter their game after release to cater to any portion of its fan base.

None of us has the right to bully Bioware into answering our demands, however reasonably we couch our argument. None of us are entitled to more than our opinion about ME3. Sadly, enough people complained loudly enough that Bioware looks like it is going to cave-in on the issue with Free DLC. This, I fear, will set a dangerous precedent.

Game companies may open themselves up to after release pressure to alter their finished products. This will mean that developing a game may become even more stressful and a potentially never ending hassle for developers. Imagine them having to please EVERYONE or being pressured to re-write their games on a regular basis. Try to look at the Developers side of this problem for a moment please.

Imho, too many people look at this emerging issue in gaming solely from the perspective of the small, but vocal, section of fans displeased by the ME3 ending. If we badger game developers and demand concessions post launch, we may only succeed in alienating developers and creating more adversarial relationship between gamers and developers. why can't we just thank them for their games, voice our discontent, and then move on to trying their next game (which will likely be changed in light of negative fan reaction to their last title.)

Finally, someone to argue with. We definitely agree that people have a right to voice their displeasure, and that some people have gone too far, but we differ on a few things.

I dislike your (and many other people's) insinuation that Bioware is somehow being "forced" to change its ending. Yes, there are some people asking for a change, but Bioware is totally within its right to snub them, compare their ending to the Mona Lisa, and then release crappy DLC that has nothing to do with the ending. I don't think this would be the smartest idea, but who is forcing anyone to do anything here?

I also dislike the idea that this is all just a subjective quibble, that people don't LIKE the ending, not that the ending is necessarily BAD. I find this to be endemic in our culture (and therefore not a topic to be addressed now), but in simple point of fact there ARE actually objective measures by which one can judge these things. Take a look at this post by a screenwriter-in-training:

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10022779/1

I found this to be incredibly well-written but it is long, and he goes into detail on how exactly the ending messed up. From what I see, the ending is bad, both shallow and unfulfilling, and many people want it to be deep. Look at the Indoctrination theory, look at the theory posted by J.D. Scott on this thread, people want it to be deep and artistic and full of meaning and are willing to bend over backward to find it. If fans like that can't be satisfied, then the developers have failed, plain and simple.

And looking at it from their perspective, what are we actually asking them to do? Make good endings to good games? Why is that bad? This isn't an argument that has come up before, and I think it comes from the MASSIVE emphasis this game placed on its ending.

Let's compare to another game I greatly enjoy, Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Everyone agrees the ending on that game is extremely bad, but they didn't call for a new changed ending, most just said that the rest of the game was good and moved on. Myself, I think that's largely due to the fact that artistically, the game didn't need to have much of an ending at all, that wasn't the point. The point was to present a world that looked like a plausible future of our own world, and to ask us questions about the roles of government, corporations, and technology in our lives. It provided no answers, but if it did it would just be the developers opinions, and they probably knew this.

Mass Effect 3 however, was ALL ABOUT the ending. As soon as I heard the ending was so bad, I knew I didn't want to play it. Because that would have been the entire reason I bought the game, to see the consequences of the choices of my Shepard. I think there were enough people like that out there that this became such a big detriment to the game. So overall, no, I don't feel this is an undue burden on the developers, as making good games should be their first concern.

 

[JediMB]

This is a great thread. Tell people they're right and the big gaming companies are being mean and disrespectful and suddenly, you get 6 pages. Well done OP.

To be fair, almost any thread on the subject of ME3 should be expected to get a couple of pages worth of replies at this point in time.

Oh no, it's a regular survival of the fittest out here. 'Fittest' in this intance means 'most likely to be liked by people who think the ME3 ending only boils down to picking a color'.

So you haven't actually read the discussions that have gone on in the thread? Gotcha.

 

[Woodsey]

I've read a few similar takes on this on 4chan and they mirror my thoughts on the matter. I also heard similar statements regarding that Halper incident.

In what way does this mirror that? A bunch of publications turned around and criticised people for acting like a bunch of brainless twats to one specific individual, much of which was for work she hadn't even done.

OT: I've seen a number of articles knock the ending, but I think game journalists are simply more inclined to view the industry as an actual art medium, meaning creators generally shouldn't bend to the will of the audience (in any direct way, at least).

So, no conspiracy I'm afraid.

 

[Waaghpowa]

Let's compare to another game I greatly enjoy, Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Everyone agrees the ending on that game is extremely bad, but they didn't call for a new changed ending, most just said that the rest of the game was good and moved on. Myself, I think that's largely due to the fact that artistically, the game didn't need to have much of an ending at all, that wasn't the point. The point was to present a world that looked like a plausible future of our own world, and to ask us questions about the roles of government, corporations, and technology in our lives. It provided no answers, but if it did it would just be the developers opinions, and they probably knew this.

Though I agree with most everything you've posted, I would also like to mention that Deus Ex HR was a prequel, intended to occur not too long before the original game. They couldn't do a whole lot with the end of DX HR because the events of the first DX were going to happen no matter what you did. No matter what end you chose, the Illuminati were going to get their way.

 

[Woodsey]

Let's compare to another game I greatly enjoy, Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Everyone agrees the ending on that game is extremely bad, but they didn't call for a new changed ending, most just said that the rest of the game was good and moved on. Myself, I think that's largely due to the fact that artistically, the game didn't need to have much of an ending at all, that wasn't the point. The point was to present a world that looked like a plausible future of our own world, and to ask us questions about the roles of government, corporations, and technology in our lives. It provided no answers, but if it did it would just be the developers opinions, and they probably knew this.

To describe an ending as "extremely bad" whilst simultaneously acknowledging that it does what its supposed to seems contradictory. The ending's inelegant, but it serves its purpose to the letter. Just because everyone wanted to see the aftermath of their choice doesn't mean they should be given that over an ending which makes thematic and narrative sense, which Human Revolution's does.

To me, that's a good ending.

(Unless by 'everyone' you mean everyone but yourself.)

 

[Weaver]

I've read a few similar takes on this on 4chan and they mirror my thoughts on the matter. I also heard similar statements regarding that Halper incident.

In what way does this mirror that? A bunch of publications turned around and criticised people for acting like a bunch of brainless twats to one specific individual, much of which was for work she hadn't even done.

OT: I've seen a number of articles knock the ending, but I think game journalists are simply more inclined to view the industry as an actual art medium, meaning creators generally shouldn't bend to the will of the audience (in any direct way, at least).

So, no conspiracy I'm afraid.

It was people claiming that the outrage at Halper wasn't actually outrage at Halper, but a boiling point of complaints Bioware represses and provided no outlet for directed at an open public figure associated with the company.

Obviously it devolved into childish bullying, but I think there's some truth to it.

 

[Sutter Cane]

You know, I have actually wondered about how every single game critic has fallen in line behind the "games are art and thus may not be subject to constructive criticism or god forbid, change even"-argument. All the talk about "dangerous precedent" and whatnot seems... very one-sided, to say the least.

Of course, game journalists do have a different view on the industry than we have. But I missed a more multi-angled approach from somewhere in the writing community. I was actually holding my breath for this week's Extra Punctuation, but Yahtzee also saw "dangerous precedent" on Bioware talking about appeasing the fans.

That said, one big problem is that lots and lots of us aren't on their best behaviour. Sadly, people (on both sides of the argument) resort to the kind of language that would earn them a good punch in the nose if they employed it in an old-fashioned barstool conversation. Too many people who enjoy the internet's lack of accountability a bit too much. And those are always the loudest. And some critics get away with too much as well. I think that MovieBob person hasn't been reprimanded by the Escapist for his badmouthing the fans via Twitter since forum rules don't apply there, but since he gets to advertise his Twitter account via the magazine, you got a double standart right there. I'm not saying people should be allowed to insult and attack him here, but this kind of treatment gets people even more riled up. Which leads to more inappropriate behaviour, which leads to more bad press about the player base, and stuff goes on.

that's actually not what's being said at all by the anti-re-take crowd> What they're attempting to say isn't that you can't complain about the ending of the game, provide constructive criticism about it, and they're not even saying that the ending doesn't suck. What they are saying is that if games are to be considered art, then a cames content, story included, are the soleresult of the artistic vision/statment by the games writers adn designers, and that is is not the place for the audience to demand (and note I said demand not suggest, as those 2 words have different meanings. I have no problem with those who wish for a better ending, only those who feel entitled to one) changes to a work simply because it was not to their liking. Now if bioware decides that they do want to go back and "fix" the ending more power to them. That doesn't bother me one bit provided bioware actually feels it will make the game better, but they are not morally obligated to give you the ending you wanted. it's not (some of) the actions of the re-take ME group that I object to, but rather the mentality that many of it's followers seem to have

or to put it a slightly different way, it seems to me that many of the pro retake ME people see this as an issue of expectations and promises, while the anti-re-take people see it as an issue of authorial control.

 

[RafaelNegrus]

Let's compare to another game I greatly enjoy, Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Everyone agrees the ending on that game is extremely bad, but they didn't call for a new changed ending, most just said that the rest of the game was good and moved on. Myself, I think that's largely due to the fact that artistically, the game didn't need to have much of an ending at all, that wasn't the point. The point was to present a world that looked like a plausible future of our own world, and to ask us questions about the roles of government, corporations, and technology in our lives. It provided no answers, but if it did it would just be the developers opinions, and they probably knew this.

To describe an ending as "extremely bad" whilst simultaneously acknowledging that it does what its supposed to seems contradictory. The ending's inelegant, but it serves its purpose to the letter. Just because everyone wanted to see the aftermath of their choice doesn't mean they should be given that over an ending which makes thematic and narrative sense, which Human Revolution's does.

To me, that's a good ending.

(Unless by 'everyone' you mean everyone but yourself.)

Good point. I also agree the ending was kinda bad. You know what would have been pretty funny? If they presented you the choices, then once you made any choice the game was programmed to crash. I think THAT would have been great, funny at least

 

[darkorion69]

I took the ending of ME3 to be intentionally 'open to to fan interpretation' assuredly to maximize the potential for any particular 'Shepard's Journey' to be compatible with the conclusion of the trilogy.

When I do not like any element within a game (even the ending) I simply substitute what I choose to believe happened instead and move on. I do this primarily because it is the simplest solution requiring the least argumentation on my part. I choose to think of this choice as my artistic interpretation, as I have recently come to consider games more of an art form than as a consumer object which sometimes requires customer feedback to improve product quality.

I used to be an entitled and overly vocal gamer who misrepresented my own subjective reactions to games as objective truth (unknowingly, embarrassingly.) I think I acted that way because I used to be far more passionate about gaming. Acting entitled, and as a self proclaimed hardcore gamer made me feel elite and special. That seemed like a positive thing until I stopped and really thought about all the things I had said and all the negative reactions I had encountered over the last 20 years.

What I learned was that being arrogant, entitled, and confrontational to validate my own image as a hardcore gamer was silly. Once I stopped raging about gaming and declaring myself above this company or that game series I feel I personally matured as a gamer. I dropped my unfair dismissals of casual games, FPS games, and even (the hardest to get over) F2P games.

I guess what I am saying here is that I perceive the fans detracting the ending of ME3 as being as unreasonable and confrontational as I used to be. Above all else, I would prefer if the ME3 detractors would just relax and accept that the ME3 ending was not to their liking. Let them talk to one another about it without demanding action from Bioware to perpetuate their illusion of what they are promised in the ME Trilogy.

I think if we are moving into the era of 'games are Art'...that it is time for gamers as a whole to evolve a new sensibility within the medium. I know I (as many gamers) fear change but I think this ME3 issue is indicative of a paradigm shift in Gaming itself. If we make demands of Bioware instead of taking the chance to evolve as gamers then we do ourselves a great disservice.

In closing, to me ME3 is just a game. We all are no more or less than consumers and fans of ME3. We should be thanking Bioware and EA for a wonderful journey. We should of course voice our discontent politely and let Bioware decide what action to take. Humbly, it is not for us to dictate the course takes. If we focus on constructive criticism, and offer positive ideas instead of fan rage then developer will listen to us. Then games will only get better and better.

 

[Nimcha]

This is a great thread. Tell people they're right and the big gaming companies are being mean and disrespectful and suddenly, you get 6 pages. Well done OP.

To be fair, almost any thread on the subject of ME3 should be expected to get a couple of pages worth of replies at this point in time.

Oh no, it's a regular survival of the fittest out here. 'Fittest' in this intance means 'most likely to be liked by people who think the ME3 ending only boils down to picking a color'.

So you haven't actually read the discussions that have gone on in the thread? Gotcha.

'Discussions' is bit too much of a flattering term.

 

[RafaelNegrus]

You know, I have actually wondered about how every single game critic has fallen in line behind the "games are art and thus may not be subject to constructive criticism or god forbid, change even"-argument. All the talk about "dangerous precedent" and whatnot seems... very one-sided, to say the least.

Of course, game journalists do have a different view on the industry than we have. But I missed a more multi-angled approach from somewhere in the writing community. I was actually holding my breath for this week's Extra Punctuation, but Yahtzee also saw "dangerous precedent" on Bioware talking about appeasing the fans.

That said, one big problem is that lots and lots of us aren't on their best behaviour. Sadly, people (on both sides of the argument) resort to the kind of language that would earn them a good punch in the nose if they employed it in an old-fashioned barstool conversation. Too many people who enjoy the internet's lack of accountability a bit too much. And those are always the loudest. And some critics get away with too much as well. I think that MovieBob person hasn't been reprimanded by the Escapist for his badmouthing the fans via Twitter since forum rules don't apply there, but since he gets to advertise his Twitter account via the magazine, you got a double standart right there. I'm not saying people should be allowed to insult and attack him here, but this kind of treatment gets people even more riled up. Which leads to more inappropriate behaviour, which leads to more bad press about the player base, and stuff goes on.

that's actually not what's being said at all by the anti-re-take crowd> What they're attempting to say isn't that you can't complain about the ending of the game, provide constructive criticism about it, and they're not even saying that the ending doesn't suck. What they are saying is that if games are to be considered art, then a cames content, story included, are the soleresult of the artistic vision/statment by the games writers adn designers, and that is is not the place for the audience to demand (and note I said demand not suggest, as those 2 words have different meanings. I have no problem with those who wish for a better ending, only those who feel entitled to one) changes to a work simply because it was not to their liking. Now if bioware decides that they do want to go back and "fix" the ending more power to them. That doesn't bother me one bit provided bioware actually feels it will make the game better, but they are not morally obligated to give you the ending you wanted. it's not (some of) the actions of the re-take ME group that I object to, but rather the mentality that many of it's followers seem to have

or to put it a slightly different way, it seems to me that many of the pro retake ME people see this as an issue of expectations and promises, while the anti-re-take people see it as an issue of authorial control.

I think that as soon as Mass Effect was released for money instead of just for free, we know that the intention is not a purely artistic one, and that money and business decisions were indeed part of it. It could indeed be possible that this ending was chosen for some reason that's too big and deep for any of us to appreciate, or it was chosen because people knew it would be a controversial decision and would garner them quite a bit of free publicity. Unless we know the inner workings of all those decisions, all we can do is judge the end product on its own merits.

The "games are art and we're artists so you can't judge our art" is a weak excuse. Just because games on the whole might be considered art, any one game is not necessarily art. Writing is generally considered to be an art, and yet do we think of these forum posts as art? What about Twilight? And in the realm of games there are many that I wouldn't consider art. I love the Super Smash Brothers games, but they definitely aren't art. If they want us to think of their games in terms of that, then it has to be worthy of that title.

 

[JediMB]

This is a great thread. Tell people they're right and the big gaming companies are being mean and disrespectful and suddenly, you get 6 pages. Well done OP.

To be fair, almost any thread on the subject of ME3 should be expected to get a couple of pages worth of replies at this point in time.

Oh no, it's a regular survival of the fittest out here. 'Fittest' in this intance means 'most likely to be liked by people who think the ME3 ending only boils down to picking a color'.

So you haven't actually read the discussions that have gone on in the thread? Gotcha.

'Discussions' is bit too much of a flattering term.

That's an interesting response.

*takes notes*

I think that's all I need to know.

 

[Fappy]

This is a great thread. Tell people they're right and the big gaming companies are being mean and disrespectful and suddenly, you get 6 pages. Well done OP.

To be fair, almost any thread on the subject of ME3 should be expected to get a couple of pages worth of replies at this point in time.

Oh no, it's a regular survival of the fittest out here. 'Fittest' in this intance means 'most likely to be liked by people who think the ME3 ending only boils down to picking a color'.

So you haven't actually read the discussions that have gone on in the thread? Gotcha.

'Discussions' is bit too much of a flattering term.

This statement is quite literally dripping with venom. Just because there aren't many people in your camp being represented in this thread doesn't make it any less relevant than any other thread on this topic. If you want to add more discussion value spend your time arguing points, not belittling participants of the thread.

 

[Sutter Cane]

You know, I have actually wondered about how every single game critic has fallen in line behind the "games are art and thus may not be subject to constructive criticism or god forbid, change even"-argument. All the talk about "dangerous precedent" and whatnot seems... very one-sided, to say the least.

Of course, game journalists do have a different view on the industry than we have. But I missed a more multi-angled approach from somewhere in the writing community. I was actually holding my breath for this week's Extra Punctuation, but Yahtzee also saw "dangerous precedent" on Bioware talking about appeasing the fans.

That said, one big problem is that lots and lots of us aren't on their best behaviour. Sadly, people (on both sides of the argument) resort to the kind of language that would earn them a good punch in the nose if they employed it in an old-fashioned barstool conversation. Too many people who enjoy the internet's lack of accountability a bit too much. And those are always the loudest. And some critics get away with too much as well. I think that MovieBob person hasn't been reprimanded by the Escapist for his badmouthing the fans via Twitter since forum rules don't apply there, but since he gets to advertise his Twitter account via the magazine, you got a double standart right there. I'm not saying people should be allowed to insult and attack him here, but this kind of treatment gets people even more riled up. Which leads to more inappropriate behaviour, which leads to more bad press about the player base, and stuff goes on.

that's actually not what's being said at all by the anti-re-take crowd> What they're attempting to say isn't that you can't complain about the ending of the game, provide constructive criticism about it, and they're not even saying that the ending doesn't suck. What they are saying is that if games are to be considered art, then a cames content, story included, are the soleresult of the artistic vision/statment by the games writers adn designers, and that is is not the place for the audience to demand (and note I said demand not suggest, as those 2 words have different meanings. I have no problem with those who wish for a better ending, only those who feel entitled to one) changes to a work simply because it was not to their liking. Now if bioware decides that they do want to go back and "fix" the ending more power to them. That doesn't bother me one bit provided bioware actually feels it will make the game better, but they are not morally obligated to give you the ending you wanted. it's not (some of) the actions of the re-take ME group that I object to, but rather the mentality that many of it's followers seem to have

or to put it a slightly different way, it seems to me that many of the pro retake ME people see this as an issue of expectations and promises, while the anti-re-take people see it as an issue of authorial control.

I think that as soon as Mass Effect was released for money instead of just for free, we know that the intention is not a purely artistic one, and that money and business decisions were indeed part of it. It could indeed be possible that this ending was chosen for some reason that's too big and deep for any of us to appreciate, or it was chosen because people knew it would be a controversial decision and would garner them quite a bit of free publicity. Unless we know the inner workings of all those decisions, all we can do is judge the end product on its own merits.

The "games are art and we're artists so you can't judge our art" is a weak excuse. Just because games on the whole might be considered art, any one game is not necessarily art. Writing is generally considered to be an art, and yet do we think of these forum posts as art? What about Twilight? And in the realm of games there are many that I wouldn't consider art. I love the Super Smash Brothers games, but they definitely aren't art. If they want us to think of their games in terms of that, then it has to be worthy of that title.

I'm sorry, I can't agree with the sentiment that since it was released for purchase it can no longer be considered art. Using this definition would disqualify pretty much every great artistic film ever created (such as the works of Stanly Kubrick, or Orson Welles), the great novels such as Moby Dick the works of mark twain, leo tolstoy, etc., and even the majority of paintings as artists sell those to make a living. Whether or not something is sold for a profit has little at all to do with whether it is art or not

 

[RafaelNegrus]

I took the ending of ME3 to be intentionally 'open to to fan interpretation' assuredly to maximize the potential for any particular 'Shepard's Journey' to be compatible with the conclusion of the trilogy.

When I do not like any element within a game (even the ending) I simply substitute what I choose to believe happened instead and move on. I do this primarily because it is the simplest solution requiring the least argumentation on my part. I choose to think of this choice as my artistic interpretation, as I have recently come to consider games more of an art form than as a consumer object which sometimes requires customer feedback to improve product quality.

I used to be an entitled and overly vocal gamer who misrepresented my own subjective reactions to games as objective truth (unknowingly, embarrassingly.) I think I acted that way because I used to be far more passionate about gaming. Acting entitled, and as a self proclaimed hardcore gamer made me feel elite and special. That seemed like a positive thing until I stopped and really thought about all the things I had said and all the negative reactions I had encountered over the last 20 years.

What I learned was that being arrogant, entitled, and confrontational to validate my own image as a hardcore gamer was silly. Once I stopped raging about gaming and declaring myself above this company or that game series I feel I personally matured as a gamer. I dropped my unfair dismissals of casual games, FPS games, and even (the hardest to get over) F2P games.

I guess what I am saying here is that I perceive the fans detracting the ending of ME3 as being as unreasonable and confrontational as I used to be. Above all else, I would prefer if the ME3 detractors would just relax and accept that the ME3 ending was not to their liking. Let them talk to one another about it without demanding action from Bioware to perpetuate their illusion of what they are promised in the ME Trilogy.

I think if we are moving into the era of 'games are Art'...that it is time for gamers as a whole to evolve a new sensibility within the medium. I know I (as many gamers) fear change but I think this ME3 issue is indicative of a paradigm shift in Gaming itself. If we make demands of Bioware instead of taking the chance to evolve as gamers then we do ourselves a great disservice.

In closing, to me ME3 is just a game. We all are no more or less than consumers and fans of ME3. We should be thanking Bioware and EA for a wonderful journey. We should of course voice our discontent politely and let Bioware decide what action to take. Humbly, it is not for us to dictate the course takes. If we focus on constructive criticism, and offer positive ideas instead of fan rage then developer will listen to us. Then games will only get better and better.

I think the problem is that developers AREN'T listening to the polite and constructive criticism, nobody official is, and the only way to even get them to acknowledge fans opinions is to be over-the-top. Do you think that if fans had just politely said that this ending is not very fulfilling that Bioware would have said ANYTHING?

And even if we label them as art, that doesn't mean we can no longer judge them. There are book critics and movie critics and art critics and they definitely do judge the things that they look at, if anything having those mediums be called art and having pieces within those mediums strive to be great art makes them come under even more scrutiny. "Art" is not an excuse, it's a standard. For companies to claim that being art makes their products beyond the pale of critique is to cheapen the term art. (Also, I'm guessing you never even looked at my link, which I would like to cite as another example of people not paying attention to polite and constructive criticism when it is given, honestly the guy writes it like its an assignment for class, you should give it a look)

And that's great that you've become more mellow as time has gone on. There is definitely a way to go overboard on these things and many people have. But at the same time I'm sure you can recognize that the use of terms like "arrogant, entitled, and confrontational" can be rather disheartening. I know that in this thread I have tried to be anything but those things, and mainly to use this debacle to take a look at the gaming community and see what fractures it has exposed. However, this is a discussion that the vast majority of official sources do not want to have, and instead revert to calling their fans "arrogant, entitled, and confrontational." If one wishes to find calm, rational, reasoned discussions on this there are quite a few cool heads out there, but those voices are silenced.

 

[RafaelNegrus]

You know, I have actually wondered about how every single game critic has fallen in line behind the "games are art and thus may not be subject to constructive criticism or god forbid, change even"-argument. All the talk about "dangerous precedent" and whatnot seems... very one-sided, to say the least.

Of course, game journalists do have a different view on the industry than we have. But I missed a more multi-angled approach from somewhere in the writing community. I was actually holding my breath for this week's Extra Punctuation, but Yahtzee also saw "dangerous precedent" on Bioware talking about appeasing the fans.

That said, one big problem is that lots and lots of us aren't on their best behaviour. Sadly, people (on both sides of the argument) resort to the kind of language that would earn them a good punch in the nose if they employed it in an old-fashioned barstool conversation. Too many people who enjoy the internet's lack of accountability a bit too much. And those are always the loudest. And some critics get away with too much as well. I think that MovieBob person hasn't been reprimanded by the Escapist for his badmouthing the fans via Twitter since forum rules don't apply there, but since he gets to advertise his Twitter account via the magazine, you got a double standart right there. I'm not saying people should be allowed to insult and attack him here, but this kind of treatment gets people even more riled up. Which leads to more inappropriate behaviour, which leads to more bad press about the player base, and stuff goes on.

that's actually not what's being said at all by the anti-re-take crowd> What they're attempting to say isn't that you can't complain about the ending of the game, provide constructive criticism about it, and they're not even saying that the ending doesn't suck. What they are saying is that if games are to be considered art, then a cames content, story included, are the soleresult of the artistic vision/statment by the games writers adn designers, and that is is not the place for the audience to demand (and note I said demand not suggest, as those 2 words have different meanings. I have no problem with those who wish for a better ending, only those who feel entitled to one) changes to a work simply because it was not to their liking. Now if bioware decides that they do want to go back and "fix" the ending more power to them. That doesn't bother me one bit provided bioware actually feels it will make the game better, but they are not morally obligated to give you the ending you wanted. it's not (some of) the actions of the re-take ME group that I object to, but rather the mentality that many of it's followers seem to have

or to put it a slightly different way, it seems to me that many of the pro retake ME people see this as an issue of expectations and promises, while the anti-re-take people see it as an issue of authorial control.

I think that as soon as Mass Effect was released for money instead of just for free, we know that the intention is not a purely artistic one, and that money and business decisions were indeed part of it. It could indeed be possible that this ending was chosen for some reason that's too big and deep for any of us to appreciate, or it was chosen because people knew it would be a controversial decision and would garner them quite a bit of free publicity. Unless we know the inner workings of all those decisions, all we can do is judge the end product on its own merits.

The "games are art and we're artists so you can't judge our art" is a weak excuse. Just because games on the whole might be considered art, any one game is not necessarily art. Writing is generally considered to be an art, and yet do we think of these forum posts as art? What about Twilight? And in the realm of games there are many that I wouldn't consider art. I love the Super Smash Brothers games, but they definitely aren't art. If they want us to think of their games in terms of that, then it has to be worthy of that title.

I'm sorry, I can't agree with the sentiment that since it was released for purchase it can no longer be considered art. Using this definition would disqualify pretty much every great artistic film ever created (such as the works of Stanly Kubrick, or Orson Welles), the great novels such as Moby Dick the works of mark twain, etc., and even the majority of paintings as artists sell those to make a living. Whether or not something is sold for a profit has little at all to do with whether it is art or not

I don't think it disqualifies them from being thought of as art, what it does is muddy their intentions. If I paint a picture and hand it out for free, then we can assume rather easily that I painted it for many reasons we associate with art, that I wanted to express something or depict something etc. If someone asks me to make it, then that's a little less cut and dried. If someone asks me to make it, with the intent to sell it for a profit that makes it even less cut and dried. If that person asks me to make it, intends to sell it, and has an influence over the creative process, then the line between artistic decisions and business ones are very fine indeed. This article actually says it better than I:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/03/27/mass-effect-3-and-corporate-influence-over-commercial-art/

And I am not trying to say that objects made to be sold can't be considered art, what I'm trying to say is that if things are sold for a profit then we can't know all the intentions of the creator and must therefore judge the object by its own merits. I think Bioshock can be considered art, not because of its medium or its creator but because of what it depicts, how it went about depicting that, and how it opened up new realms of thought in my own mind.

 

[Zeraki]

I've become very jaded towards the gaming community as a whole lately. People who have reasonable critiques about the game are completely ignored and are often times insulted by those who really aren't affected by the situation. Take Movie Bob's response for instance, insulting the entire fanbase because they happen to have something in common with the idiots who demanded their money back from a charity they donated to.

And lets not get started on this "artistic integrity" crap. Next time Movie Bob goes frothing at the mouth about a Michael Bay movie, he should be reminded of Michael Bay's "artistic integrity" to do what he wants with the movie, and that his complaining is setting the movie industry back as an "art form".

I don't need my video games to be "art", I need them to distract me from the things in my life that make me need to take anti-depressants just to function every day. A bit dramatic I admit, but I'm just sick and tired of all of this crap.