That's great and all and I am one of the hugest supporters of the idea that games are an art form but we're in a completely new territory here when it comes to the Mass Effect franchise and gaming in general. Bioware encouraged players to take the story and make it their own. Your quote is invalid because when you play a game you cease being a "spectator" and become a "participator." They took a game that was designed to make the person playing it be a participator and then, all of a sudden in the last 5 minutes, switched it to make them a spectator.
At one point maybe a week ago there was a moment when the EA servers were down, I don't know for how long, and I actually couldn't start the game because the game couldn't "authenticate" the From Ashes DLC. It wouldn't load any save. That's bull####, even though it might have only been 15 minutes or whatever. Without the multiplayer, I'd feel tempted to torrent a cracked game that doesn't constantly check up on me.
Assassin's Creed II got hammered for its DRM, not only by users but by some critics as well. There is precedent.
That's great and all and I am one of the hugest supporters of the idea that games are an art form but we're in a completely new territory here when it comes to the Mass Effect franchise and gaming in general. Bioware encouraged players to take the story and make it their own. Your quote is invalid because when you play a game you cease being a "spectator" and become a "participator." They took a game that was designed to make the person playing it be a participator and then, all of a sudden in the last 5 minutes, switched it to make them a spectator.
No, the fact that you get to make choices within the narrative doesn't change the basic relationship between the artist and the audience. The basic principle is exactly the same as it is with all drama. Players are making demands that the artist presents them with different choices. I understand why people insist that it doesn't apply in this instance, but it remains fully in force. It's convenient to brush aside an idea that clashes with your position, but honestly you just can't.
What should make people worried is not some abstract discussion about artistic integrity but the question whether or not they are in fact "in such a spirit that [they] cannot receive any artistic impression from it at all," because as Wilde states later, it is only they who suffer. Apart from any substantial critical discussion, this should be a real concern in an atmosphere with is overwhelmingly negative, prejudiced, and where people are making demands of the game developers.
Although it has been remarkable how dismissive the discussions I've read have been about the concept of 'artistic integrity', as if it's some quaint notion that you can condescendingly deride. That's pretty interesting in itself. Like it's somehow pretentious even to suggest that those who write the drama are the authors, those who get to decide what it contains.
The audience can reject the work but they don't get to exercise authority over the work.
When it comes to aesthetics, Oscar Wilde isn't just any dead Irishman. If he says that "popular authority and the recognition of popular authority are fatal" to art, perhaps it's something we should seriously consider. His view is that those artforms that audiences are most interested in are the artforms that are most in danger of being corrupted by the "#### heads" like Yahtzee Croshaw somewhat trollingly calls them. You can't get away from the fact that when it comes to the work he produces, the artist is the only authority.
I don't really have a problem with Bioware improving their game because of critical fan reactions, but I don't think the fans are in the right state of mind to receive what Bioware will offer them, because once you start to make demands the relationship between the storyteller and the audience is destroyed and no ending will feel like a proper ending. If there are going to be any victories for the activists, they will be hollow ones. You won't get closure or any kind of catharsis unless you give the artist back his right to dictate what the story is. This is a subtle point but important. You can come up with a better ending in your head, you can write fanfiction - but you won't get a real ending unless you accept that Bioware are the ones who decide, finally and absolutely, what the ending is.
Assassin's Creed II got hammered for its DRM, not only by users but by some critics as well. There is precedent.
Bad DRM is one of those foolish things that corporations cling to even though it only hurts them. One would think that even if you retain some kind of DRM system, at least Valve's basic idea that piracy is largely an issue of access and convenience would make distributors listen to what consumers and journalists are all saying.
DRM doesn't stop the pirates who will crack the game anyway, it simply makes the product the pirates offer much more attractive. You get a game that doesn't spy on you, you get all the stupid little pieces of DLC that are either grossly overpriced or offered as bonuses through different retailers. It's not so tough to understand that that kind of DLC actually drives piracy.
And not having any kind of DRM can become a selling point in itself, like with Gog.com which I hope will grow to give Steam some serious competition someday. They're just now branching into newer games and they advertise that all their games are uniformly priced everywhere and without any DRM.
Note that there is a precedent for a developer (and a well-respected one at that!) changing the ending to their game post-release. Fallout 3's original ending was stupid and logically inconsistent with events that previously occurred in the game, so Bethesda changed it with the "Broken Steel" DLC. I see no reason why BioWare couldn't do something similar here.
Note that there is a precedent for a developer (and a well-respected one at that!) changing the ending to their game post-release. Fallout 3's original ending was stupid and logically inconsistent with events that previously occurred in the game, so Bethesda changed it with the "Broken Steel" DLC. I see no reason why BioWare couldn't do something similar here.
I don't see how that is relevant. Different game, different story, different motivation for changing it. The big change was that the player gets to continue after the main story ends, which makes a ton of sense in an open world game that keeps adding new content. That was the main motivation for it.
I don't get what "precedence" even really means here. It's not a legal issue. Of course Bioware can do whatever they want to the game. That doesn't get us off the hook with regard to the questions that make some of us worried in this instance, this particular game, this particular story. What you can change depends entirely on what you intended to express with your story and what sort of game it is. It sounds to me that the activists are calling for substantial changes to the ending, things that would change the main ideas behind the ending. And Fallout doesn't even offer a precedent in that sense, because there the substance of the main story remained the same.
I don't see how that is relevant. Different game, different story, different motivation for changing it. The main change was that the player gets to continue after the main story end, which makes a ton of sense in an open world game that keeps adding new content. That was the main motivation for it.
The ending was also changed because it made no freaking sense. You're asked to activate a device in a room filled with lethal levels of radiation. A similar event happened earlier in the game, and you survived by asking a radiation-resistant NPC companion to enter the room for you. At the end of the game, though, even if you have the very same NPC companion with you who could just as easily enter the room without problem, the developers forced the player's character to die for no reason because they wanted a bittersweet ending where the protagonist has to sacrifice himself/herself.
Now, I have no problems with bittersweet endings. In fact, I think an ending of that style was the only appropriate way to finish the Mass Effect trilogy. But I did expect the ending to be well-written and logically consistent. Fallout 3's original ending was not, nor was ME3's.
If it worked for you and you enjoyed it, then consider yourself lucky. You are most definitely in the minority. It didn't work for me and I hated it. And my opinion has nothing to do with groupthink or anything else. I stayed 100% spoiler-free and didn't read anything about the game until after I was done with it. I didn't even know there was an "ending controversy" until I started reading forum threads after I had finished the game.
The ending was also changed because it made no freaking sense. You're asked to activate a device in a room filled with lethal levels of radiation. A similar event happened earlier in the game, and you survived by asking a radiation-resistant NPC companion to enter the room for you. At the end of the game, though, even if you have the very same NPC companion with you who could just as easily enter the room without problem, the developers forced the player's character to die for no reason because they wanted a bittersweet ending where the protagonist has to sacrifice himself/herself.
Now, I have no problems with bittersweet endings. In fact, I think an ending of that style was the only appropriate way to finish the Mass Effect trilogy. But I did expect the ending to be well-written and logically consistent. Fallout 3's original ending was not, nor was ME3's.
If it worked for you and you enjoyed it, then consider yourself lucky. You are most definitely in the minority. It didn't work for me and I hated it. And my opinion has nothing to do with groupthink or anything else. I stayed 100% spoiler-free and didn't read anything about the game until after I was done with it. I didn't even know there was an "ending controversy" until I started reading forum threads after I had finished the game.
Spoiler!
Okay, but surely you realise that the games are very different and a giving what the critics want is impossible in ME3 without making significant alterations to the Crucible and main ideas behind it.
Suppose Shepard wakes up afterwards, which is the only real change made in Fallout - what fight is there for her to join? So that's meaningless. What sort of change would be analogous in ME3, exactly? What would fit the "precedent"?
Shepard's death is built into the logic of the machine in at least two of the choices, the protagonist's death in Fallout is incidental. And even more importantly, the significance of a character's death is not the same in every game and every story. The story in Fallout changed very little when the player woke up afterwards, but the changes that are being demanded on ME3 are much more significant. The issue here isn't Shepard's death as far as I've understood it.
I do consider myself lucky, but I wouldn't draw any hasty conclusions about how small the minority I belong to actually is. In any case, I never expect my own tastes to coincide with those of the majority. Often they do in general things but when it comes to other kinds of things, subtle personal characteristics make a bigger difference. One could say that it's then that art really functions, and that's where the true differences of opinion come into play. What I perceive is a strange lack of a real spectrum of opinion in the discussion, apart from the few who express positive things. Beyond that I just see a huge solid block of negativity, and that's the sort of thing that makes me suspicious.
But once again, I don't mean to suggest that it's not legitimate to have negative views on the game. That would really be stupid. If I say that in an argument, I'm being an idiot.
I would say it's possible that in many cases the misgivings that people have about an open, somewhat hollow ending get magnified many times over once the disappointed person joins the current discussion on the internet. Like I said, my stronger comments have been directed at that discussion, not any single person who didn't personally enjoy the ending. We've all been on both sides of this kind of divide, there's no problem there. But many observers agree that there is something special about the uproar in this particular case, although maybe it's only special because the game itself is so important. My personal suspicion is that there must be more going on than simply "logic" and the integrity of the plot, and I would think that even if I had hated the ending.
DRM doesn't stop the pirates who will crack the game anyway, it simply makes the product the pirates offer much more attractive. You get a game that doesn't spy on you, you get all the stupid little pieces of DLC that are either grossly overpriced or offered as bonuses through different retailers. It's not so tough to understand that that kind of DLC actually drives piracy.
EA/Bioware is among the worst for this. It's not tought to understand that the kind of DLC that actually drives piracy is also the type of DLC that drives consumer score jihads.
EA/Bioware is among the worst for this. It's not tought to understand that the kind of DLC that actually drives piracy is also the type of DLC that drives consumer score jihads.
They're really hurting in the PR department. If they had any sense they'd work very hard to make their approach to DLC seem less sleazy. But EA is a big dumb company and perhaps Bioware is as well. Companies are filled with people whose only function is to ensure growing short-term profits so they're perfectly capable of incredible stupidity when there are short-sighted ways to squeeze a few extra bucks from the consumers.
Last edited by Henry Fool; 03-28-2012 at 08:00 PM.
Any DLC ending would blow. It doesn't thematically make sense. Bioware isn't trolling you. They went for a more high concept sci fi ending and the more I think about it, the more I like it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
I just remembered one thing about the game that actually really sucked: the Kai Leng boss battles. They were bizarre. Dude's busting moves and you just look at him in total bafflement. He's twirling like he's in Cirque du Soleil and you're thinking, 'What's going on? Is it time for me to shoot you yet?' Does ever get a single shot on the player? He's just twirling. Very confusing.
“There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way. How could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can’t say any more than that…”
“Every decision you've made will impact how things go. The player's also the architect of what happens."
Whether you're happy or angry at the ending, know this: it is an ending.
BioWare will not do a "Lost" and leave fans with more questions than
answers after finishing the game, Gamble promised.
“You'll get answers to everything. That was one of the key things. Regardless of how we did everything, we had to say, yes, we're going to provide some answers to these people.”
“Because a lot of these plot threads are concluding and because it's being brought to a finale, since you were a part of architecting how they got to how they were, you will definitely sense how they close was because of the decisions you made and because of the decisions you didn't make”
Interviewer: [Regarding the numerous possible endings of Mass Effect 2] “Is that same type of complexity built into the ending of Mass Effect 3?”
Hudson: “Yeah, and I’d say much more so, because we have the ability to build the endings out in a way that we don’t have to worry about eventually tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot more different. At this point we’re taking into account so many decisions that you’ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.....The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them.”
“We have a rule in our franchise that there is no canon. You as a player decide what your story is.”
actually Casey that's EXACTLY what you gave us, endings A, B, and C
I very strongly suspect they were forced to shove it out the door before the ending was fully finished, sort of like KOTOR2. The devs are putting on a brave face publicly, but behind closed doors, I think they're just as disappointed with the final product as many of us are. At the very least, I would have loved to be a fly on the wall in the BioWare writers' room when Casey or Mac decided this was the ending they were going to ship.
I very strongly suspect they were forced to shove it out the door before the ending was fully finished, sort of like KOTOR2. The devs are putting on a brave face publicly, but behind closed doors, I think they're just as disappointed with the final product as many of us are. At the very least, I would have loved to be a fly on the wall in the BioWare writers' room when Casey or Mac decided this was the ending they were going to ship.
Bioware really has become just another generic developer since being bought out by EA. such a shame to see a once great company be reduced to throwing out shovelware, i know ME3 will be the last Bioware product i ever spend money on
