I don't think it was satisfying at all (new ending or not, I'm done with Mass Effect 3), but I wouldn't rate that as a quality problem. Especially because there are people who apparently enjoyed it. That to me says it's more a matter of taste -- this ending wasn't for me, and that's fine. Not everything has to be for me.
I honestly have not seen one in-depth argument in favor of the endings.
I would love to read one. As for the quality issue, I guess it could come down to what faults I think the endings have? I mean, as part of the fiction, I think they are contrary to what everything Mass Effect is about. They don't seem to fit within the established universe.
But again, that's just me. That's why I don't think the current endings are a good piece of content.
I'll reiterate the bizarreness of story apparently being sacrosanct when the possibility of modifying other broken pieces of a game is taken in stride. And I don't think it's too much to say that the ending is broken given that
in the case of the fate of the Normandy an the crew
it could be reasonably said that there are pieces of it missing. There is literally not enough there for the chain of events described in the games closing to be comprehensible. Further, the 'choice' piece of the ending could well be described as mechanically broken. After all, each of the choices has the same result. A patch to repair the missing additional 2 distinct end sequences is a perfectly reasonable expectation.
I'm being half-way facetious here, but the point is genuine. Shit ain't just bad, it's broken, so fix it.
As for the particulars of this thread, I can't disagree with the notion that it's a bit manipulative using a charity drive to draw attention to a cause of this kind, but it's hardly something to be aghast over. It's a win-win really, more attention to a really interesting and unprecedented situation in our little corner of the world, and big old pile of money for charity. I can't find the downside.
Edit: the piece of the ending that seals it as truly awful for me is the part where
the mass relays are destroyed, and with them all of galactic civilization, all possibility of closure for all those alliances you created, all those societies you helped, all those locations you visited
. That one little detail is the one that makes the prospect of revisiting the world (certainly any part of it that takes place prior to the ending we got) just seem pointless. For all its other failings, if not for that destructive, retroactively ruinous detail, I could have just been a bit mad for a while and moved on. But their decision to take away the relevance of the past and future of that universe in one casual little detail of their super sweet artistic ending just kills the whole damned thing.
You have almost certainly heard of “Retake Mass Effect” by now. One of many grassroots efforts to get a new ending to Mass Effect 3, it’s part community, part online petition, and part (here is where things get complicated) Child’s Play Donation Drive. They have stopped taking donations now partly because they basically won and partly because we don’t know how to feel about this use of the charity.
As the main point of contact for Child’s Play, Jamie has been buried under mail about this situation. Apparently some of the people giving to the cause seemed to think that they were paying for a new ending to Mass Effect. She’s been asked what the goal is, and how much they need to raise in order to get the ending produced. We’ve also been contacted by PayPal due to a high number of people asking for their donations back. This is in addition to readers who simply couldn’t understand how this was connected to Child’s Play’s mission. We were dealing with a lot of very confused people, more every day, and that told us we had a problem.
We have policies in place to deal with direct abuse: we don’t allow companies to use Child’s Play in order to sell more stuff. To that end we do not allow deals like “1 cent of every dollar goes to Child’s Play!” or whatever. But this isn’t anywhere on that continuum! This is a passionate community that formed around one thing, and some of that passion was expressed in charitable giving. I actually support this cause, but I am a pessimist, and I’m thinking about the next time something like this happens - when someone attaches Child’s Play to something we can’t get behind, or leverages your history of generosity and fellow feeling for their own weird bullshit. So, we need to have something like a policy on this. This is the best way I can think to say it:
Child’s Play cannot be a tool to draw attention to a cause. Child’s Play must be the Cause.
Nothing like this has ever happened in the almost ten years the charity has been running, so it kind of threw me for a loop. Thanks for listening.
I agree wholeheartedly with the bolded, and since a lot of the Retake Mass Effect donors are on reddit talking about pulling their cash - which Child's Play is fine with - it lets me know that people were donating with Child's Play as an afterthought. It's really sad to see people pulling their donations just because Child's Play is sticking to their original mission statement.
I'm sure the ending is terrible, because it's a Bioware game, but this is so weird. If you don't like a piece of entertainment, what you do is remember that and use that when deciding whether or not to purchase the next piece of entertainment from the same people.
I played about 2/3rds of the way through Mass Effect 2 and gave up because I thought the game sucked donkey balls. So I didn't and won't buy Mass Effect 3.
You have every right to complain about something crappy, but actively petitioning the creators to change it is so weird. It's not a bug or a broken feature. It seems like they just made a crappy ending. Whinge, remember that Bioware sucks, and move on.
Because people played 90% of the way through and really liked it up until the last 10 minutes. And its clear something went horribly wrong in those 10 minutes.
Wow, first time I ever been in top of the "wall of shame". Regardless of ones opinion on the ending of the game and how it should be addressed. I hope we can all agree that those who forced the charity campaign to end, and those who completely bad-mouth the people who donated like the author of the destructoid article are truly sad people.
I honestly have not seen one in-depth argument in favor of the endings.
I would love to read one. As for the quality issue, I guess it could come down to what faults I think the endings have? I mean, as part of the fiction, I think they are contrary to what everything Mass Effect is about. They don't seem to fit within the established universe
This. So much this. Besides the obvious subjectiveness of liking/not liking an ending like ME3's, I want to see something with more substance than 'you guys are just nitpicking with the plothole stuff, ending is fine'. But what does fine mean to you? How does that translate into liking the ending? what made it go "yeah, this is an awesome ending to a trilogy?"
So, basically, Tycho can't support this because it violates the very meaning of charity, but he also does support it?
He's saying its' a risky line to draw for a cause such as Retake Mass Effect, where the implications aren't for the children themselves, but for the goal of donating to get an ending change. Which is what most charity drives are for, to draw publicity to a cause, but apparently, some fans got the implication that their 'goal' of whatever amount was going to guarantee an ending change, which wasn't the intention.
Those are both fair responses, and it would be reasonable to accept them at face value. Sure, there are other undercurrents, and the response to Forbes indicates that. I don't really buy the slippery slope argument, but it is their charity.
Asking for donations back? Even if you misunderstood what you were doing, that is fucked up.
I suppose you could call the myriad plotholes 'objective flaws', though I don't like that terminology. I personally think that many of these are way overstated, while others ignore the dumbness inherent to the very setting (plotholes become less visible in a setting that was full of holes from the beginning). Though, yeah, some are inexplicable.
Denying a quality problem is something I can't understand, however.
Maybe it's just the low standard for video-games, but ME3's ending, though bad, probably compares favorably to the ending of a game you pick at random. It doesn't compare well to the best examples in the medium, but again, I'm not sure that you can argue that that's a sign of a faulty product.
Yeah okay he definitely didn't say anything like that.
Edit: I accept what Tycho had to say there, if that kind of confusion was really occurring, although yeah that seems to mostly on people donating without understanding to what for being idiots.
I guess I could understand his sentiment... if it wasn't a video game ending we were talking about.
Sure something like "let's show our support for NAMBLA by giving money to children" is something to take issue with, but this is a fucking video game we are talking about. I honestly didn't expect Tycho to be so stoneless.
I honestly have not seen one in-depth argument in favor of the endings.
I would love to read one. As for the quality issue, I guess it could come down to what faults I think the endings have? I mean, as part of the fiction, I think they are contrary to what everything Mass Effect is about. They don't seem to fit within the established universe.
But again, that's just me. That's why I don't think the current endings are a good piece of content.
I did quite a few posts defending the ending in both the spoilers thread and the other one that popped up. A few people responded well and respected my opinion, but there was quite a lot of dog piling going on. Some of that ended when I finally did a huge wall post, but I'm really not keen on going in and debating it again.
The problem is also that there seems to be no nuance in the people that hate the ending. Literally every single thing is wrong and everything is bad. Personally I recognize most, if not all of the complaints rendered to the ending, but at the same time I think there are a few thins that the ending does well, and I appreciate and even sort of applaud the approach. Even though I acknowledge those bad things, I still feel like going into that thread I'm put into a box of some indoctrinated weirdo who can't see the objectivity.. or something. It's exhausting and I'd personally rather not do it.
Would't surprise me if with the constant talk about this and the DLC; everything was part of a plan to get more people looking forward for the DLC.
And when/if the ending is "fixed" with DLC, fans will clamor that "they heard us!!! we made them change it, fuck you..but thanks Bioware"...when in reality, it was all planned.
I suppose you could call the myriad plotholes 'objective flaws', though I don't like that terminology. I personally think that many of these are way overstated, while others ignore the dumbness inherent to the very setting (plotholes become less visible in a setting that was full of holes from the beginning). Though, yeah, some are inexplicable.
Maybe it's just the low standard for video-games, but ME3's ending, though bad, probably compares favorably to the ending of a game you pick at random. It doesn't compare well to the best examples in the medium, but again, I'm not sure that you can argue that that's a sign of a faulty product.
That is partly my problem with his argument. Charity works by drawing attention to itself. It is better for that charity if it is not a controversial thing, so I can kind of get it, though. I just don't entirely agree. But again, it is their charity, and they should run it in the charity's best interest. I doubt they turned down thousands without there being genuine concerns.
I agree wholeheartedly with the bolded, and since a lot of the Retake Mass Effect donors are on reddit talking about pulling their cash - which Child's Play is fine with - it lets me know that people were donating with Child's Play as an afterthought. It's really sad to see people pulling their donations just because Child's Play is sticking to their original mission statement.
My gut says it sounds perfectly reasonable, but my mind says, how is charity not a reasonable option of raising awareness to something else? If Child's Play must be the cause, I don't see why it's an option in the indie humble bundles for one. People don't use the bundles to only donate to CP, they use them to donate AND get some games (and raise awareness) which is perfectly acceptable. In this case they are still getting the money, and people get listened to by Bioware and the media.
In the end, I'm going with my gut though, and think it is the right decision because whatever, it is his fucking charity after all.
Would't surprise me if with the constant talk about this and the DLC; everything was part of a plan to get more people looking forward for the DLC.
And when/if the ending is "fixed" with DLC, fans will clamor that "they heard us!!! we made them change it, fuck you..but thanks Bioware"...when in reality, it was all planned.
No. He didn't. He said 'draw attention to a cause' the reason being the confusion it apparently created, not because the idea of it is contrary to the concept of charity in principle, which makes no sense at all.
...not seeing the problem. Sounds to me like he agrees that the ending is unsatisfactory and needs changing (1 issue) and that Child's Play isn't the avenue to pursue that with, as the mission of Child's Play has nothing to do with the issue at hand (another issue). They've had a great deal of success as an organization that helps improve the life of sick children, and it's counter-productive to have them do that and be a platform for RME.
And when/if the ending is "fixed" with DLC, fans will clamor that "they heard us!!! we made them change it, fuck you..but thanks Bioware"...when in reality, it was all planned.
That's kind of what the indoctrination theory hinges on. If they're right, then Bioware is the shittiest company ever, rather than simply being rather inept. Knowingly selling people a bad ending so you could make money on a better one is despicable. As Jeff Gerstmann said, if that's the case, 'videogames are over'.
Man, the assassination attempts by gaming journalism are absolutely shameful, hopefuly places like Forbes, ones that can report outside of the little side show that the gaming media, will continue to point out the truth, and the insanity of those labeling the people whom are dissatisfied as 'entitled'.
Call me a pessimist, but I'm surprised that people are surprised that donations are getting pulled.
The vast majority of people are good-willed. The vast majority of people that donate to Child's Play are good-willed. But then there are those that just want to see Matt Wiggins go to Twilight for 24 hours, and use "it's for the children" as an excuse.
His argument basically boils down to the fact that though he believes the motives behind the original drive were well-intended, there were a great deal of people who misunderstood the point, which caused problems on their end.
Plus, he is worried that allowing any cause to use Child's Play as a tool to draw attention to it, it opens them up to causes they may not agree with or are not so well-intentioned.
Man, the assassination attempts by gaming journalism are absolutely shameful, hopefuly places like Forbes, ones that can report outside of the little side show that the gaming media, will continue to point out the truth, and the insanity of those labeling the people whom are dissatisfied as 'entitled'.
I wouldn't hold Forbes as some bastion of journalistic integrity just because their point of view matches with your own. They've had some pretty bad, click-baiting blog posts too.
I wouldn't hold Forbes as some bastion of journalistic integrity just because their point of view matches with your own. They've had some pretty bad, click-baiting blog posts too.
It's weird that so people have thrown around the comment that the people dissatisfied with the ending have 'gone about it the wrong way'. We've written we'll reasoned arguments that have yet to be refuted, in length, about the issues. We've made it clear to Bioware in every way possible, legally, that the ending is unsatisfactory, and that we want more clarification and closure. We've donated massive amounts of money to charity, the best option available, in terms of throwing money around, to make it clear while being constructive to real world problems even!
And somehow all of this means that we're going about it the wrong way?
What's the right way? For anyone that thinks people have gone about it the wrong way? What's the better way? Honestly. Don't just point to angry posts as a justification for painting everything with one broad stroke.
And why does Bioware get a pass for blatantly lying in PR in the run up to release? Why is that ok, but fans being angered and proactive in the face of the ending being bad as it is, and in direct contradiction with the exceptions set by the company?
I wouldn't hold Forbes as some bastion of journalistic integrity just because their point of view matches with your own. They've had some pretty bad, click-baiting blog posts too.
I don't. What I do like about their gaming section is that most of the articles were reporting on the situation with proper context of the entire event. Where as the gaming press could get over themselves in writing nothing but editorials masking as news reports. I am aware of their history, but in this situation, companies that are outside the usual realm of gaming are providing the best coverage of what's really going on.
Call me a pessimist, but I'm surprised that people are surprised that donations are getting pulled.
The vast majority of people are good-willed. The vast majority of people that donate to Child's Play are good-willed. But then there are those that just want to see Matt Wiggins go to Twilight for 24 hours, and use "it's for the children" as an excuse.
Child's Play is perfectly within their rights as a charity, no argument there, but your example isn't sufficient. Charities do not refuse donations under such circumstances, in the end a dollar is usually a dollar aside from more serious circumstances.
According to the big boss at BW, you have to be constructive, which means that you have to give the game a perfect score before your opinion is validated.
I'm of course kidding, but he was relying on the critics' scores as a way to deflect the negativity.
I can respect that decision though I also can't help but feel disappointed with it as well. The saying "Never look a gift horse in the mouth" comes to mind. The money isn't coming form some terrorist group who commits awful crimes, there should be no shame in taking the money. I also can't help but feel that saying the charity must be the cause as a reason for ending the donation drive, when you go to the child's play website half the front page, is basically a giant advertisement for corporate donors. I can't help but feel that charity wasn't the only thing on those companies minds when they gave away that money, not to say that it is a bad thing.
Now this is opening another can of beans? Is it also morallly wrong for companies to advertise a product saying they're donating a percentage of profits to charity, with the knowledge they're also getting a marketing boost from looking good?
Call me a pessimist, but I'm surprised that people are surprised that donations are getting pulled.
The vast majority of people are good-willed. The vast majority of people that donate to Child's Play are good-willed. But then there are those that just want to see Matt Wiggins go to Twilight for 24 hours, and use "it's for the children" as an excuse.
I don't see the problem with the latter. Giving people further incentive to donate to charity like in the example you gave is a good way to make raising money "fun" or "exciting". Sure you'll get people who aren't donating solely for the purpose that the charity is supporting, but do the benefactors really care where the money is coming from?
As long as the money is clean, I say let them donate.
Edit: I do agree that the people pulling donations are pretty scummy though.
Honestly, at this point I'm more interested in this whole thing because it's such a turning point for the industry.
Billion dollar corporations turning games and franchises into platforms and services, while simultaneously attempting to elevate them to the status of art via imitation in a bid for legitimacy and validation, the erosion of "middle class" games as the costs to feed this model keep increasing, the growing legitimacy (and monetization) of indie games as more "artistic," and the concept of what a video game IS.
These issues have been steadily building up for nearly 15 years now, and I have a feeling that the resulting fallout from this controversy is going to be a guidepost or warning sign as the industry goes forward.
Just change the goddamn ending. Who cares? It's just a stupid game. I mean I sure as hell don't understand how someone can get so upset over something like this so much so that they have to organize a call for changes. Even if they use a charity to get their message across is that so bad? It's for a good cause even if the spirit of it wasn't in the right place. Money matters not stupid ideals. People need to get off their god damn high horses.
And, I haven't played any of these ME games so it's not like I care about this ending. I just find this situation absurd on all sides, but mostly on the hostility targeted at the people donating. Wtf
I can respect that decision though I also can't help but feel disappointed with it as well. The saying "Never look a gift horse in the mouth" comes to mind. The money isn't coming form some terrorist group who commits awful crimes, there should be no shame in taking the money. I also can't help but feel that saying the charity must be the cause as a reason for ending the donation drive, when you go to the child's play website half the front page, is basically a giant advertisement for corporate donors. I can't help but feel that charity wasn't the only thing on those companies minds when they gave away that money, not to say that it is a bad thing.
But you're also missing or forgetting the other part of what he said in that post. People were literally thinking this was a Child's Play backed thing. They thought it was official. They were bombarding them with emails asking how much was needed to change the ending and all that. That is a huge fucking problem when you're running a charity or any business at all. You have strict rules in place so that your customers know what is official and what is not, and all kinds of businesses have to squash a lot of things, even things that might otherwise be beneficial because those rules need to hold steady. You can't have people believing you are literally behind some sort of cause that you have nothing to do with. If people are literally believing that Child's Play itself wants to change the ending to Mass Effect that's a big red flag, and that could change people's perspective on the charity and its actual mission.
I don't see the problem with the latter. Giving people further incentive to donate to charity like in the example you gave is a good way to make raising money "fun" or "exciting". Sure you'll get people who aren't donating solely for the purpose that the charity is supporting, but do the benefactors really care where the money is coming from?
As long as the money is clean, I say let them donate.
Honestly, at this point I'm more interested in this whole thing because it's such a turning point for the industry.
Billion dollar corporations turning games and franchises into platforms and services, while simultaneously attempting to elevate them to the status of art via imitation in a bid for legitimacy and validation, the erosion of "middle class" games as the costs to feed this model keep increasing, the growing legitimacy (and monetization) of indie games as more "artistic," and the concept of what a video game IS.
These issues have been steadily building up for nearly 15 years now, and I have a feeling that the resulting fallout from this controversy is going to be a guidepost or warning sign as the industry goes forward.
Agreed. The particulars of the situation are less interesting then the possibly far-reaching implications. I'm most interested in the incredible bile the enthusiast press has spewed at a many of its readers, and whether there will be any substantial fallout from that.
But you're also missing or forgetting the other part of what he said in that post. People were literally thinking this was a Child's Play backed thing. They thought it was official. They were bombarding them with emails asking how much was needed to change the ending and all that. That is a huge fucking problem when you're running a charity or any business at all. You have strict rules in place so that your customers know what is official and what is not, and all kinds of businesses have to squash a lot of things, even things that might otherwise be beneficial because those rules need to hold steady. You can't have people believing you are literally behind some sort of cause that you have nothing to do with. If people are literally believing that Child's Play itself wants to change the ending to Mass Effect that's a big red flag, and that could change people's perspective on the charity and its actual mission.
I think the whole thing is pretty funny and sad, at the same time.
I only played Mass Effect 1, but all the crap i've seen and heard regarding ME3 convinced me to never pick up ME2 or 3, no matter the Steam Sale (also, they're Origin only, i guess).
Moreover, "Bioware" has definitely become a sort of poisoning brand to attach to a game, as of now, for me (this, considering years ago it was the opposite).
Whether or not the fans had the "right" to demand a new ending:
Yes, ofcourse they had the right, and Bioware had the right to tell them to fuck off; they didn't, probably because the ending was shit due to Bioware's (EA's?) cheap recent policies, rather than some "artistic vision" or integrity (as someone claims).
I don't think someone with artistic vision and integrity (The Soprano ending comes to mind) would've used a
stockphoto badly badly shopped, for a major reveal
; nor would've
used a copycat off of a random deviant art for an important part of the ending.
But that's just my 2 cents, and from what infos i could gather.
Then again, i don't even understand how people could buy this game, after playing the Godawful demo, so..
