Support NeoGAF

[StuBurns]

On the podcast, you said:


So people aren't allowed to complain when they spend money and time on something that ends up being a piece of shit? They should just stoically accept trash? What?

Certainly people can be vocally irritated by the terrible ending, but to expect them to change it because people are disappointed is pretty embarrassing I think. It shows significant disrespect for the whole medium.

You will often see people complain about the end of a film, or book, but I've never heard of a petition to have them changed.

 

[Curufinwe]

I'm sorry I couldn't tell who was who, but to the guy explaining how only a mouse will do for really fast, twitch shooters like Painkiller - bravo. To the other guy saying an analog stick would work just as well if you turn up the sensitivity - for shame.

 

[LiK]

"Hiroko's sultry voice" mmm hmm, i so agree. ^^

 

[benny_a]

I'm sorry I couldn't tell who was who, but to the guy explaining how only a mouse will do for really fast, twitch shooters like Painkiller - bravo. To the other guy saying an analog stick would work just as well if you turn up the sensitivity - for shame.

I find this such an obvious thing, so to have someone disagree with it I can only accept it by imagining that person as ignorant about competitive multi-player shooter in general.

And don't think one can transfer the knowledge of how Battlefield 3 (as an example of a contemporary FPS) plays on PS3 and PC and compare it to Quake 3 on Dreamcast and PC.
It's a different game at the high level.

For example Quake 3:
At the high level the machine gun is a viable tool because a person with a mouse can keep the cursor on a highly mobile enemy with relative ease. You just can't do that without Half-Life 1 level sticky-aim on a console. (And anyone that knows what I mean knows how ridiculous that plays.)

And I'm not a PC-elitist. Best news of the day for me was that I can play Max Payne 3 on PC with a gamepad.

Certainly people can be vocally irritated by the terrible ending, but to expect them to change it because people are disappointed is pretty embarrassing I think.

If just every Internet-outrage embarrassment would be channeled into sizeable donations for a charity.

 

[codhand]

"Hiroko's sultry voice" mmm hmm, i so agree. ^^

I'm glad she was there to illustrate how biased they were when it came to Kid Icarus's shortcomings.

 

[Oxx]

John needs to get over his Zelda 1 fetish. It has been 26 years. It ain't coming back.

 

[jediyoshi]

I love the immediate addressing of No Mark = Hirokocast Time

You will often see people complain about the end of a film, or book, but I've never heard of a petition to have them changed.

So aren't those Star Wars petitions worse because they call for a reverting of the changes Lucas made that occur throughout an entire movie that are even more relatively incidental?

 

[Deleted member 30609]

I had to stop listening During the Kid Icarus segment. Between the "THERE'S SO MANY COLLECTIBLES" talk and the pro-"PAY MORE MONEY FOR CARDS IT'S GREAT", it just made me kind of -- uh -- despair, a little. I'm feeling a bit out of touch. I'll listen to the rest later.

 

[nckillthegrimace]

I had to stop listening During the Kid Icarus segment. Between the "THERE'S SO MANY COLLECTIBLES" talk and the pro-"PAY MORE MONEY FOR CARDS IT'S GREAT", it just made me kind of -- uh -- despair, a little. I'm feeling a bit out of touch. I'll listen to the rest later.

The collectibles are more like rewards for doing stuff. It's not like Donkey Kong 64 or something.

 

[Schnei871]

Long time listener and this was a great podcast episode!

Really liked the KI talk and especially the journey talk. Would love a spoiler podcast or even just section where the guys can let lose.

 

[Kuro Madoushi]

Should've renamed it Hiroko-cast?

 

[sprsk]

On the podcast, you said:


So people aren't allowed to complain when they spend money and time on something that ends up being a piece of shit? They should just stoically accept trash? What?

I'm not saying you can't voice your opinion. That's totally fine. But you can't expect them to go back and fix something like the ending cause you think it sucks. If it was broken or buggy that's one thing, but this is something else.

 

[Erethian]

I'm not saying you can't voice your opinion. That's totally fine. But you can't expect them to go back and fix something like the ending cause you think it sucks. If it was broken or buggy that's one thing, but this is something else.

So you don't think there's a place for developers to take on feedback or criticism from customers and use that to try and improve the game?

Cause I think that almost collaborative approach, and connection with the userbase, is something that separates gaming from a lot of other mediums. And in that sense I don't think changing the story is any different from changing the game mechanics.

I mean we already expect developers to respond to user feedback when making sequels, within reason, but if the capacity exists to make those changes in an existing game through patching or DLC, where is the harm in that?

 

[RoboGeorgeForeman]

I'm not saying you can't voice your opinion. That's totally fine. But you can't expect them to go back and fix something like the ending cause you think it sucks. If it was broken or buggy that's one thing, but this is something else.

Why are people acting like this is a new thing? People complained about the ending to Fallout 3 and neither journalists nor developers called these fans entitled. In fact, Bethesda fixed these story related issues with DLC.Why is it a problem now, when the Mass Effect 3 ending is orders of magnitude worse?

 

[cvxfreak]

Hey sprsk, I was actually pissed at that lame Licker reveal by Capcom on the Facebook RE page.

 

[RomanticHeroX]

Why are people acting like this is a new thing. People complained about the ending to Fallout 3 and neither journalists nor developers called these fans entitled. In fact, Bethesda fixed these story related issues with DLC.Why is it a problem now, when the Mass Effect 3 ending is orders of magnitude worse.

The strawman of entitlement didn't exist in 2008.

 

[Bobs Big Boy]

Why are people acting like this is a new thing? People complained about the ending to Fallout 3 and neither journalists nor developers called these fans entitled. In fact, Bethesda fixed these story related issues with DLC.Why is it a problem now, when the Mass Effect 3 ending is orders of magnitude worse?

I don't think we've ever seen any game where progression between sequels has been touted as the most important thing. Seems like if that weren't the focus, and it weren't a three-game build up, would just be an average videogame ending.

Edit: Sorry, didn't fully read what you were replying to, I guess. I think if nothing else this shows how much disconnect there is between press and actual gamers lately.

 

[Jeff-DSA]

Why are people acting like this is a new thing? People complained about the ending to Fallout 3 and neither journalists nor developers called these fans entitled. In fact, Bethesda fixed these story related issues with DLC.Why is it a problem now, when the Mass Effect 3 ending is orders of magnitude worse?

People complained, but they didn't file lawsuits or leverage charities to try and force change. And obviously Bethesda painted themselves into a corner with their original ending and they themselves knew that they had to fix it.

And don't act like journalists didn't say it was dumb what Bethesda did. Heck, just last week the Giant Bomb guys were still saying how stupid that situation was, and that's not a new position on the matter.

 

[Erethian]

People complained, but they didn't file lawsuits or leverage charities to try and force change. And obviously Bethesda painted themselves into a corner with their original ending and they themselves knew that they had to fix it.

And don't act like journalists didn't say it was dumb what Bethesda did. Heck, just last week the Giant Bomb guys were still saying how stupid that situation was, and that's not a new position on the matter.

Giant Bomb also got the whole thing backwards, and ended up unintentionally complaining about the original ending and praising the changes made by the DLC.

 

[jediyoshi]

I'm not saying you can't voice your opinion. That's totally fine. But you can't expect them to go back and fix something like the ending cause you think it sucks. If it was broken or buggy that's one thing, but this is something else.

I think a problem is the overgeneralization of opinions and what others are willing to pick out as to be indicative of an entire zeitgeist as a whole. The underlying message of all the discussion is that the ending is bad. Full stop. For people with a larger stage to then sum the situation up as crazy fans being crazy drowns out the important parts because it's not as sexy to talk about as peeps trying to sue or protests.

And don't act like journalists didn't say it was dumb what Bethesda did. Heck, just last week the Giant Bomb guys were still saying how stupid that situation was, and that's not a new position on the matter.

They were saying it in the context of Mass Effect, it wasn't exactly some topic they were hot and bothered enough to randomly pull out from the fray.

 

[john tv]

I find this such an obvious thing, so to have someone disagree with it I can only accept it by imagining that person as ignorant about competitive multi-player shooter in general.

And don't think one can transfer the knowledge of how Battlefield 3 (as an example of a contemporary FPS) plays on PS3 and PC and compare it to Quake 3 on Dreamcast and PC.
It's a different game at the high level.

For example Quake 3:
At the high level the machine gun is a viable tool because a person with a mouse can keep the cursor on a highly mobile enemy with relative ease. You just can't do that without Half-Life 1 level sticky-aim on a console. (And anyone that knows what I mean knows how ridiculous that plays.)

And I'm not a PC-elitist. Best news of the day for me was that I can play Max Payne 3 on PC with a gamepad.

Right, but we're not talking about some uber hi-res PC screen here, we're talking about a tiny-ass low-res 3DS screen and a game that does not require that kind of insane high fidelity movement. It just doesn't. And even so, it's not like I'm saying they had to toss the touch screen stuff -- I just want right stick as an OPTION. It's ridiculous to support Frankenstick and not have that as one of the control possibilities.

Reminds me of the Gunvalkyrie arguments, where people tried to justify that game's shit controls because they wanted to like the game more. Fortunately KI is nowhere near that bad, but the arguments against right stick support definitely are. ;p

 

[Balb]

I kind of wanted to hear everyones' thoughts on the new iPad. Maybe next episode?

 

[cws]

I kind of wanted to hear everyones' thoughts on the new iPad. Maybe next episode?

Its the iPad 2 with an higher resolution screen ?

 

[benny_a]

Right, but we're not talking about some uber hi-res PC screen here, we're talking about a tiny-ass low-res 3DS screen and a game that does not require that kind of insane high fidelity movement. It just doesn't. And even so, it's not like I'm saying they had to toss the touch screen stuff -- I just want right stick as an OPTION. It's ridiculous to support Frankenstick and not have that as one of the control possibilities.

I didn't make that clear, but I'm not even talking about Kid Icarus and use of that argument to support not including more control options.
My issue was only with the very small sub-argument where it was said that fast games ala Quake work on an analog controller. I think they lose their essence when transferred to that input method.

I agree that KI should include that as a control option. Based on the videos it doesn't look nowhere as fast as Quake nor was it a PC game first. ;-)

 

[Wazzim]

You guys made me buy Journey directly after coming back from work today.

 

[StuBurns]

So aren't those Star Wars petitions worse because they call for a reverting of the changes Lucas made that occur throughout an entire movie that are even more relatively incidental?

It's hard to say, I think both versions of all three films are basically garbage, and people want them restored because of nostalgia, not some objective sense of the film having been made weaker as a result of the changes.

Films are not beyond being heavily altered of course, Blade Runner is a good example, there are quite a few distinctly different cuts, including heavily altered versions of the ending. 'Final Cut', which is now generally considered to be definitive, ends with Deckard suspecting he is a replicant, and contemplating how long he has with Rachel. The original theatrical cut didn't feature the infamous unicorn scene, and ends Deckard and Rachel driving off with only her shortened life expectancy being his concern.

It's a radically different ending, one of them is as the director wanted, one is how the director was willing to compromise for Warner. I do think a similar situation could justify the calls for the ending to be changed with Mass Effect 3. If Hudson announced that EA had pressured the studio to have the ending it does, and he had different plans, and thanks to the outcry is now going to implement his original intent, that's fine. However, if it's just a case of the audience not liking the ending, so they're folding under pressure, I think it's shameful to change it.

Of all the things I dislike about the ending, there is no question they had a specific idea, and ran with it. There's reason to believe they wanted the controversy, just didn't expect it to be this demanding, and while I don't personally like that concept, it is their work, to do with it what they wish.

If Kojima came out and said MGS4 is getting DLC, and they are restoring his original intent for the ending, I would be pleased, because that's what should have happened had he been given the freedom he should have. Mass Effect 3 is not that situation, they wanted this to happen, and it's backfired on them, but changing it is just pandering. Even more so that it's the end of a trilogy.

EDIT: And the charity element is completely irrelevant. People could have decided to give to charity anyway. It's almost worse than paying for a new ending directly because it's a bad PR situation if they don't, and bordering on emotional black mail. I wouldn't support it any more than I'd support Apple giving a hundred billion dollars to charity in exchange for the Mona Lisa having a hat added.

 

[War Peaceman]

I had to stop listening During the Kid Icarus segment. Between the "THERE'S SO MANY COLLECTIBLES" talk and the pro-"PAY MORE MONEY FOR CARDS IT'S GREAT", it just made me kind of -- uh -- despair, a little. I'm feeling a bit out of touch. I'll listen to the rest later.

They are a bonus to the game, not at all the point of it. You can ignore it all if you want and just play the game. Or you can get lost in the craziness, which seems like a fair blend to me. Also, the items the cards give you can be obtained in game. It is this kind of thing done right.

Also, good cast, thanks guys. It is always good to hear Hiroko!

 

[benny_a]

EDIT: And the charity element is completely irrelevant. People could have decided to give to charity anyway. It's almost worse than paying for a new ending directly because it's a bad PR situation if they don't, and bordering on emotional black mail. I wouldn't support it any more than I'd support Apple giving a hundred billion dollars to charity in exchange for the Mona Lisa having a hat added.

It can't be emotional blackmail the way it's defined in the psychology literature as it requires two individuals with an already established emotional dependency.
And it isn't regular blackmail as the funds go to charity no matter the outcome of the situation.

A regular blackmail scenario for ME3 ending change would be:
Fans: "BioWare, we have 50 thousand dollars and if you change the ending we will give the money to charity."

And if you insist to use "emotional blackmailing", then based on my casual reading of psychology you could make a better argument that BioWare is emotionally blackmailing people with their limited Pre-Order DLC. People are having actual breakdowns over that.

What happens now is that the fans are leveraging the charity situation to be heard. Because if they wouldn't have it would be just another petition that would be laughed at by everyone the way they usually are.

 

[Dresden]

I want Kid Icarus so much now.

 

[StuBurns]

It can't be emotional blackmail the way it's defined in the psychology literature as it requires two individuals with an already established emotional dependency.
And it isn't regular blackmail as the funds go to charity no matter the outcome of the situation.

A regular blackmail scenario for ME3 ending change would be:
Fans: "BioWare, we have 50 thousand dollars and if you change the ending we will give the money to charity."

And based on my casual reading of psychology you could make a better argument that BioWare is emotionally blackmailing people with their limited Pre-Order DLC.

What happens now is that the fans are leveraging the charity situation to be heard. Because if they wouldn't have it would be just another petition that would be laughed at by everyone the way they usually are.

Regardless of the specific terminology, it just strikes me as crass, and manipulative. It's worse than paying directly, because it doesn't give BioWare the same freedom to say no. If everyone had pooled their cash, and offered it to BioWare in exchange for the ending being changed, they could say no, if they don't change it now, they'll be seen as the evil company who ignored the good charity giving masses over some kid's toy.

Ironically I'm typically arguing on the side of games aren't art, and I believe that, but this is exactly the kind of shit games shouldn't have to put up with. If this medium is ever to be held with any kind of reverence, the creators need to be treated with the respect musical artists or film directors are. As of yet, they're literally treated like product designers. ME3's ending is being treated like it's broken in the way a functional product isn't fitting the tastes of it's owner.

I don't like the backwards talking and dog whistle at the end of Sgt Pepper, and I have no reasonable right to demand it's removal, nor would I if I did. It's shit, but it is what the creators wanted.

 

[Dresden]

Ironically I'm typically arguing on the side of games aren't art, and I believe that, but this is exactly the kind of shit games shouldn't have to put up with. If this medium is ever to be held with any kind of reverence, the creators need to be treated with the respect musical artists or film directors are. As of yet, they're literally treated like product designers. ME3's ending is being treated like it's broken in the way a functional product isn't fitting the tastes of it's owner.

It's a product. The product came broken. The product should be fixed.

 

[StuBurns]

It's a product. The product came broken. The product should be fixed.

It is not broken.

If it was, as in there were progression ending bugs, that would be completely different.

It's funny how the ending is kind of an allusion to the end of 2001, which features amongst the most divisive endings in film.

 

[OMG Aero]

It's a product. The product came broken. The product should be fixed.

Even if Mass Effect 3 had the worst ending of anything in the history of the world that doesn't make it a broken product.

 

[benny_a]

I don't like the backwards talking and dog whistle at the end of Sgt Pepper, and I have no reasonable right to demand it's removal, nor would I if I did. It's shit, but it is what the creators wanted.

And that's probably the difference between you and the people that donated to/signed that petition.

The Internet has created(?) or at least accelerated remixing. You take a work and you change it for what you consider to be better, no matter what feelings you might hurt in the process of the original author.

For a famous popular media example: Eminem took Dido's "Hello Again" and took out the parts he didn't like and added the remaining part to his song. It's considered to be vastly superior to the standalone version.

Modders change games all the time. I see the campaign for changing as an extension of the modding scene. It's just that modders don't have access to the same tools for story as they do for changing gameplay features.

 

[DCharlie]

Eminem took Dido's "Hello Again" and took out the parts he didn't like and added the remaining part to his song. It's considered to be vastly superior to the standalone version.

and here is the big MOTHER FUCKING point

BY WHO is it considered the better version?

you start "Crowd Sourcing" endings and you get a big huge massive fucking problem because 99% of people love the happy ever after.

p.s. Emenemenemenemem took "Thank You" and made a vastly shitier version/vastly superior version depending on which side of the fence you stand on. If we go with a populous vote? fuck me - do i even want to consider that? I think most people are fucking morons as it is - i don't want them dictacting the artistic vision of anyone by numbers.

I'd rather people try and fail that "populous movement" dictation of artistic direction.

 

[benny_a]

BY WHO is it considered the better version?

Critical reception. Eminem's Stan is on Rolling Stone's top lists of all time, New York Times's.
Dido's Hello Again didn't even break top 10 of its respective year by those respective publications.

 

[StuBurns]

And that's probably the difference between you and the people that donated to/signed that petition.

Yes, it is.

The difference between this and any modding, or remixing, or reediting, is those things don't ask the creator to compromise their work. That is what I find embarrassing. If modders changed the ending of ME3, I wouldn't care at all.

 

[DCharlie]

Critical reception. Eminem's Stan is on Rolling Stone's top lists of all time, New York Times's.
Dido's Hello Again didn't even break top 10 of its respective year.

Dido's THANK YOU i assume you mean.

Why the FUCK does popular opinion define taste? Most people are FUCKING MORONS.

I'm serious here - and i stand by it - most people are fucking idiots - i DO NOT WANT them dictacting artists visions. It's a blueprint for fucking mediocraty.

99% of people prefer Stan to Thank you? fucking brilliant - lets pander to the mindless fucking proles because they are the pinacle of taste.

NO. FUCK them. They are wrong and pandering to them will see artistic visions reduced to absolute shit paste. so NO. Fuck looking at what is "popular" to define shit.

 

[benny_a]

Dido's THANK YOU i assume you mean.

Why the FUCK does popular opinion define taste? Most people are FUCKING MORONS.

Yes, thanks. I do mean Dido's "Thank You".

But those lists are not a popularity contest. You don't find Justin Bieber on it, despite him selling huge numbers right now.

They are decided upon by a panel of judges. For popularity contests you don't need judges, you just accumulate the sales statistics.

Edit: And you may of course disagree with the placement of those lists, but to call them popularity contests is just not true.

 

[DCharlie]

They are decided upon by a panel of judges. For popularity contests you don't need judges, you just accumulate the sales statistics.

but why would "panel of judges" be any better?

I'm serious - i worked in the music industry for 5 years and i don't trust a single person in the industry. :/

I dunno - i should bail - the only thing i take way more seriously than gaming is music. :/

 

[StuBurns]

Eminem's song does not remove Dido's song. We don't have to choose one of them.

Mass Effect 3's ending being changed would literally be like Eminem removing the Dido song from existence for some people. I bought Mass Effect 3 on Origin. I can't run it without it being up to date, one day the ending of that game could very well change, and there is nothing I can do about it. I'd have to buy it on another platform to retain the ending. That's completely unlike any music sampling example.

 

[Man God]

If EA wants to let people pay them more money to "fix" their shitty ending who are they to say no?

Bioware and EA have already given plenty of examples that they don't really give a shit about artistic integrity, so why not leave another one at the hands of this frothing idiotic mob?

 

[benny_a]

Eminem's song does not remove Dido's song. We don't have to choose one of them.

Mass Effect 3's ending being changed would literally be like Eminem removing the Dido song from existence for some people. I bought Mass Effect 3 on Origin. I can't run it without it being up to date, one day the ending of that game could very well change, and there is nothing I can do about it. I'd have to buy it on another platform to retain the ending. That's completely unlike any music sampling example.

Good point about having to update, because of the way Origin works and the way multiplayer is part of the game.

But based on how they've been talking it will be more like an add-on DLC you have to install which isn't a regular patch that will be distributed to all clients.

The music remix example was to illustrate how you differ from other people that are happy to take other people's work and change it. Artistic vision be damned.

 

[StuBurns]

The music remix example was to illustrate how you differ from other people that are happy to take other people's work and change it. Artistic vision be damned.

I'm not at all against people changing other people's work. I am against people demanding people change their own work. One is progressive, one is obnoxious.

 

[LiquidSolid]

Why are people acting like this is a new thing? People complained about the ending to Fallout 3 and neither journalists nor developers called these fans entitled. In fact, Bethesda fixed these story related issues with DLC.Why is it a problem now, when the Mass Effect 3 ending is orders of magnitude worse?

Because it's easy to judge people when you've no real clue why they're pissed off and want to feel superior by insulting them.

Bioware have been adjusting the ME games from the very beginning to both make it more marketable to larger audiences and respond to criticism, so I fail to see how anyone could suddenly decide that Bioware has had a vision for the series all along. I mean really, why do you think Mass Effect 2 was so different from the first game? The only difference between then and now is that they're apparently making changes to the game post-launch. And really, even that isn't new to them. ME2: Arrival was obviously meant to take place after ME2's main story, leading straight into ME3.

Even ignoring all that though, if we're talking about Bioware's vision for the game, then let's talk about the ending. It was being changed right up until the final deadline and unlike everything else in the game (and the two prequels), it wasn't submitted to peer review. So in that case, it wasn't the teams vision in the first place, as only two people actually had any input into it.

Honestly though, regardless of any 'clarifications' Bioware plan on making, there's no way they're going to be able to fix that laughable deus ex machine mess. They'd have to completely redesign the last 20 minutes and that won't happen. So my response has been less "change it now" and more "if you somehow manage to fix it then that's awesome, otherwise I've no intention of buying a Bioware game again".

 

[Blackace]

It's their game not yours deal with it.

If it sucks, it sucks.

That's not really how it works

 

[Erethian]

Because it's easy to judge people when you've no real clue why they're pissed off and want to feel superior by insulting them.

Bioware have been adjusting the ME games from the very beginning to both make it more marketable to larger audiences and respond to criticism, so I fail to see how anyone could suddenly decide that Bioware has had a vision for the series all along. I mean really, why do you think Mass Effect 2 was so different from the first game? The only difference between then and now is that they're apparently making changes to the game post-launch. And really, even that isn't new to them. ME2: Arrival was obviously meant to take place after ME2's main story, leading straight into ME3.

Even ignoring all that though, if we're talking about Bioware's vision for the game, then let's talk about the ending. It was being changed right up until the final deadline and unlike everything else in the game (and the two prequels), it wasn't submitted to peer review. So in that case, it wasn't the teams vision in the first place, as only two people actually had any input into it.

Honestly though, regardless of any 'clarifications' Bioware plan on making, there's no way they're going to be able to fix that laughable deus ex machine mess. They'd have to completely redesign the last 20 minutes and that won't happen. So my response has been less "change it now" and more "if you somehow manage to fix it then that's awesome, otherwise I've no intention of buying a Bioware game again".

Even putting aside the Mass Effect series, it comes down to whether you consider the final packaged product a static or more dynamic, organic experience. I assume this has been posted elsewhere on GAF, but PC Gamer put up an article where they asked game designers about changing the Mass Effect 3 ending. I think Greg Kasavin had a pretty good view on it.

Making narrative changes post-release can be tricky because story is seen as canonical… history can’t be rewritten, and so on. But I think it’s important to note this type of thing does happen sometimes. Fallout shipped with a time-sensitive main quest that gave you a really bleak ending if you took too long to finish that quest. In the first patch, the developers eliminated the time limit, removing what could be seen as a major aspect of the ending. Years later, Fallout 3 got patched so that you could continue playing post-release. Many movies, including classics like Blade Runner, got director’s cuts with major narrative changes said to reflect the true authorial intent.

Whether it’s appropriate is a judgment call. I don’t think these cases are just a matter of the creators of these works buckling to pressure. I think they wanted to do the right thing, for the sake of their work and their audience. Likewise, in the current case of Mass Effect 3, I fully expect BioWare will do whatever they think is best. I think BioWare has accomplished an incredible achievement with Mass Effect, and I’ll be interested to see how it evolves from here.

Source

I liked Chris Avellone's view on it too.

 

[Goldmund]

Certainly people can be vocally irritated by the terrible ending, but to expect them to change it because people are disappointed is pretty embarrassing I think. It shows significant disrespect for the whole medium.

You will often see people complain about the end of a film, or book, but I've never heard of a petition to have them changed.

Big blockbusters in any medium are little more than documents of uttermost disrespect for their own medium and its users. It's not like being ideally disrespectful on top would paint Mass Effect 3 in a different light.

 

[StuBurns]

Big blockbusters in any medium are little more than documents of uttermost disrespect for their own medium and its recipients. It's not like being ideally disrespectful on top would paint Mass Effect 3 in a different light.

Yes, and how does the audience generally react when they hear of those issues? Test screenings, scripts changing hands and original authors intent being ignored? Heavy handed studios demanding call backs because a dog dying is too sad for the mainstream Western public?

People bitch, and rightly so. The idea this time the audience is the people being the suits is really sad.

A lot of the comparisons have been faulty in that Mass Effect reacts to the audiences wishes both within the game, and when designing sequels and DLC, so it is somewhat different to films in that respect. Also, cinema is a highly respected medium, video games are down with comic books and maybe television.

I would use a comic book example if I could, but I've never read one, so I can't, in which case, Lost. I personally like the ending of Lost, however, a lot of people didn't. It's a popular show, probably about in line with Mass Effect actually. The show reacted to audience feedback of characters, mythology pacing, etc. At no point after the ending disappointed so many people, was there some sort of audience mutiny demanding the ending be rewritten and produced. In fact, I would imagine it was never even considered.

Why should the two showrunners of Lost not be forced to 'fix their broken product'? What makes that situation any different to this one? As far as I can tell, it's that people considering TV worthy of artistic liberty, and video games not.

 

[Clear]

The way BioWare are apparently caving in on the ME3 ending shows a lack of confidence in their own creative vision at the very least, and a complete lack of artistic integrity at the very worst.

I can support to some degree the issues over the lack of player agency at the end - even though I think a lot of it comes from all the smoke BioWare have been blowing up people's asses about exactly how much power they have to direct the story finally backfiring on them - but wailing about deus ex machinae (which after thousands of years of dramaturgy is now a bad thing? - go figure) and the general fiction I think is simply laughable.

Don't like the ending, but enjoy the overall universe: Read/write some fan-fiction and share it with like-minded individuals. Be a fan. Be a superfan if you like. But this back-seat creative driving is bullshit and needs to stop.