Bioware. Lets be perfectly honest the number of companies that can come up with a coherent story, you can count on one hand. Bioware, Bungie, Naughty Dog, RockStar, and then the list goes cold. Sometimes a company like Remedy will hit gold ala Max Payne but consistently good story telling is hard to find. It's telling that our industry sells tens of millions of copies of COD/Battlefield and Madden every year and they get glowing reviews, while an rpgs like Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 3, Witcher 2, etc, etc get penalized for the smallest things. Just take a quick gander at reviews of rpgs and you'll notice that they consistently score five or so points on average lower than games of similar technical skill. RPG's generally take half again as long as normal games and sell less than the big budget AAA titles, even the best ones (ME Trilogy, Dragon Age, FF, etc.)
Even rpgs like Skyrim with weak storys can slide by by showing great graphics, it's not that story is dead it's simply that it doesn't sell games. Much like the big popcorn movies of summer, the videogame industry is inundated with shooters, sports games, action games, and fighters. I hate the ending of Memento, couldn't stand that movie for it. And yet not once did I believe that the movie wasn't a impressive achievement. I read fantasy and sci-fi and lately, some of my favorite authors are writing little more than romance novels cloaked in supernatural fiction. It's completely irritating to me, but the fans want it and so the writers write it, but I still love the authors, even if I only read their early stuff.
What I'm trying to say is that this is not a popularity contest, videogames are tethered enough as it is by the business model, what does a videogame writer take from the hateful speech of the last month against Bioware? How many writers do you think thought to themselves it aint even worth the hassle? Actions have consequences, they reverberate long after we've forgotten them. How has this last month helped the videogame industry at all? If we don't like you're ending we'll shout it from the rooftops until you do what we say?
If you didn't like the ending fine, that's your right. But remember there are only a few companies that even care about you enough to write a good yarn. Did this last month gain you any more companies or help chase them away?
Alright. You've all convinced me. Even though I don't think the ending of ME3 was that terrible, I am now convinced that I am entitled to my way because I've spent money on something in the past. Art and the intentions of artists are irrelevant. If I don't like it I want it changed.
I'm compiling a list right now of all the stuff I don't like and intend to get "the internet" behind me to get it rectified.
The Star Wars Prequels. -- change them! I have tons of fan-fic I've written that's way better. George, give me a call!
On that subject, Ewoks. -- Replace them with Wookiees, that's what they were going to do anyway!
Indiana Jones 4. -- Seriously! This movie was crap. Again, I have better Indy fan-fic if Steve and George are reading this.
World of Warcraft -- Don't get me started! I paid for a few months for this game 5 years ago, I deserve a game where I can play a half dragon half vampire half werewolf that can defeat every other player in the game with one button.
Mona Lisa -- Needs eyebrows. Fix that. And what's with the background being all out of whack? Seriously Da Vinci was supposed to be a great artist. Looks like a bug to me!
All of Beethoven's Music -- Should be done by a group of humming midgets using auto-tune. I bought a CD of the 9th symphony once, it's the least I'm entitled to.
Every 99 cent app I've ever downloaded for my phone -- Fix every minor bug immediately and provide me free updates to the next 99 cent versions for my life plus the life of my children.
It’s alright to not be satisfied. Heck, I paid money to see a Transformers movie. I was extremely dissatisfied. What I didn't do was demand that Michael Bay make me a better movie with those same characters, even though I felt like I had a hundred better ways in my head to make that picture. I said "that sucked" and moved on.
That's my problem with this entire thing, not that people didn't like the ending, though as I've already proved I am happy to explain my interpretation and defend it, it's that people think they deserve something else. No, you don't.
My problem with the ending of ME3 is that it didn't follow the theme of the games. To explain, let's say you're watching that Transformers movie and you don't like it, fair enough, it's not a film you're enjoying, but then in the last ten minutes they change all that crazy robot carnage into an animated movie where Bugs Bunny comes bouncing across the screen, looks up at Optimus Prime and says, "Ehhhh.. What's up doc!?".
Or in the art case. Let's take the Mona Lisa, it's a beautiful painting, but near completion the artist decided that she needed bunny ears. Would that art still be considered a masterpiece? Is the 'artistic integrity' still there?
Because that, to me, is the case with ME3's ending. They sold the games as a gung-ho action sci-fi movie with no metaphysical spiritual space-magic hoodoo anywhere, then the last ten minutes they completely switch themes, open up massive plot holes and throw in something akin to the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey, instead of the Starship Troopers-esque style it originally had.
Any integrity the artist had was lost when they put pen to paper and wrote the last ten minutes of ME3.
The ending fit the theme of the previous games EXACTLY. ME1 and 2 were all about a battle between synthetic and organic life. The ending of ME3 is the ultimate resolution of that conflict. If you felt that all synthetic life had to be destroyed for you to win, you have that option. If you want to play god and control it all, like Martin Sheen, er, The Illlusive Man, you had that option, and if you wanted to be a true hero, you could end the struggle by uniting two warring factions such that it would never happen again.
So thematically, the ending is perfect.
I fully agree that much of it felt rushed, that it was excessively cryptic, and that important details (how'd Shepard's crew get back to the Normandy? How'd the Normandy get away? etc...) were left out. That's dissapointing.
And I really don't grasp your comparison between Mass Effect and Starship Troopers.
Starship Troopers is a typical Paul Verehoven film, parodying patriotism and militarism with a hamfisted, over the top presentation and completely flat characters.
Mass Effect is a detaileld story with complex, fleshed out characters with realistic motivations, full of difficult choices that force the player to make philosophical and moral judgements.
I just don't understand what the ME3 ending detractors were expecting.
And I really don't grasp your comparison between Mass Effect and Starship Troopers.
Starship Troopers is a typical Paul Verehoven film, parodying patriotism and militarism with a hamfisted, over the top presentation and completely flat characters.
Uhm, you may have missed the fact that Verhoeven's movie was based on a novel by Robert. A. Heinlein.
And that Verhoeven used his movie to criticize the pro- fascist/pro-military nature of the novel, which he admittably didn't finish reading (And those two criticisms have been leveled at the novel before by others as well. Couple of other criticisms as well, such as the characters being flat, but I want to keep it brief.)
Amusing because even in the book, Heinlein says he's not saying the military is better just that they have learned to sacrifice for the common good. Heinlein didn't believe himself to be a hawk. Either way no one got the hamfisted BS he was trying to pull in the movie, so Heinlein got the last laugh anyways.
Alright. You've all convinced me. Even though I don't think the ending of ME3 was that terrible, I am now convinced that I am entitled to my way because I've spent money on something in the past. Art and the intentions of artists are irrelevant. If I don't like it I want it changed.
I'm compiling a list right now of all the stuff I don't like and intend to get "the internet" behind me to get it rectified.
The Star Wars Prequels. -- change them! I have tons of fan-fic I've written that's way better. George, give me a call!
On that subject, Ewoks. -- Replace them with Wookiees, that's what they were going to do anyway!
Indiana Jones 4. -- Seriously! This movie was crap. Again, I have better Indy fan-fic if Steve and George are reading this.
World of Warcraft -- Don't get me started! I paid for a few months for this game 5 years ago, I deserve a game where I can play a half dragon half vampire half werewolf that can defeat every other player in the game with one button.
Mona Lisa -- Needs eyebrows. Fix that. And what's with the background being all out of whack? Seriously Da Vinci was supposed to be a great artist. Looks like a bug to me!
All of Beethoven's Music -- Should be done by a group of humming midgets using auto-tune. I bought a CD of the 9th symphony once, it's the least I'm entitled to.
Every 99 cent app I've ever downloaded for my phone -- Fix every minor bug immediately and provide me free updates to the next 99 cent versions for my life plus the life of my children.
Is that too much to ask? I've earned it!
Nice try with the Hyperbole, but as mentioned there is a difference between Commercial Art and Art, and not enough time has progressed for ME to be considered Art as opposed to Commercial Art.
So your Mona Lisa crack is already a no go, as that is indeed Art due to the passed time..
Beethoven, feel free to have someone do a cover version with your midgets. That's one of the nice things of Music. Concepts like covering a song, originally written by someone else, does exist.
Frank Sinatra is a good example of this. "Fly me to the Moon"? Originally sung by Kaye Balard in 1954, Frank's version didn't arise until 1964.
"Ghost Riders in the Sky"? Original version by Burl Ives in February 1949. Vaughn Monrie (who's version was the best selling one.), March 1949. Elvis Presly? 1970. Johnny Cash? 1979. The Outlaws? 1980. The Blues Brothers, 1998. Spiderbait? 2007.
Star Wars prequels. It's been done. Fan based, cuts out all the bits that were just bad, like most of the Jar Jar scenes in Phantom Menace. You might be able to find it on Youtube.
As for the Ewoks and Wookie things, you just might find a decent amount of support for that. But then again, you'll have more success if you work on the whole Greedo/Han shot first bit. And I do have to warn you, that Lucas like to wave his Artistic Integrity flag around as well. And he isn't exactly known to listen to his fanbase.
(One could argue that he's the poster child for why Artistic Integrity/Vision is sometimes a non-defense.)
Indy 4.. Again, you might have a shot at it. Ford didn't particularly like it either. And Spielberg is more open to changes that actually help the story. He originally caved with ET and removed the guns from the Governmental Personel, and changed them to walkytalkies. But even he thought it nuts, and in the most recent re-release due to an anniversary, he restored it to the original version.
Still, like I said before, changing a movie is a lot harder than just patching a game.
Which brings me to WoW.
a) You got two many halfs in your request there. 2 halves make a whole, basic math.
So no you can't be a half dragon, half vampire and half werewolf, that would put you at 1.5 and no one is a 1.5 anything.
b) Neither Vampires nor Werewolves exist in the WoW setting, and this has been the case since the very first game. Having said that Dreadlords do somewhat resemble Vampires, but they're referred to as Demons, not Undead. And Worgen are somewhat similar to Werewolves, but again, it's not a 1 to 1 match. No additional vulnerability to silver or wolfsbane for instance.
So your propisition would be more akin to the ME3 ending, as it doesn't fit with the existing world and its mythos.
c) I win button. That's an issue of game balance, which considering its an MMO, has far more relevance than to a single player/co-op game like ME3. So this is like comparing an F-16 to an M1A1. Both military machines, but very very different in ability, useage and required skill set.
Lastly for the Aps thing, kinda depends on what the ToS/contracts states if you buy it.
If an App maker were to have a bug in its software that fully nuked your phone number listing, then yeah, they should very much fix it. Course they can decide not to do so, and that just means that you'll know not to do business with them in the future.
Same goes for Bioware in this situation. They can choose to leave it as is, but then they run the risk that their next game won't be a homerun saleswise.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.. And a lot of folks won't be willing to get shamed for falling for their tactics again.
Which reminds me, kindly remove the seatbelts, airbags, rollbars and roof reinforcement from your car. They were only implemented due to the complaint made by Dr. C. Hunter Shelden in 1955, which caused Congress making a law in 1959 to enhance safety standards. And as you're arguing that complaining to have something fixed is wrong, and that people should just accept it, then you should not be making use of these things yourself.
As for the Ewoks and Wookie things, you just might find a decent amount of support for that. But then again, you'll have more success if you work on the whole Greedo/Han shot first bit. And I do have to warn you, that Lucas like to wave his Artistic Integrity flag around as well. And he isn't exactly known to listen to his fanbase.
(One could argue that he's the poster child for why Artistic Integrity/Vision is sometimes a non-defense.)
Which is amusing. If Lucas changes things, its heresy but if the fans call for a change its perfectly alright for Mass Effect. Ahh yes I understand now. Basically I'm the center of the universe, and everyone else is wrong. Yes, yes I can see the light finally...
The ending fit the theme of the previous games EXACTLY. ME1 and 2 were all about a battle between synthetic and organic life. The ending of ME3 is the ultimate resolution of that conflict. If you felt that all synthetic life had to be destroyed for you to win, you have that option. If you want to play god and control it all, like Martin Sheen, er, The Illlusive Man, you had that option, and if you wanted to be a true hero, you could end the struggle by uniting two warring factions such that it would never happen again.
So thematically, the ending is perfect.
I fully agree that much of it felt rushed, that it was excessively cryptic, and that important details (how'd Shepard's crew get back to the Normandy? How'd the Normandy get away? etc...) were left out. That's dissapointing.
And I really don't grasp your comparison between Mass Effect and Starship Troopers.
Starship Troopers is a typical Paul Verehoven film, parodying patriotism and militarism with a hamfisted, over the top presentation and completely flat characters.
Mass Effect is a detaileld story with complex, fleshed out characters with realistic motivations, full of difficult choices that force the player to make philosophical and moral judgements.
I just don't understand what the ME3 ending detractors were expecting.
I agree the ending fits what you're trying to do, however the theme didn't fit with the rest of the series. The starkid, the DNA altering space magic, breathing in a vacuum, etc. It wasn't following the same design as the rest of the series. That is my point about the 2001 ending and Starship Troopers, 2001 had a certain style to it, Starship Troopers had another style, one was 'arty' while the other was a gung-ho action movie with spacebugs and lots of guns. Putting a 2001 ending into Starship Troopers would be as jarring to me as the current ending to ME3 in the ME series. The styles are all wrong.
Just look at the end of the other two games. ME1: A 'boss' battle against a Reaper husk while outside an Alliance force tries to bring down an actual Reaper and fight off Geth forces. ME2: Another boss battle against a Reaper construct after fighting through a Collector base. ME3: A mind reading Starkid giving 3 choices that leads to DNA altering space magic. You see what I'm getting at here?
If it was presented in a different way the ending might have worked, but the current ending is just awful, my first thought upon being woken up by starbrat was, "What the hell is this?!". It went rapidly downhill from there.
I picked Starship Troopers because it's basically about travelling through space fighting aliens, with some relationship nonsense going on along with it. It fits in my head, just go with it.
As for the Ewoks and Wookie things, you just might find a decent amount of support for that. But then again, you'll have more success if you work on the whole Greedo/Han shot first bit. And I do have to warn you, that Lucas like to wave his Artistic Integrity flag around as well. And he isn't exactly known to listen to his fanbase.
(One could argue that he's the poster child for why Artistic Integrity/Vision is sometimes a non-defense.)
Which is amusing. If Lucas changes things, its heresy but if the fans call for a change its perfectly alright for Mass Effect. Ahh yes I understand now. Basically I'm the center of the universe, and everyone else is wrong. Yes, yes I can see the light finally...
Like I said, it's easier to fix a game, than it is to fix a movie.
Especially one, where the majority seems to actually like the version that was released: Han shot first. (Note, how unlike the Director's Cut to Bladerunner that is, where folks actually prefer the "newer" version. How things fit into the universe makes all the difference. Han being a criminal with a heart of gold, who undergoes a journey of social redemption is far more interesting, than the more goody goody (and I'm saying that as a NG with a rather strong lawful streak) than Lucas is painting him as, in his "corrections".)
Anyway, considering the number of sign-ups to the various protest sites, considering how much was raised for charity. Sure as heck, doesn't look like the majority of the people like the current ending of ME3. Matter of fact, there seems to be three groups from my perspective. Those that hate it, those that love it, and the silent majority. With the first group being bigger than the second one, and its size compared to the third one is unclear.
A far more appropriate analogy for the current ME3 ruccus, is the death of Sherlock Holmes.
That too was fixed by the Author subsequently after fan protest. Sure some folks loved how the death went, and they may very well have been displeased by his resurrection. But if one looks at the salesnumbers on the latter Sherlock works, looks like both the vocal group and the silent majority were in agreement, because the works did keep selling like hotcakes.
So to apply that same situation to ME3, fixing the ending, and giving the vocal naysayers their wish, is far more likely to lead to further commercial success, rather than to please the ones who wish to keep the status quo, as that will lead to less money being made.
And at the end of the day, they're a business and making money is what they do.
And yet it was logical. Logic dictates that synthetic sentients can't build themselves, and can't become sentient without having been built by organics. The endings coincide perfectly with the Reapers. Remember you've been told over and over again that without the Reapers there is chaos, that organics will always make synthetics and then be overthrown by them. The Proteans had the Metacon War. The Reapers were likely made by an organic race, the Geth and the Quarians, even EDI disobeyed her maker. Note the Asari had outlawed AI's even before the Quarians had created the Geth. It's like organics have racial memories passed down eon upon eon to not mess with Synthetics.
All of which leads to the three choices. One, to believe that organics will always follow the same patterns each and every cycle as the Protheans and the Catalyst believe and thus control the Reapers to ensure that synthetics never wipe out organics. Two, to believe that organics are worth more than synthetics and the Catalyst is not to be believed.Thus the choice is to wipe out all synthetic life in the galaxy, including the Geth and EDI. Or Three, to believe that Syntetics and Organics can be more than the sum of their beginnings and can coexist in harmony, as Sheperd can demonstrate with the Quarians and the Geth who become allies if not friends.
Addendum: Wow Valas I don't even know where to start. Sales figures should dictate artistic content?! Can you imagine Paul releasing Beatles Albums to a become hip hop albums or Michael's Thriller becoming country? If Bioware was concerned with making the most money, they'd have made it an FPS from the getgo. Read my response to Suzie's last post, don't think I should repeat myself...
I've thus far avoided outright telling anyone in this thread that he/she is wrong, but you sir/madam spent way too much time replying to a post that was nothing more than sarcasm.
Seriously what got into your head that you thought I would even care what you thought of each line item? (I don't care, by the way, and only read up to the point where you started pointing out each thing I jokingly wanted changed) They were just there for fluff, the point of my post was "you guys are all whiney entitled creeps who think the world revolves around you and deserve something more".
Maybe my problem there was what I wrote was too cryptic and not hand fed. In hind sight that might explain a lot. I demand a new ending to my original post!!!
I have a relevant question for you: When "William Dietz's ME novel, "Deception", came out, it was found to be filled with canonical errors that the fans of the series and the universe discovered. Bioware has since forced a rewrite to correct this. What about Dietz's artistic integrity? Hypocrite much, Bioware?
Secondly, whether or not the endings are logical (by your reasoning), they still introduce a host of plot holes, none of which I will enumerate since there are great YouTube videos and narrative analyses out there for you to search. Logic is one thing. Canonical violation is a whole 'nother ballgame.
Wow Suzie, I have never seen you so vocal on any topic on this site in all my time here, including other articles you have written. You are really upset huh?
Whilst I understand everyone (including me) was annoyed at the bleak ending to the Mass Effect series, we have to remember its just a game. This much drama seems to be a bit OTT to me.
Cluck Cluck, Gibber Gibber, My Old Mans A Mushroom
I loved it, every second of it; and it angers me to the core that one of the great storytellers of our generation in videogames, has been so chastisted by such arrogant fools. Like it, love it, hate it. Who the hell does it better?!
Drew Karpyshyn? Is that who you're talking about? He only did ME1. and did it brilliantly.
The writers of ME2 continued the excellence throughout 95% of ME3.
Mac Walters & Casey Hudson wrote the abomination of the ending to ME3.
So...which "great storyteller of our generation in video games" are you speaking of?
Bioware. Lets be perfectly honest the number of companies that can come up with a coherent story, you can count on one hand. Bioware, Bungie, Naughty Dog, RockStar, and then the list goes cold. Sometimes a company like Remedy will hit gold ala Max Payne but consistently good story telling is hard to find. It's telling that our industry sells tens of millions of copies of COD/Battlefield and Madden every year and they get glowing reviews, while an rpgs like Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 3, Witcher 2, etc, etc get penalized for the smallest things. Just take a quick gander at reviews of rpgs and you'll notice that they consistently score five or so points on average lower than games of similar technical skill. RPG's generally take half again as long as normal games and sell less than the big budget AAA titles, even the best ones (ME Trilogy, Dragon Age, FF, etc.)
Even rpgs like Skyrim with weak storys can slide by by showing great graphics, it's not that story is dead it's simply that it doesn't sell games. Much like the big popcorn movies of summer, the videogame industry is inundated with shooters, sports games, action games, and fighters. I hate the ending of Memento, couldn't stand that movie for it. And yet not once did I believe that the movie wasn't a impressive achievement. I read fantasy and sci-fi and lately, some of my favorite authors are writing little more than romance novels cloaked in supernatural fiction. It's completely irritating to me, but the fans want it and so the writers write it, but I still love the authors, even if I only read their early stuff.
What I'm trying to say is that this is not a popularity contest, videogames are tethered enough as it is by the business model, what does a videogame writer take from the hateful speech of the last month against Bioware? How many writers do you think thought to themselves it aint even worth the hassle? Actions have consequences, they reverberate long after we've forgotten them. How has this last month helped the videogame industry at all? If we don't like you're ending we'll shout it from the rooftops until you do what we say?
If you didn't like the ending fine, that's your right. But remember there are only a few companies that even care about you enough to write a good yarn. Did this last month gain you any more companies or help chase them away?
As someone who has said they're no longer going to buy Bioware games anymore I'd simply like an answer.
If I read my favorite author and enjoy every one of his novels up to the last chapter of the latest book, I am going to be VERY careful before I buy another one particularly if he tossed out every convention he'd used in every other book in favor of some cheap ending.
If I go to see my favorite director's latest flick....or my favorite band's latest album...*see above* Same thing.
Bioware is no different. I LOVED Mass Effect 1, Mass Effect 2 and 95% of Mass Effect 3. The ending has, however, resulted in an utter disconnect from everything that came before it. Buying another Bioware product is going to be a very carefully made decision based on a number of factors but, most importantly, whether or not they make sense of the abominable ending foisted on their customers. If and until that happens, Bioware won't see another dollar of mine, ever.
That's so sad that I'm speechless. I see you avoided the question completely as well. Whatever I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Well I suppose thats that. Best of luck to you.
"You can't predict how people will act, Garrus. But you can control how you'll respond. In the end, that's what really matters."
And I really don't grasp your comparison between Mass Effect and Starship Troopers.
Starship Troopers is a typical Paul Verehoven film, parodying patriotism and militarism with a hamfisted, over the top presentation and completely flat characters.
Uhm, you may have missed the fact that Verhoeven's movie was based on a novel by Robert. A. Heinlein.
And that Verhoeven used his movie to criticize the pro- fascist/pro-military nature of the novel, which he admittably didn't finish reading (And those two criticisms have been leveled at the novel before by others as well. Couple of other criticisms as well, such as the characters being flat, but I want to keep it brief.)
I'm fully aware of the Heinlein novel as Heinlein happens to be one of my favorite authors. I've read every one of his novels (my favorite being The Moon is a Harsh Mistress). I fully recognize that the novel has extremly strong militiristic themes within it. If you read Heinlein novels, you'll find that most of them have rather extreme arguments for things that the average person would balk at, from free love and non-traditional marriage practices to athiesm, anarchism and all sorts of different governmental / philosophical ideas.
The difference between the Verehoven film and the novel is that the characters in the Verhoven film are absolutely unsympathetic and without substance. Contrawise, there are actual arguments and discussions within the novel in which ideas are questioned and characters are developed. It's certainly not Heinlein's best novel, but it remains thought provoking and fun. The film is a sad joke by comparison.
I understand that Verehoven often tries to do satire, but he's so over the top that it just comes off as nonsene to me. The only Verehoven film I liked was "Black Book." (It's true, I don't even like Robocop, and Total Recall? Any respect I may have had for the man vanished when I listened to his commentary track for it. The man comes off like a snotty twelve year old hopped up on energy drinks.
I like things that are more cerebral. That's why I enjoyed Mass Effect so much, and also why I'm so glad that Bioware ended it the way it did, with something that fits the theme of the first two games, rather than some bombastic uber boss battle that results in you winning everything and losing nothing.
I'll say it again. The ending was rushed, needs to be fleshed out, but it is the RIGHT ENDING.
That's so sad that I'm speechless. I see you avoided the question completely as well. Whatever I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Well I suppose thats that. Best of luck to you.
"You can't predict how people will act, Garrus. But you can control how you'll respond. In the end, that's what really matters."
I don't need to answer the question outside of this excellent article about how the controversy could EMPOWER the industry, not hurt it:
Beyond that, I have few enough dollars for my entertainment. I want to purchase things that, in the end, leave me feeling satisfied. Bioware did not accomplish that for me and at least 62,000 others either. Like anyone with limited amounts of ready cash, I choose to buy products that give me what I want.
I'll say it again. The ending was rushed, needs to be fleshed out, but it is the RIGHT ENDING.
Saying its the right ending. I think you are reading into it, rather than looking at the actual thing.
Mass Effect was about choices and those choices having consequences for good or ill.
Mass Effect told a story.
The last 5 minutes was not about chocies, since they were all the same endings. Worse the choices you made before that had no impact on what happened.
The last 5 minutes was not in line with how they had been telling the story up to that point. There is a pattern and a pacing a story follows. As in exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and dénouement.
It was if someone with only a general idea of the prior story had been asked to finish it.
If anyone wants to argue the ending was right, please watch the links in this thread which give long and detailed reasons as to why the ending was bad then please explain how they are wrong.
I like things that are more cerebral. That's why I enjoyed Mass Effect so much, and also why I'm so glad that Bioware ended it the way it did, with something that fits the theme of the first two games, rather than some bombastic uber boss battle that results in you winning everything and losing nothing.
I'll say it again. The ending was rushed, needs to be fleshed out, but it is the RIGHT ENDING.
How does it fit the theme?
The theme of ME was up to the last 5 minutes of ME3 is to STOP THE REAPERS. You don't care or know why they are doing what ever they are doing your just going to STOP THE REAPERS. But instead of just stopping the reapers at the end, bioware felt that they needed to explain the reapers' actions... why? It doesn't make the ending any better, it actually makes it worse as it add themes and questions in to what should be the falling action of a story.
Does ME series deal with more complex plots? Of course but they are not the main plot nor should they be.
Had Shep cared to explore why the reapers were or the game gave hints all along the way. This ending might be the right one but as the game never even tries to explain them till the starchild appears and just lays it all out, it's a terrible ending that in no way fits the theme of ME.
Bioware should have saved the why for another game or series, because in the end ME should have just being about STOPPING the REAPERS not about understanding the reapers.
I will not play a game with a cash shop ever again. A dev job should be to make the game better not make me pay so it sucks less.
Addendum: Wow Valas I don't even know where to start. Sales figures should dictate artistic content?! Can you imagine Paul releasing Beatles Albums to a become hip hop albums or Michael's Thriller becoming country? If Bioware was concerned with making the most money, they'd have made it an FPS from the getgo. Read my response to Suzie's last post, don't think I should repeat myself...
Sales figures do dicatate when it comes to Commercial Art, yes. That's a distinction some of you chaps seem to be unable to grokk.
It's like having an architect design a house for you, he can call it Art if he wants, but you're the Patron. You're the one paying for things, and you'll be the one living in the house. So the House has to suit your taste, and not the Architects.
As for your music examples.
a) Sir Paul McCartney does not own the rights to the Beatle songs, so he'd need permission to release hip hop versions. That's the whole owing people royalties issue, when you're doing a cover of a song.
But if he paid up, he could very much do so. And this had indeed been done before. Note how I mentioned Spiderbait in one of my previous posts. Their version of "Ghost Riders in the Sky" really can't be called Country. It's more of a rock-country-metal hybrid.
Or to go more Classical. Toccata and Fugue in D minor by Vanessa Mae. Originally it was a classical piece meant for the Organ. She turned it into techno-pop-classical by using an electric violin.
Or let's compare Joe Harnell's "Fly me to the Moon - Bossa Nova" with let's say Sinatra's version or Nat King Cole's. Same song, yet all three very different.
b) Jackson. Well, he can't exactly redo Thriller being dead and all. Plus there's the small matter that while Country may be big in the US, Pop is bigger when you consider the world market. Which is what Jackson was aiming at. So yes, again a business decision to ensure that the song would sell across the whole world, rather than just in the US.
c) As for Bioware doing a shooter. Not as if they had that much experience with those, so them sticking to what they knew/know is smart business.
The shooting aspects of ME have been criticized as subpar by those more in tune with regular 3rd person shooters annex fps. So, again it's not as if they'd be drawing in a whole new audience, if they did decide to permanently go down that route, as the people attracted to those genres weren't very happy with their work. Plus there's the issue of them losing their old audience as well.
So again, that wouldn't be smart business. Especially, not considering that EA already had DICE for the fps. Heck, it's one of the reasons why EA bought Bioware in the first place, because they wanted to expand their market into the RPG/Action-RPG market, and having someone with Bioware's rep to handle such things is smart business.
That's what it all boils down to in the end. Smart business.
And losing your reputation, due to ego, when someone made something that just didn't fit within the existing framework. Heck, when the fan community has to come up with a reasonable explanation, like say the Indoctration Theory, to explain things. Well, then you're doing something wrong.
And that's not smart business.
So your whole, we have to coddle Bioware or they'll stop making RPGs. Not a fear you have to worry about, as them switching to another genre isn't smart business.
Not forgetting to mention, that even if it were the case, that a new studio would arise to fill in the gap. CD Projekt Red, wasn't founded till 2002, and what do they make? RPGs. Piranha Bytes has been around for a while, but what do they make? RPGs.
Or let's try Eidos Montreal with Deus Ex: Human Revolution. The original Deus Ex, only sold a little over 1 million copies as of april 2009. So why go to all that expense and make Human Revolution then..
Or what about Ken Levine and the guys over at Irrational Games. Why make Bioshocks?
Not as if System Shock sold millions of copies.
If a company wants to make a game, then they will, provided that they think there's a market for it.
And gee a rather vocal and unhappy audience seems to suggest, that yes, there is a definite market for it. Just that the consumers won't put up with being treated like mushrooms.
So again, Bioware not fixing this mess, that's not smart business. It's just something that's going to bite them in the backside in the end, and they'll end up like Pandemic or BIS, just a few paragraphs in the video games annals. If that's what they want, then so be it. Their call to make.
Second chances aren't given often, and only a fool spurns them out of misplaced pride.
I've thus far avoided outright telling anyone in this thread that he/she is wrong, but you sir/madam spent way too much time replying to a post that was nothing more than sarcasm.
Seriously what got into your head that you thought I would even care what you thought of each line item? (I don't care, by the way, and only read up to the point where you started pointing out each thing I jokingly wanted changed) They were just there for fluff, the point of my post was "you guys are all whiney entitled creeps who think the world revolves around you and deserve something more".
Maybe my problem there was what I wrote was too cryptic and not hand fed. In hind sight that might explain a lot. I demand a new ending to my original post!!!
*shrugs*
Than why do you even care about this article, if that's all?
How exactly does the dissatisfaction felt and expressed by people effect you? It shouldn't.
If you enjoyed the game, than good for you. You'd be no different from the folks who enjoyed the ending of the first theatrical release of Blade Runner. That's why the ending was changed in the first place, because their test audience didn't enjoy the ending version they initially had, so they made a happier one. It's available on DVD, so you'd never have to put up with the Director's Cut version.
Meanwhile, those who found the Happy Ending lacking, they can get the Director's Cut, and find enjoyment there, and plenty folks do.
Both sides win.
But let's turn this around a bit. Turn it more main stream. You vote for this guy, who's made a number of promises what he'd do for your district/state etc. But then he doesn't keep those promises, and not even for a good reason, but because his "priorities" changed and he subsequently did the exact opposite of what he promised you..
Are you going to vote for that guy again? Or are you going to pick someone else next time?
So how is that political example any different from this commercial one?
Sole difference being Bioware is being a given a second chance here.
Just as that politician wants to be voted into Office again, so does Bioware want your money again.
So are you going to be a mushroom, or are you going to be a consumer/citizen who will hold people accountable for broken promises?
Lastly as for your sarcasm/hyperbole or perhaps I should say Strawmen. That's exactly why I engaged them point by point. Because you do not give a proper argument, beyond, I think you're whiney brats.
Which as I mentioned in the beginning of this post, is a rather odd position to take, considering that it really shouldn't be effecting you one danged bit, if people are dissatisfied and expressing that.
If it's from some misplaced sense of, oh I think it's fine, and am morally superior to those complainers. Hate to tell you this, but it's due to those complainers that things get done in this world.
Gee it takes ages to walk from village A to village B. There has to be a faster way to get around. Someone then decides to domesticate a horse and use that for transportation instead.
Hmm.. Really can't carry all that much stuff with just these saddlebags.. Someone makes a cart to be pulled by the Horse. etc etc etc.
And while fixing this ending won't be as world changing as taming horses and using carts, it's still good to keep in practice. Consumers/Citizens have a duty to be criticial. It's the only way to assure that quality remains high.
And if your stance is, the ending was fine, I enjoyed it. Then don't download the patch that would "fix" it. Again a situation where everyone wins.
Comments
Bioware. Lets be perfectly honest the number of companies that can come up with a coherent story, you can count on one hand. Bioware, Bungie, Naughty Dog, RockStar, and then the list goes cold. Sometimes a company like Remedy will hit gold ala Max Payne but consistently good story telling is hard to find. It's telling that our industry sells tens of millions of copies of COD/Battlefield and Madden every year and they get glowing reviews, while an rpgs like Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 3, Witcher 2, etc, etc get penalized for the smallest things. Just take a quick gander at reviews of rpgs and you'll notice that they consistently score five or so points on average lower than games of similar technical skill. RPG's generally take half again as long as normal games and sell less than the big budget AAA titles, even the best ones (ME Trilogy, Dragon Age, FF, etc.)
Even rpgs like Skyrim with weak storys can slide by by showing great graphics, it's not that story is dead it's simply that it doesn't sell games. Much like the big popcorn movies of summer, the videogame industry is inundated with shooters, sports games, action games, and fighters. I hate the ending of Memento, couldn't stand that movie for it. And yet not once did I believe that the movie wasn't a impressive achievement. I read fantasy and sci-fi and lately, some of my favorite authors are writing little more than romance novels cloaked in supernatural fiction. It's completely irritating to me, but the fans want it and so the writers write it, but I still love the authors, even if I only read their early stuff.
What I'm trying to say is that this is not a popularity contest, videogames are tethered enough as it is by the business model, what does a videogame writer take from the hateful speech of the last month against Bioware? How many writers do you think thought to themselves it aint even worth the hassle? Actions have consequences, they reverberate long after we've forgotten them. How has this last month helped the videogame industry at all? If we don't like you're ending we'll shout it from the rooftops until you do what we say?
If you didn't like the ending fine, that's your right. But remember there are only a few companies that even care about you enough to write a good yarn. Did this last month gain you any more companies or help chase them away?
Alright. You've all convinced me. Even though I don't think the ending of ME3 was that terrible, I am now convinced that I am entitled to my way because I've spent money on something in the past. Art and the intentions of artists are irrelevant. If I don't like it I want it changed.
I'm compiling a list right now of all the stuff I don't like and intend to get "the internet" behind me to get it rectified.
The Star Wars Prequels. -- change them! I have tons of fan-fic I've written that's way better. George, give me a call!
On that subject, Ewoks. -- Replace them with Wookiees, that's what they were going to do anyway!
Indiana Jones 4. -- Seriously! This movie was crap. Again, I have better Indy fan-fic if Steve and George are reading this.
World of Warcraft -- Don't get me started! I paid for a few months for this game 5 years ago, I deserve a game where I can play a half dragon half vampire half werewolf that can defeat every other player in the game with one button.
Mona Lisa -- Needs eyebrows. Fix that. And what's with the background being all out of whack? Seriously Da Vinci was supposed to be a great artist. Looks like a bug to me!
All of Beethoven's Music -- Should be done by a group of humming midgets using auto-tune. I bought a CD of the 9th symphony once, it's the least I'm entitled to.
Every 99 cent app I've ever downloaded for my phone -- Fix every minor bug immediately and provide me free updates to the next 99 cent versions for my life plus the life of my children.
Is that too much to ask? I've earned it!
The ending fit the theme of the previous games EXACTLY. ME1 and 2 were all about a battle between synthetic and organic life. The ending of ME3 is the ultimate resolution of that conflict. If you felt that all synthetic life had to be destroyed for you to win, you have that option. If you want to play god and control it all, like Martin Sheen, er, The Illlusive Man, you had that option, and if you wanted to be a true hero, you could end the struggle by uniting two warring factions such that it would never happen again.
So thematically, the ending is perfect.
I fully agree that much of it felt rushed, that it was excessively cryptic, and that important details (how'd Shepard's crew get back to the Normandy? How'd the Normandy get away? etc...) were left out. That's dissapointing.
And I really don't grasp your comparison between Mass Effect and Starship Troopers.
Starship Troopers is a typical Paul Verehoven film, parodying patriotism and militarism with a hamfisted, over the top presentation and completely flat characters.
Mass Effect is a detaileld story with complex, fleshed out characters with realistic motivations, full of difficult choices that force the player to make philosophical and moral judgements.
I just don't understand what the ME3 ending detractors were expecting.
Uhm, you may have missed the fact that Verhoeven's movie was based on a novel by Robert. A. Heinlein.
And that Verhoeven used his movie to criticize the pro- fascist/pro-military nature of the novel, which he admittably didn't finish reading (And those two criticisms have been leveled at the novel before by others as well. Couple of other criticisms as well, such as the characters being flat, but I want to keep it brief.)
Amusing because even in the book, Heinlein says he's not saying the military is better just that they have learned to sacrifice for the common good. Heinlein didn't believe himself to be a hawk. Either way no one got the hamfisted BS he was trying to pull in the movie, so Heinlein got the last laugh anyways.
Nice try with the Hyperbole, but as mentioned there is a difference between Commercial Art and Art, and not enough time has progressed for ME to be considered Art as opposed to Commercial Art.
So your Mona Lisa crack is already a no go, as that is indeed Art due to the passed time..
Beethoven, feel free to have someone do a cover version with your midgets. That's one of the nice things of Music. Concepts like covering a song, originally written by someone else, does exist.
Frank Sinatra is a good example of this. "Fly me to the Moon"? Originally sung by Kaye Balard in 1954, Frank's version didn't arise until 1964.
"Ghost Riders in the Sky"? Original version by Burl Ives in February 1949. Vaughn Monrie (who's version was the best selling one.), March 1949. Elvis Presly? 1970. Johnny Cash? 1979. The Outlaws? 1980. The Blues Brothers, 1998. Spiderbait? 2007.
Star Wars prequels. It's been done. Fan based, cuts out all the bits that were just bad, like most of the Jar Jar scenes in Phantom Menace. You might be able to find it on Youtube.
As for the Ewoks and Wookie things, you just might find a decent amount of support for that. But then again, you'll have more success if you work on the whole Greedo/Han shot first bit. And I do have to warn you, that Lucas like to wave his Artistic Integrity flag around as well. And he isn't exactly known to listen to his fanbase.
(One could argue that he's the poster child for why Artistic Integrity/Vision is sometimes a non-defense.)
Indy 4.. Again, you might have a shot at it. Ford didn't particularly like it either. And Spielberg is more open to changes that actually help the story. He originally caved with ET and removed the guns from the Governmental Personel, and changed them to walkytalkies. But even he thought it nuts, and in the most recent re-release due to an anniversary, he restored it to the original version.
Still, like I said before, changing a movie is a lot harder than just patching a game.
Which brings me to WoW.
a) You got two many halfs in your request there. 2 halves make a whole, basic math.
So no you can't be a half dragon, half vampire and half werewolf, that would put you at 1.5 and no one is a 1.5 anything.
b) Neither Vampires nor Werewolves exist in the WoW setting, and this has been the case since the very first game. Having said that Dreadlords do somewhat resemble Vampires, but they're referred to as Demons, not Undead. And Worgen are somewhat similar to Werewolves, but again, it's not a 1 to 1 match. No additional vulnerability to silver or wolfsbane for instance.
So your propisition would be more akin to the ME3 ending, as it doesn't fit with the existing world and its mythos.
c) I win button. That's an issue of game balance, which considering its an MMO, has far more relevance than to a single player/co-op game like ME3. So this is like comparing an F-16 to an M1A1. Both military machines, but very very different in ability, useage and required skill set.
Lastly for the Aps thing, kinda depends on what the ToS/contracts states if you buy it.
If an App maker were to have a bug in its software that fully nuked your phone number listing, then yeah, they should very much fix it. Course they can decide not to do so, and that just means that you'll know not to do business with them in the future.
Same goes for Bioware in this situation. They can choose to leave it as is, but then they run the risk that their next game won't be a homerun saleswise.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.. And a lot of folks won't be willing to get shamed for falling for their tactics again.
Which reminds me, kindly remove the seatbelts, airbags, rollbars and roof reinforcement from your car. They were only implemented due to the complaint made by Dr. C. Hunter Shelden in 1955, which caused Congress making a law in 1959 to enhance safety standards. And as you're arguing that complaining to have something fixed is wrong, and that people should just accept it, then you should not be making use of these things yourself.
As for the Ewoks and Wookie things, you just might find a decent amount of support for that. But then again, you'll have more success if you work on the whole Greedo/Han shot first bit. And I do have to warn you, that Lucas like to wave his Artistic Integrity flag around as well. And he isn't exactly known to listen to his fanbase.
(One could argue that he's the poster child for why Artistic Integrity/Vision is sometimes a non-defense.)
Which is amusing. If Lucas changes things, its heresy but if the fans call for a change its perfectly alright for Mass Effect. Ahh yes I understand now. Basically I'm the center of the universe, and everyone else is wrong. Yes, yes I can see the light finally...
I agree the ending fits what you're trying to do, however the theme didn't fit with the rest of the series. The starkid, the DNA altering space magic, breathing in a vacuum, etc. It wasn't following the same design as the rest of the series. That is my point about the 2001 ending and Starship Troopers, 2001 had a certain style to it, Starship Troopers had another style, one was 'arty' while the other was a gung-ho action movie with spacebugs and lots of guns. Putting a 2001 ending into Starship Troopers would be as jarring to me as the current ending to ME3 in the ME series. The styles are all wrong.
Just look at the end of the other two games. ME1: A 'boss' battle against a Reaper husk while outside an Alliance force tries to bring down an actual Reaper and fight off Geth forces. ME2: Another boss battle against a Reaper construct after fighting through a Collector base. ME3: A mind reading Starkid giving 3 choices that leads to DNA altering space magic. You see what I'm getting at here?
If it was presented in a different way the ending might have worked, but the current ending is just awful, my first thought upon being woken up by starbrat was, "What the hell is this?!". It went rapidly downhill from there.
I picked Starship Troopers because it's basically about travelling through space fighting aliens, with some relationship nonsense going on along with it. It fits in my head, just go with it.
Like I said, it's easier to fix a game, than it is to fix a movie.
Especially one, where the majority seems to actually like the version that was released: Han shot first. (Note, how unlike the Director's Cut to Bladerunner that is, where folks actually prefer the "newer" version. How things fit into the universe makes all the difference. Han being a criminal with a heart of gold, who undergoes a journey of social redemption is far more interesting, than the more goody goody (and I'm saying that as a NG with a rather strong lawful streak) than Lucas is painting him as, in his "corrections".)
Anyway, considering the number of sign-ups to the various protest sites, considering how much was raised for charity. Sure as heck, doesn't look like the majority of the people like the current ending of ME3. Matter of fact, there seems to be three groups from my perspective. Those that hate it, those that love it, and the silent majority. With the first group being bigger than the second one, and its size compared to the third one is unclear.
A far more appropriate analogy for the current ME3 ruccus, is the death of Sherlock Holmes.
That too was fixed by the Author subsequently after fan protest. Sure some folks loved how the death went, and they may very well have been displeased by his resurrection. But if one looks at the salesnumbers on the latter Sherlock works, looks like both the vocal group and the silent majority were in agreement, because the works did keep selling like hotcakes.
So to apply that same situation to ME3, fixing the ending, and giving the vocal naysayers their wish, is far more likely to lead to further commercial success, rather than to please the ones who wish to keep the status quo, as that will lead to less money being made.
And at the end of the day, they're a business and making money is what they do.
And yet it was logical. Logic dictates that synthetic sentients can't build themselves, and can't become sentient without having been built by organics. The endings coincide perfectly with the Reapers. Remember you've been told over and over again that without the Reapers there is chaos, that organics will always make synthetics and then be overthrown by them. The Proteans had the Metacon War. The Reapers were likely made by an organic race, the Geth and the Quarians, even EDI disobeyed her maker. Note the Asari had outlawed AI's even before the Quarians had created the Geth. It's like organics have racial memories passed down eon upon eon to not mess with Synthetics.
All of which leads to the three choices. One, to believe that organics will always follow the same patterns each and every cycle as the Protheans and the Catalyst believe and thus control the Reapers to ensure that synthetics never wipe out organics. Two, to believe that organics are worth more than synthetics and the Catalyst is not to be believed.Thus the choice is to wipe out all synthetic life in the galaxy, including the Geth and EDI. Or Three, to believe that Syntetics and Organics can be more than the sum of their beginnings and can coexist in harmony, as Sheperd can demonstrate with the Quarians and the Geth who become allies if not friends.
Addendum: Wow Valas I don't even know where to start. Sales figures should dictate artistic content?! Can you imagine Paul releasing Beatles Albums to a become hip hop albums or Michael's Thriller becoming country? If Bioware was concerned with making the most money, they'd have made it an FPS from the getgo. Read my response to Suzie's last post, don't think I should repeat myself...
I've thus far avoided outright telling anyone in this thread that he/she is wrong, but you sir/madam spent way too much time replying to a post that was nothing more than sarcasm.
Seriously what got into your head that you thought I would even care what you thought of each line item? (I don't care, by the way, and only read up to the point where you started pointing out each thing I jokingly wanted changed) They were just there for fluff, the point of my post was "you guys are all whiney entitled creeps who think the world revolves around you and deserve something more".
Maybe my problem there was what I wrote was too cryptic and not hand fed. In hind sight that might explain a lot. I demand a new ending to my original post!!!
'Nuff said.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ahh so no response then? Color me surprised...
Response to what?
I have a relevant question for you: When "William Dietz's ME novel, "Deception", came out, it was found to be filled with canonical errors that the fans of the series and the universe discovered. Bioware has since forced a rewrite to correct this. What about Dietz's artistic integrity? Hypocrite much, Bioware?
Secondly, whether or not the endings are logical (by your reasoning), they still introduce a host of plot holes, none of which I will enumerate since there are great YouTube videos and narrative analyses out there for you to search. Logic is one thing. Canonical violation is a whole 'nother ballgame.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Wow Suzie, I have never seen you so vocal on any topic on this site in all my time here, including other articles you have written. You are really upset huh?
Whilst I understand everyone (including me) was annoyed at the bleak ending to the Mass Effect series, we have to remember its just a game. This much drama seems to be a bit OTT to me.
Cluck Cluck, Gibber Gibber, My Old Mans A Mushroom
Bioware. Lets be perfectly honest the number of companies that can come up with a coherent story, you can count on one hand. Bioware, Bungie, Naughty Dog, RockStar, and then the list goes cold. Sometimes a company like Remedy will hit gold ala Max Payne but consistently good story telling is hard to find. It's telling that our industry sells tens of millions of copies of COD/Battlefield and Madden every year and they get glowing reviews, while an rpgs like Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 3, Witcher 2, etc, etc get penalized for the smallest things. Just take a quick gander at reviews of rpgs and you'll notice that they consistently score five or so points on average lower than games of similar technical skill. RPG's generally take half again as long as normal games and sell less than the big budget AAA titles, even the best ones (ME Trilogy, Dragon Age, FF, etc.)
Even rpgs like Skyrim with weak storys can slide by by showing great graphics, it's not that story is dead it's simply that it doesn't sell games. Much like the big popcorn movies of summer, the videogame industry is inundated with shooters, sports games, action games, and fighters. I hate the ending of Memento, couldn't stand that movie for it. And yet not once did I believe that the movie wasn't a impressive achievement. I read fantasy and sci-fi and lately, some of my favorite authors are writing little more than romance novels cloaked in supernatural fiction. It's completely irritating to me, but the fans want it and so the writers write it, but I still love the authors, even if I only read their early stuff.
What I'm trying to say is that this is not a popularity contest, videogames are tethered enough as it is by the business model, what does a videogame writer take from the hateful speech of the last month against Bioware? How many writers do you think thought to themselves it aint even worth the hassle? Actions have consequences, they reverberate long after we've forgotten them. How has this last month helped the videogame industry at all? If we don't like you're ending we'll shout it from the rooftops until you do what we say?
If you didn't like the ending fine, that's your right. But remember there are only a few companies that even care about you enough to write a good yarn. Did this last month gain you any more companies or help chase them away?
As someone who has said they're no longer going to buy Bioware games anymore I'd simply like an answer.
If I read my favorite author and enjoy every one of his novels up to the last chapter of the latest book, I am going to be VERY careful before I buy another one particularly if he tossed out every convention he'd used in every other book in favor of some cheap ending.
If I go to see my favorite director's latest flick....or my favorite band's latest album...*see above* Same thing.
Bioware is no different. I LOVED Mass Effect 1, Mass Effect 2 and 95% of Mass Effect 3. The ending has, however, resulted in an utter disconnect from everything that came before it. Buying another Bioware product is going to be a very carefully made decision based on a number of factors but, most importantly, whether or not they make sense of the abominable ending foisted on their customers. If and until that happens, Bioware won't see another dollar of mine, ever.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That's so sad that I'm speechless. I see you avoided the question completely as well. Whatever I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Well I suppose thats that. Best of luck to you.
"You can't predict how people will act, Garrus. But you can control how you'll respond. In the end, that's what really matters."
I'm fully aware of the Heinlein novel as Heinlein happens to be one of my favorite authors. I've read every one of his novels (my favorite being The Moon is a Harsh Mistress). I fully recognize that the novel has extremly strong militiristic themes within it. If you read Heinlein novels, you'll find that most of them have rather extreme arguments for things that the average person would balk at, from free love and non-traditional marriage practices to athiesm, anarchism and all sorts of different governmental / philosophical ideas.
The difference between the Verehoven film and the novel is that the characters in the Verhoven film are absolutely unsympathetic and without substance. Contrawise, there are actual arguments and discussions within the novel in which ideas are questioned and characters are developed. It's certainly not Heinlein's best novel, but it remains thought provoking and fun. The film is a sad joke by comparison.
I understand that Verehoven often tries to do satire, but he's so over the top that it just comes off as nonsene to me. The only Verehoven film I liked was "Black Book." (It's true, I don't even like Robocop, and Total Recall? Any respect I may have had for the man vanished when I listened to his commentary track for it. The man comes off like a snotty twelve year old hopped up on energy drinks.
I like things that are more cerebral. That's why I enjoyed Mass Effect so much, and also why I'm so glad that Bioware ended it the way it did, with something that fits the theme of the first two games, rather than some bombastic uber boss battle that results in you winning everything and losing nothing.
I'll say it again. The ending was rushed, needs to be fleshed out, but it is the RIGHT ENDING.
I don't need to answer the question outside of this excellent article about how the controversy could EMPOWER the industry, not hurt it:
http://www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-change-could-have-empowered-game-writing/
Beyond that, I have few enough dollars for my entertainment. I want to purchase things that, in the end, leave me feeling satisfied. Bioware did not accomplish that for me and at least 62,000 others either. Like anyone with limited amounts of ready cash, I choose to buy products that give me what I want.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Saying its the right ending. I think you are reading into it, rather than looking at the actual thing.
Mass Effect was about choices and those choices having consequences for good or ill.
Mass Effect told a story.
The last 5 minutes was not about chocies, since they were all the same endings. Worse the choices you made before that had no impact on what happened.
The last 5 minutes was not in line with how they had been telling the story up to that point. There is a pattern and a pacing a story follows. As in exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and dénouement.
It was if someone with only a general idea of the prior story had been asked to finish it.
If anyone wants to argue the ending was right, please watch the links in this thread which give long and detailed reasons as to why the ending was bad then please explain how they are wrong.
How does it fit the theme?
The theme of ME was up to the last 5 minutes of ME3 is to STOP THE REAPERS. You don't care or know why they are doing what ever they are doing your just going to STOP THE REAPERS. But instead of just stopping the reapers at the end, bioware felt that they needed to explain the reapers' actions... why? It doesn't make the ending any better, it actually makes it worse as it add themes and questions in to what should be the falling action of a story.
Does ME series deal with more complex plots? Of course but they are not the main plot nor should they be.
Had Shep cared to explore why the reapers were or the game gave hints all along the way. This ending might be the right one but as the game never even tries to explain them till the starchild appears and just lays it all out, it's a terrible ending that in no way fits the theme of ME.
Bioware should have saved the why for another game or series, because in the end ME should have just being about STOPPING the REAPERS not about understanding the reapers.
I will not play a game with a cash shop ever again. A dev job should be to make the game better not make me pay so it sucks less.
Sales figures do dicatate when it comes to Commercial Art, yes. That's a distinction some of you chaps seem to be unable to grokk.
It's like having an architect design a house for you, he can call it Art if he wants, but you're the Patron. You're the one paying for things, and you'll be the one living in the house. So the House has to suit your taste, and not the Architects.
As for your music examples.
a) Sir Paul McCartney does not own the rights to the Beatle songs, so he'd need permission to release hip hop versions. That's the whole owing people royalties issue, when you're doing a cover of a song.
But if he paid up, he could very much do so. And this had indeed been done before. Note how I mentioned Spiderbait in one of my previous posts. Their version of "Ghost Riders in the Sky" really can't be called Country. It's more of a rock-country-metal hybrid.
Or to go more Classical. Toccata and Fugue in D minor by Vanessa Mae. Originally it was a classical piece meant for the Organ. She turned it into techno-pop-classical by using an electric violin.
Or let's compare Joe Harnell's "Fly me to the Moon - Bossa Nova" with let's say Sinatra's version or Nat King Cole's. Same song, yet all three very different.
b) Jackson. Well, he can't exactly redo Thriller being dead and all. Plus there's the small matter that while Country may be big in the US, Pop is bigger when you consider the world market. Which is what Jackson was aiming at. So yes, again a business decision to ensure that the song would sell across the whole world, rather than just in the US.
c) As for Bioware doing a shooter. Not as if they had that much experience with those, so them sticking to what they knew/know is smart business.
The shooting aspects of ME have been criticized as subpar by those more in tune with regular 3rd person shooters annex fps. So, again it's not as if they'd be drawing in a whole new audience, if they did decide to permanently go down that route, as the people attracted to those genres weren't very happy with their work. Plus there's the issue of them losing their old audience as well.
So again, that wouldn't be smart business. Especially, not considering that EA already had DICE for the fps. Heck, it's one of the reasons why EA bought Bioware in the first place, because they wanted to expand their market into the RPG/Action-RPG market, and having someone with Bioware's rep to handle such things is smart business.
That's what it all boils down to in the end. Smart business.
And losing your reputation, due to ego, when someone made something that just didn't fit within the existing framework. Heck, when the fan community has to come up with a reasonable explanation, like say the Indoctration Theory, to explain things. Well, then you're doing something wrong.
And that's not smart business.
So your whole, we have to coddle Bioware or they'll stop making RPGs. Not a fear you have to worry about, as them switching to another genre isn't smart business.
Not forgetting to mention, that even if it were the case, that a new studio would arise to fill in the gap. CD Projekt Red, wasn't founded till 2002, and what do they make? RPGs. Piranha Bytes has been around for a while, but what do they make? RPGs.
Or let's try Eidos Montreal with Deus Ex: Human Revolution. The original Deus Ex, only sold a little over 1 million copies as of april 2009. So why go to all that expense and make Human Revolution then..
Or what about Ken Levine and the guys over at Irrational Games. Why make Bioshocks?
Not as if System Shock sold millions of copies.
If a company wants to make a game, then they will, provided that they think there's a market for it.
And gee a rather vocal and unhappy audience seems to suggest, that yes, there is a definite market for it. Just that the consumers won't put up with being treated like mushrooms.
So again, Bioware not fixing this mess, that's not smart business. It's just something that's going to bite them in the backside in the end, and they'll end up like Pandemic or BIS, just a few paragraphs in the video games annals. If that's what they want, then so be it. Their call to make.
Second chances aren't given often, and only a fool spurns them out of misplaced pride.
*shrugs*
Than why do you even care about this article, if that's all?
How exactly does the dissatisfaction felt and expressed by people effect you? It shouldn't.
If you enjoyed the game, than good for you. You'd be no different from the folks who enjoyed the ending of the first theatrical release of Blade Runner. That's why the ending was changed in the first place, because their test audience didn't enjoy the ending version they initially had, so they made a happier one. It's available on DVD, so you'd never have to put up with the Director's Cut version.
Meanwhile, those who found the Happy Ending lacking, they can get the Director's Cut, and find enjoyment there, and plenty folks do.
Both sides win.
But let's turn this around a bit. Turn it more main stream. You vote for this guy, who's made a number of promises what he'd do for your district/state etc. But then he doesn't keep those promises, and not even for a good reason, but because his "priorities" changed and he subsequently did the exact opposite of what he promised you..
Are you going to vote for that guy again? Or are you going to pick someone else next time?
So how is that political example any different from this commercial one?
Sole difference being Bioware is being a given a second chance here.
Just as that politician wants to be voted into Office again, so does Bioware want your money again.
So are you going to be a mushroom, or are you going to be a consumer/citizen who will hold people accountable for broken promises?
Lastly as for your sarcasm/hyperbole or perhaps I should say Strawmen. That's exactly why I engaged them point by point. Because you do not give a proper argument, beyond, I think you're whiney brats.
Which as I mentioned in the beginning of this post, is a rather odd position to take, considering that it really shouldn't be effecting you one danged bit, if people are dissatisfied and expressing that.
If it's from some misplaced sense of, oh I think it's fine, and am morally superior to those complainers. Hate to tell you this, but it's due to those complainers that things get done in this world.
Gee it takes ages to walk from village A to village B. There has to be a faster way to get around. Someone then decides to domesticate a horse and use that for transportation instead.
Hmm.. Really can't carry all that much stuff with just these saddlebags.. Someone makes a cart to be pulled by the Horse. etc etc etc.
And while fixing this ending won't be as world changing as taming horses and using carts, it's still good to keep in practice. Consumers/Citizens have a duty to be criticial. It's the only way to assure that quality remains high.
And if your stance is, the ending was fine, I enjoyed it. Then don't download the patch that would "fix" it. Again a situation where everyone wins.