Mass Effect 3 Release!!!

[Xanatos]

At the end of the day fans don't own the creative rights and if we take away a creator's ability to take risks then they should never produce anything again, because it will probably be boring. Risk is what draws you to the thing in the first place. That element of "Hey, I've heard things about this, I'm going to buy it."

It's the gamble, people. You take shot, you put the money, and you bust. It happens in every other medium, but in video games people apparently can demand a recount.

Normally I would agree. Unfortunately, this argument falls flat in this case. If you applied it to the fan vs. George Lucas debate, then it would work. In the fan vs Bioware case, it can't because Bioware made promises and or made statements that implied certain things, then outright failed to deliver. Fans have the same right to demand a better ending as any customer does demanding a refund/exchange upon returning a defective product that doesn't work as the manufacturer said it would.

There are exceptions to basically anything. This is one of those exceptions.

[Chris Brady]

And in Video Games developers can change their own endings willy nilly.  And I'm speaking of the Asura's Wrath DLC that just been announced.

[Inkidu]

Actually, the game does offer a multitude of endings. It all depends on how much you prepare. Not all the endings are good, some are downright depressing. However. It's got more than five, and it's not A, B, or C. So the argument could be. The game has more than those three endings.

At the end of the day it's too difficult to separate the product from the art.

If we accept it as a product and get the changes then in all honesty we have to walk up to the U.S. Supreme Court and ask them to repeal their decision.

If you accept it as art you can't ask them to change the ending.

It's not so cut and dry. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Chris: They have the artistic right, just like George Lucas.

[Chris Brady]

Chris: They have the artistic right, just like George Lucas.

And so does Bioware.  If Bio feels there is need to appease it's fanbase, whether it's the rabid minority (although a lot of reviews have panned the ending, it's just for them the rest of the game made up for it.  In fact, there are statements going around that most don't play long games for endings, but rather the awesome moments during) they have that right to change the ending.

Same thing applies here.  If we claim that Bio is shouldn't, because it's somehow sacred, then Cyber Connect and George Lucas should also not be allowed.  It doesn't matter what they claim is the reason for the change.

[Inkidu]

And so does Bioware.  If Bio feels there is need to appease it's fanbase, whether it's the rabid minority (although a lot of reviews have panned the ending, it's just for them the rest of the game made up for it.  In fact, there are statements going around that most don't play long games for endings, but rather the awesome moments during) they have that right to change the ending.

Same thing applies here.  If we claim that Bio is shouldn't, because it's somehow sacred, then Cyber Connect and George Lucas should also not be allowed.  It doesn't matter what they claim is the reason for the change.

The creators of an artistic medium should not have to cave to the rabid mob. Think of all the controversy that's been with art. If those artists had given in it would be a good shame. Because of all the hell raised by the vocal portion of the fans any redo would be living under the gloom of fan-pressured change.

The endings don't live up to expectations,  but creators always live under that specter. The problem is that it's not so cut and dry. 

[Xanatos]

While again I agree to an extent; you can't compare art to products like video games. Art by its very nature is made to appease the artist first and foremost, fans last. Video games are made to please the fans first and foremost, producers last.

Referring to the fans as rabid is also highly insulting. These days, many intelligent and highly productive and attractive people play video games. Games are not nerdy or socially unacceptable any longer. While, yes, nerds still dominate, its not any different than anything which can be compared to this cultural group (I can't think of anything relevant off the top of my head).

[Cold Heritage]

I wonder if Inkidu knows about comic books. All those retcons and appeasing fans would blow his mind.

[Inkidu]

While again I agree to an extent; you can't compare art to products like video games. Art by its very nature is made to appease the artist first and foremost, fans last. Video games are made to please the fans first and foremost, producers last.

Referring to the fans as rabid is also highly insulting. These days, many intelligent and highly productive and attractive people play video games. Games are not nerdy or socially unacceptable any longer. While, yes, nerds still dominate, its not any different than anything which can be compared to this cultural group (I can't think of anything relevant off the top of my head).

That's incredibly debatable. Is the writer of a book or poem trying to appease himself before fans? Maybe maybe  not. It's one of those questions of art. Personally, I believe if people don't find art entertaining then it's not. Your audience should always be a factor. You can't say that video games are special, because they're really not. Do people have fun playing them? Yes, but you can't look me in the eye and tell me that the developer of Heavy Rain was thinking of the audience first. It's just not that simple. I'm just using Chris Brady's word on the rabid thing. I was referring to his rabid minority without repeating the statement completely.

Ultimately if you can't except that it's not that easy there are two choices. Accept it as an art, or a product.

[Semantics]

Actually, the game does offer a multitude of endings. It all depends on how much you prepare. Not all the endings are good, some are downright depressing. However. It's got more than five, and it's not A, B, or C. So the argument could be. The game has more than those three endings.

That works for the A, B, and C quote.  But I think we can all agree that the endings do not "diverge into wildly different conclusions based on the players actions in the first two chapters."  If he had just said, "diverge wildly" then you could...I guess argue that if you imagine all the parts they didn't show you, it does, you just don't know how for certain, because they didn't show you.  But the actions of the first two games really have minimal effect if any, especially if you play a bit of multiplayer to beef up your final military rating.  There is nothing in either of the previous two games that directly effects the ending.  Heck, there's no choice in the game the ending is for that directly effects the ending, except the choice of the ending.

Or the promise that they wouldn't "pull a Lost" and leave more questions than answers.  The ending was pretty much the definition of leaving more questions than answers, and after the release the director, Hudson, was actually proud that it did, explicitly stating they really wanted to do something with the ending on the opposite side of the promises about what they were going to do with the ending pre-release.

Again, not saying that this means they should.  If I turn on the T.V. and watch one commercial break, I'll be lied to at least five times.  Companies do it.  But even if you say, "The very minor distinctions make it so that there are more than just A, B, and C," it's pretty hard to argue they kept their word on the others.  And that's without really digging for quotes, myself.

[Xanatos]

That's incredibly debatable. Is the writer of a book or poem trying to appease himself before fans? Maybe maybe  not. It's one of those questions of art. Personally, I believe if people don't find art entertaining then it's not. Your audience should always be a factor. You can't say that video games are special, because they're really not. Do people have fun playing them? Yes, but you can't look me in the eye and tell me that the developer of Heavy Rain was thinking of the audience first. It's just not that simple. I'm just using Chris Brady's word on the rabid thing. I was referring to his rabid minority without repeating the statement completely.

Ultimately if you can't except that it's not that easy there are two choices. Accept it as an art, or a product.

You, I dare say, don't know much about art. Artists, the vast majority, don't give a damn about what people think about their work. Some may try and conform, but only to survive as an artist if its a career choice/option. Most artists actually fight against public opinion to become accepted. Look at the surrealists, abstract artists, and so forth. Each and every one of them had to fight for acceptance, and in some cases, still do. Artists create art which is meaningful to them. Artists are taught not to let people's opinions deter them. Art has and always will be, a deeply personal endeavor for the artist. Art is not about pleasing others - that is merely a bi-product. Commercial art is an anomaly created by businesses only interested in profit. Businesses don't care about what art is about - they see it only as a means to profit.

Your looking into the point too hard and pulling threads which aren't really relevant. And yes I can look you in the eye. Game developers work for a living. They make games to please an audience. That does not preclude self-satisfaction. However, a developer would be foolish to make a game that just pleased itself. Its one thing to make something for ones self, then decide to try and sell it. Its another thing entirely to come at a product made with the express intent to be sold to the public, with the attitude of making it in a way only the producers can enjoy it.

In no way was Mass Effect I a game designed for Bioware and then released to the public on a whim. It was a strategic risk they knew could or would not succeed. They melded two distinct and successful game types into one and then put it out for public consumption. They were not doing it to please themselves. That is not how business works. It can be apart of the overall tactic, sure, but its only a peripheral - the core is pleasing the customer. Ask any businessman. Its why customer service is so dreaded by most who work in it. Customers first, everyone else second and dead last.

Edit: they actually melded 3, RPG, shooter, and sci-fi. Up until that point, most RPG's were fantasy or miscellaneous genre's. They still are.

[Inkidu]

It's not about conformity or fighting against the norm. If no one appreciates your art or finds it interesting then it's not art. Art deals with the conditions and experiences of being human. If there's no one to share it with you've simply indulged in what Byron called, "mental masturbation' It might be self satisfying, but it ain't sex. Good art is sex. Other people are involved. You can say I don't know anything about art, and you'd be wrong, but you're over-simplifying it.

[Chris Brady]

As long as game companies continue to make DLC for their games, they are not art.  The very nature of DLC changes the game, every time they do it.

And Bio (in this case) have stated, even befor this whole ending affair, intended for extra content.  In fact there's already some.

[Inkidu]

As long as game companies continue to make DLC for their games, they are not art.  The very nature of DLC changes the game, every time they do it.

And Bio (in this case) have stated, even befor this whole ending affair, intended for extra content.  In fact there's already some.

I don't see the logic behind that. Lucas diddles with his movies all the time and sells you the remastered product. That hasn't invalidated them as film (well unless you're one of those fans, I guess).

Authors have released alternate endings to books, just because they've thought about it. That doesn't invalidate the work as art.

I mean if you think it's because it's greed that that doesn't make it art that's not true either. Art comes in degrees.

[Chris Brady]

But...  Look, you just said that changing the story invalidates it as 'art'.  And Lucas' additions to his own works is the very same thing.  it doesn't matter how or where he got the idea to do so, just that he DID.  Same thing applies here.

Mass Effect 2 got quite a bit of DLC, which (according to players) actually changes the beginning of ME3 (as in you find out why the ship and crew got disbanded) but if you didn't get Shadow Broker and/or Arrival, you're missing key elements of the story.  That's pretty big right there.

So, no.  Maybe you think differently, but as long as game companies put out DLC for their games, then games will never be 'art'.  Art is a standalone project, designed primarily for personal gratification.  If you need to change it, then obviously you're not satisfied with it.

And I'm going to repeat what people have said the internet over, the Mass Effect series has been designed around the choices that YOU as a player.  Everything you did was shown in some fashion in the game.  ME3's Deus Ex: Human Revolution choice for the ending pretty much invalidates the 100+ hours you, the player, invested in that game.  Another thing that invalidates games as art.  Art is for the artist, games are for the general public to enjoy.

[Inkidu]

But...  Look, you just said that changing the story invalidates it as 'art'.  And Lucas' additions to his own works is the very same thing.  it doesn't matter how or where he got the idea to do so, just that he DID.  Same thing applies here.

Mass Effect 2 got quite a bit of DLC, which (according to players) actually changes the beginning of ME3 (as in you find out why the ship and crew got disbanded) but if you didn't get Shadow Broker and/or Arrival, you're missing key elements of the story.  That's pretty big right there.

So, no.  Maybe you think differently, but as long as game companies put out DLC for their games, then games will never be 'art'.  Art is a standalone project, designed primarily for personal gratification.  If you need to change it, then obviously you're not satisfied with it.

And I'm going to repeat what people have said the internet over, the Mass Effect series has been designed around the choices that YOU as a player.  Everything you did was shown in some fashion in the game.  ME3's Deus Ex: Human Revolution choice for the ending pretty much invalidates the 100+ hours you, the player, invested in that game.  Another thing that invalidates games as art.  Art is for the artist, games are for the general public to enjoy.

That's called interactive art. You can't get mad at the company for not giving you as much  as you want. My point is there's a difference between the crowd demanding that an artist doing or changing something, and the artist deciding to do it themselves.

[Chris Brady]

Interactive art?  Never heard of it, huhn.

OK, you want to talk art, fine.  Think of ME3 being a commissioned pieced by us the consumer.  If the commission is not up to what we want, we have every right to ask for changes.  After all WE PAID FOR IT.

This is the closest to art you can argue a video game is.

[Inkidu]

Interactive art?  Never heard of it, huhn.

OK, you want to talk art, fine.  Think of ME3 being a commissioned pieced by us the consumer.  If the commission is not up to what we want, we have every right to ask for changes.  After all WE PAID FOR IT.

This is the closest to art you can argue a video game is.

Yes, and if it had actually been commissioned the fans would have rights, however, the only people with the rights to bring it up is EA. The fans didn't commission it they paid for the finished product.

Tell me which fan put up the probably hundreds of thousands of dollars to make Mass Effect 3?

[Chris Brady]

Yes, and if it had actually been commissioned the fans would have rights, however, the only people with the rights to bring it up is EA. The fans didn't commission it they paid for the finished product.

Tell me which fan put up the probably hundreds of thousands of dollars to make Mass Effect 3?

According to Bioware?  All of them.  At 60 bucks a pop.  EA just publishes, they do not have any pull as to how the game is made, just that the game is made.  And that it's profitable.  The more it is (Call of Duty for example) the more they are willing to help the devs.

All EA does, in effect, is give them the canvas, paints, pencils for Bioware to make the art.  And they get a dividend based on the contract.  EA makes one demand, if it can.  Do it on time.  And even then, they can be flexible on that.

This is a commission piece for the fans by Bioware. they have stressed it multiple times that this is 'YOUR' game.  And some of these fans, at last count, just want closure.  They are not making any more demands than that.  All they want is an ending that reflects their choices in the last three games, and an ending that FEELS like one.  No one is reasonably asking for more than that.

I'm not sure why this upsets you.  This is a commission, not a Picasso.

[Geeklet]

Fans have the same right to demand a better ending as any customer does demanding a refund/exchange upon returning a defective product that doesn't work as the manufacturer said it would.

Next time you go to the movie theater, ask for your money back after the film because you didn't like the ending, or it didn't turn out how you thought, and see what kind of reaction you'd get.

I get that some people are mad about the ending. Personally, I don't think it is as bad as the internet has blown it out of proportion to be. In the end, though, is getting upset over a video game really worth this kind of argument?

[Inkidu]

According to Bioware?  All of them.  At 60 bucks a pop.  EA just publishes, they do not have any pull as to how the game is made, just that the game is made.  And that it's profitable.  The more it is (Call of Duty for example) the more they are willing to help the devs.

All EA does, in effect, is give them the canvas, paints, pencils for Bioware to make the art.  And they get a dividend based on the contract.  EA makes one demand, if it can.  Do it on time.  And even then, they can be flexible on that.

This is a commission piece for the fans by Bioware. they have stressed it multiple times that this is 'YOUR' game.  And some of these fans, at last count, just want closure.  They are not making any more demands than that.  All they want is an ending that reflects their choices in the last three games, and an ending that FEELS like one.  No one is reasonably asking for more than that.

I'm not sure why this upsets you.  This is a commission, not a Picasso.

Do you understand what it means to commission something? It means you put up the money up front to have someone make something for your. No Mass Effect fan did that. EA did that. They payed for Bioware's pencils, paper, and paints, and expected them to make a game that turnst a profit. They're the commissioner. You said so yourself. 

When BioWare says they're making it "your game" they mean they've put in a lot of options for players to express themselves (interactive art). This fact does not give them creative rights to the work. They don't own it in the least. That's a big thing with WRPGs the empowerment through fantasy (as opposed the more narrative-driven JRPG). That doesn't mean BioWare is saying, "Hey fans, you get a slice of this sweet commission, too." They're saying, "Hey, come enjoy what we've created."

What you're saying is essentially the same as the person a book is dedicated to gets a portion of the rights. It's just not true.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for expanding on the ending with other content, but I'm against changing the ending. You can provide closer without a rewrite.

[Chris Brady]

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for expanding on the ending with other content, but I'm against changing the ending. You can provide closer without a rewrite.

But that's just it.  Even by expanding it you are CHANGING it from what it was.  So in the end we were arguing the same side of the fence!

Also, I think that's what everyone wants.  Something more than what they got.

[Inkidu]

But that's just it.  Even by expanding it you are CHANGING it from what it was.  So in the end we were arguing the same side of the fence!

Also, I think that's what everyone wants.  Something more than what they got.

No, from what I gathered that was an outright cry to change what happened to Shepard in one way or another. What I'm calling for is basically over-glorified ending slides. Shepard still gets A, B, C, but now you know what happens to everyone else, but maybe stop before you get to revealing anything about the ultimate ending, you know the last image, to preserve some of the mystique.

Don't change what happens to Shepard. That's the ending I'm preserving and honestly, it's where a lot of the hate is directed.

Edit: Actually, you know what? Now that you've made me think about it I don't want expansion. Because I've got my closure. I'm reasonably able to draw conclusions from what my Shepard has done, suffered through, and challenged. I know what happens to the galaxy I leave behind. So, nope I'm good. Take expansion off the table for me. It works. Sure there's a few unanswered questions, but I'm going to rely on myself for this one.

Damn that was smart. For a people of a medium  that complains about getting spoon-fed gameplay mechanics they sure want their story spoon-fed. Anyway, that's a personal observation.

Thanks, Chris. You've helped me nail down the last bit of nagging questions.

[Chris Brady]

Well, if I understand the PR double talk from Bioware, I am thinking that the expanded content will be DLC and will likely be optional.

I could of course be wrong.

[Callie Del Noire]

http://blog.bioware.com/2012/04/05/mass-effect-3-extended-cut/

[Chris Brady]

I guess I'm not.  And even better it'll be free and expand on the endings, not touching anything in game.