Industry Heavyweights Defend BioWare Over Mass Effect 3 Ending

[Mekon]

Wow Mekon a lot of that is uncalled for. You seem to think that everyone who didn't like the ending (for very legitimate reasons) are 'wrong' or something.

Buh? I haven't even played the game and have no intention of doing so. ME2 didn't grip me at all, it obviously isn't my kind of thing.

You might wish to re-read my posts, particularly the quoted parts I was replying to. My stance comes from pragmatism - you take what you get: if you don't like it, lump it. Good or bad, it's just a video game. Ending sucks? Say so, and move on.

[Marius]

I don't mind Mekon's comments. If I say feedback is good, people are free to give me feedback too.

The last post brings up an issue, though. A lot of Mass Effect's success has come down to fan emotional investment. It's pretty much the easiest way to make a killing off a sequel, because almost everyone who played ME1 would play ME2, and so on to ME3.

So, it's a bit different from pure pragmatism, because Bioware have relied on that emotional investment to make money. For better or worse, they've encouraged it. That's their like it or lump it issue.

But on the topic of feedback for the future, well... Bioware have already committed to DLC, and I think if the ending was left at "We know people didn't like it, and we had the chance to fill some of the holes, but here's some random side quest for you to play for $10"...

How popular would they be? Would that be a good decision? I don't think it would be smart from a business point of view. 'Art' be damned.

[Seditary]

Why do so many people equate demand with force?

Consumer demand is normal and required in the market. It is in no way equivalent to forcing the developer to do something.

The only real force they can exert over bioware is the same as any other consumer of any other product which is to stop supporting their business and try to convince others to do the same.

Are we going to make that a dirty thing to do now as well?

[Mekon]

Why do so many people equate demand with force?

Consumer demand is normal and required in the market. It is in no way equivalent to forcing the developer to do something.

Demand has multiple meanings:

I demand that Bioware change the ending for me.
Skylander figures/expansions are in high demand and are sold out worldwide.

You do see the distinction, right? The first is entitlement, the second is a term used in economics.

[Marius]

Well, every statement put out by Bioware goes against the 'entitlement' theory. Even before the game released, they said that they considered fans 'co-developers' and made ME3 a great deal as fan service.

Now their founder in his blog post today said the fans have a right to be giving the type of feedback they have been.

I get where the entitlement theory comes from... I'm just not sure whether Bioware needs defending on this, as they don't seem to want the defending.

[Mekon]

You misunderstand - I'm not criticising feedback in any way, it's always useful (although some seem to get a little over-emotional in their "feedback"). It's the blurring of the line between giving feedback and the expectation that things will be changed to pacify them that I'm highlighting.

I guess I'm too used to customers with expectations, what with being a software developer selling an "off-the-shelf" package, as is. We take feedback, and do make changes if it is viable, but some customers seem to expect that we are at their back and call for anything they desire. There's a difference between a bug (ie. not working as intended) and changes in basic functionality to suit obscure (and often foolish) business procedures. Or in this case, changing an ending to a game.

edit: Time will tell if anything eventuates from all this e-rage. I suspect Bioware is playing PR games to keep sales going in the short term. How would it possibly benefit them to invest resources into changing the ending? Would they make any more sales?

[Kaimahi]

I personally thought the ending was sh*t.

These bittersweet endings seem to be the rage at the moment but I find them pretty tiresome. Not really into examining the ending down to a minute degree personally but in a game where you are asked to really invest in the characters was asking for an uplifting ending so much to ask for?.

I do not see anthing wrong with showing your dislike of the ending and providing feedback but the nutters demanding and threatening things over it need a good kick in the ar$e and a reality check. To me it again just illustrates the sense of entitlement that infects the gaming community (and wider community in general) these days.

[Marius]

edit: Time will tell if anything eventuates from all this e-rage. I suspect Bioware is playing PR games to keep sales going in the short term. How would it possibly benefit them to invest resources into changing the ending? Would they make any more sales?

I don't think they're going to outright change the ending. I do think they're going to try and release more content. And who knows, among all the DLC debate they might build a unique reputation for releasing free content.

It'll probably be written off as a marketing move. It was interesting that their founder mentioned both this new content and the start of making a new Mass Effect game in the same post. So give free content to people now, get their undying loyalty for the next product.

Personally, I don't want them to outright change the ending. I'm OK with how things turned out, in general.

I do dislike how they skipped over important things to streamline the ending. For a game that promises to 'be the player's story', this felt uncharacteristic.

To me, the best way to sum this up was the entire series for up to the last few hours felt like you were in control of events. This was the game's main selling point. Then the game basically made you sit back and watch your character being played by the game, in many cases contrary to how you'd do it. It just wasn't the same game. More Call of Duty than RPG.

Now that the game's out and has (likely) made wild profits, this can be largely fixed with new content, not changed content. You can end up the same end spot, just don't make it feel like you got on a train a few hours out.

[asmodai]

All this blather about demand/entitlement is horsesh#t.

Bioware have not managed customer expectations well. They give you a game that emphasises choice and consequence, but when you get to the final 15 minutes, all of those choices are worthless and you get an arbitrary ABC based on readiness score + paragon/renegade rating...

Particularly when you look back at the previous 2 games which had simple endings which gave you a sense of closure.

No, I don't want a happy joy joy ending, I'm okay with dark endings. But I want some closure appropriate to the choices I made and a little exposition on what happened afterwards. That is not an unreasonable expectation after buying 3 games + DLC + listening to the marketing about how you're the central character and your choices matter.

The endings were lazy, the 6 variants were mostly identical apart from colour and a few minor features. You could still have a dark ending which doesn't involve the normandy fleeing to planet paradise. Hell, you could see the members of the crew you took with you cut down by Harbinger at the beam, and that's their epilogue, they died trying to help you complete your mission. It's something, and it's better than the nothing on offer. Just playing the game raised my expectations for the crescendo. If they don't change it or explain it by DLC etc, c'est la vie, but it's very disappointing.

[Seditary]

Why do so many people equate demand with force?

Consumer demand is normal and required in the market. It is in no way equivalent to forcing the developer to do something.

Demand has multiple meanings:

I demand that Bioware change the ending for me.
Skylander figures/expansions are in high demand and are sold out worldwide.

You do see the distinction, right? The first is entitlement, the second is a term used in economics.

Entitlement is not automatically bad.

Is every customer who is unhappy with their purchase and says so to the maker of that product in the world like the people complaining to bioware which seems to be unacceptable to certain people?

And it is still not forcing them to do anything.

[TRB]

Why do so many people equate demand with force?

Consumer demand is normal and required in the market. It is in no way equivalent to forcing the developer to do something.

Demand has multiple meanings:

I demand that Bioware change the ending for me.
Skylander figures/expansions are in high demand and are sold out worldwide.

You do see the distinction, right? The first is entitlement, the second is a term used in economics.

"demand" might have multiple meanings, none of which are "forcing" some one to do something.
Forcing someone to do something is to take away their choice.

Bioware's choice has in no way been removed.

You can go and demand to see a manager or demand to get something for free, that does not equate to someone being 'forced' to give you anything.

[TRB]

You misunderstand - I'm not criticising feedback in any way, it's always useful (although some seem to get a little over-emotional in their "feedback"). It's the blurring of the line between giving feedback and the expectation that things will be changed to pacify them that I'm highlighting.

I guess I'm too used to customers with expectations, what with being a software developer selling an "off-the-shelf" package, as is. We take feedback, and do make changes if it is viable, but some customers seem to expect that we are at their back and call for anything they desire. There's a difference between a bug (ie. not working as intended) and changes in basic functionality to suit obscure (and often foolish) business procedures. Or in this case, changing an ending to a game.

edit: Time will tell if anything eventuates from all this e-rage. I suspect Bioware is playing PR games to keep sales going in the short term. How would it possibly benefit them to invest resources into changing the ending? Would they make any more sales?

Do you sell things to your customers that are different to what you've advertised, and still expect them to be happy about it?
Do you ever give customers the next instalment of your software that totally changes the focus of your software?
no?

bioware does.
they advertise a 3 game series, they say that the final will answer the questions and finish the story, then what they sell you does neither of those and worse still just changes the plot in the last 20 mins of the game with no explanation and in a way which doesn't fit the existing story.

If you pay for a car, but get delivered a motorbike, having some guy saying "yeah but its still a mode of transport" isn't going to sate your need for an explanation.

[thefinn]

Yeah I think a lot of people don't understand that for many of us who have played these games for MANY years and understand how the industry works - it is blatantly obvious with this game that we were ripped off.

It's not just about "oh the end of the story isn't the way I wanted it, I really wanted a barbie dollhouse ending" or some ****. It isn't that.

There's a BUNCH of "little things" missing from the game.
There's a LOT of personality missing from many of the NPC's.
There's less gameplay than the previous version.
The ending is EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID THEY WOULDN'T DO - TO THE LETTER.

[asmodai]

Interestingly enough, I watched this vid last night (warning: tonnes of spoilers for the whole series) which casts the entire debate in a whole new light.

Hidden: show

Essentially, the whole current ending is a wash as it only deals with Shepard being indoctrinated and how you fight it off or submit to it. That is, the final physical battle against the reapers does not occur in the current game and the rest of the story is yet to be told...

It's pretty compelling to be honest, but I think it's far too subtle for most people to cotton on to. I like to think I'm pretty perceptive but I completely missed a lot of the non sequiturs that in retrospect are kinda obvious, eg. the trees/bushes from your dream suddenly appear in the area around the beam.

The conclusion is that the rest of the story is yet to be told. This is a brilliant as a plot twist, but you would now have a reality where the game is not complete and the inference is (from the scene where the grandfather is telling the kid about 'the Shepard') that there will either be DLC that completes the final battle, or the final battle against the reapers will be another game, probably from another characters viewpoint...

The brilliance of this theory, for me, is when I consider the 3 final choices. Synergy, the supposed good +++ ending, is in fact the most tempting, whereas destruction (particularly if you solved the geth/quarian conflict peacefully and found EDI to be a very fun and fully realised character in her own right) is off putting because you're not only destroying the reapers, you're killing the geth and EDI. However, synergy and control (where synthetics survive) are in fact capitulation to the reapers indoctrination. Destruction endings are the only ones where you see the image of Shepard taking a breath in wrecked armour ie. you resisted indoctrination despite the temptation to take the "positive" endings.

[TRB]

Hidden: show

It's pretty compelling to be honest, but I think it's far too subtle for most people to cotton on to. I like to think I'm pretty perceptive but I completely missed a lot of the non sequiturs that in retrospect are kinda obvious, eg. the trees/bushes from your dream suddenly appear in the area around the beam.

Hidden: show

the problem, imo, is not that its too subtle, its that there is no confirmation, it could be that but we don't know and not knowing until such time as new content is added makes for a bad ending, imo.

is having no ending better then having a bad ending?