Zethnar wrote:As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with Mr Barnett. Games tell a story much like Movies, Television and, yes, Books. To ask an author to go back and edit his work so that the ending suits you would likely cause him (or her) to either laugh in your face or tell you to **** off.
Now, what they don't seem to be getting is that they are completely deserving of all the hate and vitriol being directed towards them for the crappy ending they have presented us with. Just because they shouldn't be forced to change it doesn't mean it wasn't a huge mistake. What they have done is taken a much loved franchise and crapped all over it, simply because they weren't prepared with a real ending when the time came to roll the final product out the doors.
In addition to that, they continually lied to us about the game, particularly about the content of the ending. It was stated multiple times that we would be able to experience a wide variety of endings based on the decisions we had made across all three instalments of the franchise. Clearly that is not nearly the case. The three measly endings we do have are completely segregated from any decisions we had made leading up to them. However it was entirely within their rights to finish the series off like that, despite what we may think.
So no, they shouldn't be forced to change it. But it would be nice if they admitted that mistakes were made and apologised to us all for rushing the game out when it was clearly not ready to see the light of day.
I think every one (Yeah you too Ken Levine!) who agrees and defended Bioware in this case is confusing 2 issues.
Namely, 1. a straight interactive narrative, which is really the western equivalent of a visual novel.....
and 2. an RPG ....
Mass Effect is and always have been marketed as an RPG, hence YOU make you own choices (however limited by the writers and programers) and reap (heh) what you sow.
By sticking with and defending what Bioware had done with ME3 (although I have deliberately avoided reading any materials related to it even tho it is a *****ing pile of fan - hit **** inferred from the rage generated) is akin to the following scenarios:
(Taking another Bioware game) No matter what you do, The Old Republic will see the Sith faction win-out .. because Bioware said so ... so thanks to all the suckers who paid monthly subscription and tweaked their characters.
(or taking another game ...) No matter who you picked, in Shogun Total War, the Tokugawa clan will win out in the end ... because historically this is what happened and so the programmers stuck with historically accurate events.
With Ken Levine's games (or JK Rowling novels for that matter), the creators are trying to TELL you a story, instead of GETTING THE READERS to CONTRIBUTE to the flow and development of the story. (BioShock already already a fixed origin and end point ... only how you get there is different ... which is pretty much any shooter except multiplayer ONLY online shooters ... Hence Ken Levine is utterly ill equipped to argue the issue out... at least until he makes an RPG).
If these scenarios still gets people confused, then consider the following (for the sake of our sports mad brothers)...
The next (insert fave sporting event) already has a pre-determined outcome!
So yeah ! It is not dissimilar to match fixing in this case, negating any variables (in this case your choices in your previous games).
So I do see the logic (and good on the guy) to complaining to the FTC ... (too bad there is no governing / licensing body for games programming unlike so many other professions).
In short, the people who don't see the point of this uproar is obviously playing it wrong (namely playing it like either an adventure game or a *cough* Modern Warfare *cough* shooter and missed the point..... completely.
Now to see a mass exodus from TOR due to a likely **** (read fixed ... pun intended) ending .... which actually may happen as the game is actually very narrative driven ,,, only time will tell.