Hey guys, now that we have a thread that takes a PR / Marketing view of this situation, I want to ask something I did not get a satisfying answer to a week ago.
[ How can EA and BioWare possibly think that this ending would lead to more profits? Bear with me here.
Because, first of all, I believe that the story was admirable for 99.72% of the trilogy (120 hours x 60 minutes = 7200 minutes, 7180 minutes / 7200 minutes = 99.72%). But BioWare has to admit, and everyone, including the apologists, have to admit, the story failed miserably in the last 0.28%.
Ssyyllaarr (or his source) explains in this enlightening post,
http://social.biowar...61/100#10029926, that “Mass Effect is a conventional story with conventional expectations. A conventional story, almost all stories, follow a pretty standard plotline: Introduction - Ascending Action - Climax - Descending Action - Resolution... the Citadel sequence is the final part of the descending action and the resolution for both the game and series, the part where the antagonist is finally defeated, the themes and dramatic questions are answered, and the loose ends are tied. Or rather, it should be... the story grows convoluted (once again, this is supposed to be the resolution) at the height of the scene by jarring us out of it with the bizarre, dreamlike sequence... the final choice between three options... creat[e] a massive upheaval of the story world, while being unclear. All of the characters and the entire setting are left to an uncertain and sometimes confusing fate... [n]ew information shouldn't be introduced in a resolution unless it directly resolves something or is quickly resolved itself; definitively, it's the opposite of what a resolution is.” Without a resolution, “Mass Effect 3 completely lacks any sense of ‘ever after.’”
It is this lack of “ever after” that makes the ending so devastatingly bad (and please do not go the post-modern, vague mumbo-jumbo route... BioWare is a game developer not an arthouse). Whether revisionist or non-revisionist, I think all of us are upset because we cannot imagine the future of the Mass Effect universe. What is the universe to be like when the Mass Relays are gone? What is the universe to be like when all synthetics are gone? What is the universe to be like when the difference between organics and synthetics are gone? What is the universe to be like? What is the universe to be like? What is the universe to be like?
Let me tell you why “LOTS OF SPECULATION FROM EVERYONE,” as Mac Walters put it so graciously, is stupid. But here is my spin. As much as the ending is poor in a story point of view, the ending is poor in a marketing point of view. Consider: why would BioWare suddenly create an entirely new universe to base their franchise in? A Mass Effect universe without Mass Effect is not a Mass Effect universe. It is a universe with no unique spin, it is a universe with no emotional attachment from the fans, it is just another universe, an unproven universe. Why would BioWare drive their hugely popular universe, a hugely profitable universe, in a completely new and uncharted direction? Why would BioWare risk so much, and why would EA allow it? Why is the ending a smart marketing choice?
Let me go further. I would argue that the franchise would have been salvageable if the game had ended with Shepard as charred BBQ. I agree that this ending would have been equally as terrible as the current one. However, at least the charred BBQ option preserves the universe that the fans have so grown to love. Because of the additional 20 minutes, the emotional tie developed during the 7180 is nullified. Why develop an ending that forces the players to never again see the universe in the same way? Why take this risk? Why put 10 years of development in the hands of 20 minutes?
If you have any marketing background, please enlighten us. My teenage brain is too primitive and can only think of “any publicity is good publicity.” ]
A little bit further on, I clarified,
[ See, the thing is, I don't believe that BioWare and EA are idiots. I think they are respectable companies that know what they are doing. And when I say respectable companies, I mean, they know how to make money.
I think its impossible for the writers not to recognize that the ending was a massive plot fail. The main reason why I wanted a marketing standpoint is precisely this: everyone at BioWare recognized the plot fail, yet it was still published. Why? Some suits must have thought that the ending would bring more money.
Somebody said that, well Mass Relays are only part of the Universe. Its the characters... Well, the characters are pretty much done for as well. Here is what I was saying: we love the characters in the context of the Universe they are in. When the Universe is fundamentally changed (and I believe that the lack of Mass Relays is pretty fundamental... the mobility to travel anywhere at no time is a major "selling point" of the Universe) the players are not able see the characters in the same light.
What I was getting at is, why take this gamble? Why leave a familiar Universe in ruins, when it is the beloved current Universe that has captures the fan imagination. For example, I haven't encountered much fan fiction (that aren't character studies) that could be possible without Mass Relays or at the very least under the new circumstances given by the ending. I cannot prove this, but could anyone see this sort of ending coming? The ending caught people off guard. Intuitively, this means that the ending was against the fundamental characteristic of the Universe... It yanks customers into uncharted territory. They do not know what to expect from the Universe anymore, hence, they are repelled by it.
This is not so hard to understand. So Why? Why Why Why? Why was this ending allowed? Here is my pseudo-logic that is terrible and unjustifiable but here it goes anyway.
1. The ending was terrible from a story point of view. (Can be contested)
2. The ending was terrible from a marketing point of view. (Can be contested)
3. The ending was unjustifiable.
How can a company justify such a poor ending? This would have me believe either the story was actually NOT terrible, or the marketing potential was actually NOT terrible. I don't see how the story could be any better, but as a layman, I do not see how the marketing potential could be any better, either...
What is the reason, from the financial side, that would bring this ending? ]
Any responses?
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
