Indoctrination theory. While on paper it really sounds cool, and I can see it happening. If they go with that, then they look like the intentionally sold us an incomplete game, one without an ending to get us to by DLC to finish the game. This is BS and while I would buy the DLC because I want the game complete I can guarantee I would never buy another Bioware/EA product again.
Artistic Integrity. As much as they want to call Video Games art, they are in reality a product, produced for consumers (us) and as consumers we are able to decide for ourselves what we like or don't like, what works and what doesn't work. If it doesn't work, then it is the responsibility of the company making the product to correct the situation. If they do not, then they have earned a black mark on their reputation which will haunt them for a long time to come. Note that explaining how the product is supposed to work and why we don't understand it, is not fixing the issue. To paraphrase one of the judges on Chopped recently 'I can't eat an idea'.
The well if you change video games, people are going to be calling for change to movies/books etc. This kind of goes along with the artistic integrity argument. Books and movies are not interactive experiences, they are a direct path story, no branching off on different things that people want to do or see. As one of my exes said once, "What's the big deal about the Star Wars prequels, you already know what's going to happen". Now some article or blog or video said somewhere that we are asking Bioware to do what we criticize George Lucas for doing. I disagree. George Lucas had completed his tale, people were happy with it, it was extremely successful and people were happy. Then for no reason other than artistic license, he changed it because he didn't like it. Now people are no longer happy with the end product. The difference here is that he was never asked to change anything about his story. If anything at all he has been begged to not change it.
What a lot of people do not understand, is the fact that video games, and RPGs in particular give the player control over what happens in the game. Yes I understand that this is the illusion of choice, because in the end the story still has to follow a path to the end. However, and I have been discussing this with a friend who has never played the game but is a gamer, and my ex husband (different one from the one previously mentioned) who had not yet played the game has been helping me with this discussion, the endings of Mass Effect 3 destroys the illusion of choice we have had through out three games. Each of the decisions you were forced into made you play god. Either by destroying all synthetic life, merging synthetic and organic or taking control of the Reapers and thereby their cycle.
All in all, I am a writer, not published, and maybe not even a good one. However, if there is one thing that I do
understand about writing is that the audience is the most important part. If your story is not understood by the audience, then you have failed in writing it. I believe this goes with most art forms. Bioware should have been aware of their audience when developing Mass Effect 3, and from 99% of the game, it seems they were. So I am still
flabbergasted at how in that last 1%, the most important 1%, where everything comes together at the climax of the game, where you see the outcome of all the decisions made in three previous games, they failed to notice that the audience they had cultivated through out the Mass Effect series would accept the decisions we were railroaded into.
Many people here have grouped this up with Dragon Age 2, I disagree with that assessment. While I do not consider Dragon Age 2 to be a Dragon Age title or a sequel to Dragon Age: Origins, I enjoyed it. However, you knew from the beginning that there was a predetermined ending to that game. You are listening to a story being told by a narrator
(Varric). Everything he is talking about has already taken place, so the end is predetermined, the only thing being what side you take in the resulting conflict. Do I like this type of story telling /shrug eh it's meh in my opinion. It works, but it is the easy way to do things.
Dark, bittersweet, bitter, happy endings. The first three do not fit into the Mass Effect Universe that I have come to love. Every story has been about overcoming the odds, hope, doing the impossible. So at the end we just give up. That is what it felt like to me that my Shepard was doing when she faced the 'Catalyst' at the end. She just gave up,
didn't fight the 'inevitable'. I swear if I could have gotten a valid save from letting the Crucible be destroyed I would have. I hated being forced into a position where my character that I have put over 1000 hours into was forced to play god to the galaxy. I guess at the end of it all, I understand the endings, I just feel they were totally out of place in this universe that Bioware created and according to what they have said, they created it with us. Should their be options for the first three types of endings at the end of Mass Effect 3? Yes I firmly believe that their should be. However, there should also be the option of getting a happy ending, of seeing the galaxy unite and drive out or destroy the Reapers. All of your hard work should have accounted to more than putting Shepard in a position to play god.
These are the reasons I will stay right where I am, the reason I will HOLD THE LINE! It is our job as consumers to make sure Bioware sees and understand the error of their ways and fixes the product they released that does not work.
*edit for format... copy and paste seems to be bugged /sigh
Modifié par Kyria Nyriese, 23 mars 2012 - 06:33 .
Retour en haut
