So, a game developers a product that you're not happy with? Because of how it ends? Every post, I've seen agrees that mass effect 3 is an amazing game, a part from the 10 minute endings to the game. Let me then ask you this, if Bioware had cut the 10 minute endings to the game off, would you then have been happy or more happier than you're now. I've decided to buy Mass Effect 3 - when I have enough monety to do so - just because of this controversy. The answer to this question posed in this therad would then be 'yes - definetely'. [This is also based on my experience with DA2 where up to 90% of the claims made against this game were outright rumours and lies, it seems. I found this out for myself when I finally played the DA2 game...]
I'm in the camp that believes that games can be art and can be used to stir emotions in players; the reaction to the endings certain seems to prove my point, wouldn't you agree? If the game develeoper decides to end the game in a certain way that goes againt fan expectations, then they should be allowed to do so. There is indeed some truth in the statement that when the government or other critizise games, they are art, but when a game developer decided to make an ending that rings true to its own artistic vision, then games are suddenly a product and this product should cater to the entitlements of the fans - or the public as a whole. No, so, it works, I'm afraid.
As for other people pointing to the end of Deus EX HR, it seems rather clear to me that the game developers were not very happy with the original ending either, and that they sort of have been pressured into the game's original ending by their publisher and wanted to make an ending that better suited their first vision on how the game should end. Bethesda made an ending to Fallout 3 that didn't make sense at all, you had to throw yourself into a chamber filled with something one of your companions thrives on.
I'm sure Bioware made this ending deliberately....not by mistake....to find out two things 1) to see if theirt audience notices the littlew things during the game and 2) to see if it goes....and neither seemed to fly e.g. in that sense that the audience, the players didn't understand the endings.
Also, even if I am a teacher and have some analytical skills and interpretative skills to maybe see through the illusions of the endings, I really don't think that you should need a degree in story telling or litterary analysis or in narrative structures in gaming to understand the ending to a game. It is game and as such there are certain conventions one need to respect, even as game developer. One of them being that in an rpg there always is a show down with a boss at the end, and that player agency need to be respected. In shooters like Gears of war or Call of Duty, the devs. are more freer to play out the story that they see fit, because the conventions here that the story is somewhat linear and that player agency is not nearly as involved in shooter games as they are in rpgs. The same goes for adventure games like Syberia 1 and 2, where poor Kate, the game's main character have been strandend in an icy world for years now. However, that's not the point re: adventure games. The same points for shooters can be made for adventure gamers like Monkey Island or Frogware's Sherlock Holmes games: Player agency is left out of the story alltogether as the game developer wants to tell a story; player agency can be in those games, but in very limited form such as which linies to speak first or which clues etc. to look at first. However, as the story progresses you, as the player have little say, in how the story plays out, and no decisions you're making will affect the ending. [Only exception to the ending I can think of is Shivers 2, where you can get 4 endings, depending on what you during the game...]
If Bioware wanted to break conventions, they should have told players/gamers in interviews before, during and after release. The DA2 did just that. They told DA2 gamers that the DA2 would feature a human protagonist, no customization (or very little) of crew members (modders quickly fixed this, though)
and a lot of other stuff that at first angered nearly all fans, but when they played the game, the could see why this was done. Bioware could, in relation to the end game in ME3 have said, 'weve decided that there won't be an end boss fight, because we thought and felt it would be to videogamey for these and these reasons.' Sometimes, the truth is better than all the PR-talk...
It's a toxic relantionship...
Retour en haut
