2 réponses à ce sujet

[Midwat]

 In the past week, we've seen a number of responses from the gaming media to Bioware's decision to look at Mass Effect 3's ending. Most of these have been resoundingly negative.

The most common of these screeds refer to the game as a work of art and, as such, revile those wishing to change it. Those wishing for a change are characterized as Philistines, unable to accept a less-than-happy ending and demanding a "Hollywood" resolution.

This reveals the flaw in their argument - they are basing it on the standards of another medium. It's akin to negatively comparing a novel to a painting because the former doesn't have colors.

To illustrate this, let's contrast ME3 with, say, Citizen Kane (generally considered a film masterwork). (I don't know if I should put a *SPOILERS* warning on a 71-year-old film, but I'll do it anyway).

Kane comes to a rather unhappy end based on the choices made throughout his life. He is unloved because he has driven away his wives. He is alone because he tried to domineer his friends. He holds no political office because he cheated on his wife, and he's no longer the champion of the people because they've outgrown him.

He dies alone and unhappy, realizing too late that he was most content before he had money, power and fame.

Contrast that with Mass Effect 3, where any number of large, galaxy-defining choices were in the player's hands. Bioware has taken on a challenge that is harder, by many orders of magnitude, than that of a film - it has allowed its audience considerable agency to change the narrative structure of its work.

The problem comes with the current ending. The loftiest of paragons and the most sociopathic of renegades both come the same end - the same three options. Even the options themselves are functionally similar - there's long-range differences, to be sure, but the short-range resolution is remarkable similar (Reapers disabled, Shepard dead, Normandy crashes). This is narratively unsatisfying to the player, and the results are evident on this board.

Now, to the crux of the matter - the "artistic" argument. If some Hollywood exective had come up to Orson Welles at the last minute and demanded a happy ending, Welles would be justified in telling him to go to hell. A happy ending would not gibe with the choices Kane made throughout his life, and would be a compromise of his vision for the film.

But why should potential changes to a film have any relevance to potential changes to a game?

ME3 is a rather conscious rejection of "the creator must make every decision for the characters." Its main selling point has been player agency and participation in the work. It isn't a film, it's something else - an evolution in a (relatively) new medium. Why must it be constrained by the same rules as film?

Adding new content or endings to ME3 in response to fan suggestion isn't a violation of Bioware's artistic principles. It's an affirmation of them. 

[Divitiacus]

Yep. You have a trilogy of choices and in the end have to do what the creator of the Reapers says.

[Midwat]

Divitiacus wrote...

Yep. You have a trilogy of choices and in the end have to do what the creator of the Reapers says.

Yeah. Single endings make sense in linear stories.

Games are fascinating (to me, at least) because they have the potential to tell stories that can change based on new actions. They aren't paintings, novels, films or plays. They're something new.

That the gaming media is stuck basing its standards on other art forms is a sure sign it's failed its purpose.