This is the best Kain article yet--the first two were short on the reasoned analysis that he displays here, as they were much more reactionary and emotional pieces. It is through this article that I begin to see the positive qualities of writing that I had earlier believed Kain to lack--clearly he is more skilled and intelligent than I initially realized.
The following is opinion intermingled with analytic fact, but mostly opinion:
Point 1: Yahtzee is brilliant, but he's a humorist. Taking the overbearing words of a humorist as the example of "critics of Retake Mass effect" is a cheap trick that politicians get called out for all the time. It's strange how easily people are able to overlook this when they agree with a columnist. For those of you on the forums who have been yelling "straw man" at either supporters or opponents of the ending without knowing what it means--this is an example of its use. The fact that Kain keeps referring to these quotes of a humorist to build the backbone of the entire rest of the article is distressing, but from here on out I'll try to analyze his points imagining that the quotes didn't come from a satirical source so that the merit of the points themselves is what I discuss.
Point 2: True. It is possible to change an ending--but the author didn't carry though. He didn't bother mentioning that George Luca's changes to his film's timelines, footage, and dialogue are almost universally considered to be a mistake. Furthermore, his examples have nothing to do with fan backlash causing the changes--the poor choices of example mean that this segment is an incomplete thought, and while I don't necessarily disagree with his premise, this section is poorly penned.
Point 3: Confusing principle--if BioWare already planned an alternate ending or a clarifying point, then it's likely they already know what this ending should be. Thus, changing the ending is still changing what the originally planned alternate ending would be. Furthermore, this point is absolutely nothing but hypothetical and does not have analytic merit.
Point 4: A very well written point, but from BioWare's perspective, they already made a game where your choices matter. The life and death of dozens of characters that you meet throughout the games hinges on your actions alone. Entire galactic civilizations flourish, or are extinguished based solely on your whim. BioWare never promised the the ultimate fate of Shepard himself would depend on the choices that you made--simply that you would change the galaxy forever. At the same time, I believe the author is correct in that BioWare changing content based on fan feedback would actually be a credit to their artistic integrity and they way they have done business, provided that the ending that they changed to had any merit besides popular appeal.
Point 5: The writer is mostly correct here. Many--if not most or nearly all--members of Retake Mass Effect are rational and dedicated BioWare fans. The pressure being put on BioWare is not solely mindless drivel about a happy ending. The issue is that, unfortunately, the less worthwhile feedback is absolutely dominating the more reasoned critiques in terms of volume. BioWare can only act on the feedback they're receiving, and they're receiving much more stuff that deserves Yahtzee's hyperbolic description of it than they are of useful feedback.
Point 6: This is a very simple, yet astute, point, and Kain's most correct in this article. If you bought ME3, you have a right to enter into a dialogue with BioWare about it. Whether or not your feedback is "idiotic" from someone else's perspective doesn't change that you are BioWare's loyal customer. However, I find his statement about "PR-Gloss" and all points derived from it to be heavily opinionated and disappointing compared to the more rational arguments that he used throughout the second page of the article (which I found to be well done, in general). I also doubt his claim that he is not invested in Mass Effect. He uses far too many emotional words and phrases in his reporting on this matter for me to believe that readily.
Overall, this article reinforces what I have thought about Kain's previous articles: clearly designed to support Retake Mass Effect and to coalesce the good ideas held by the Retake crowd. But his extraordinary disdain for anyone who believes anything general and his choices in counter-example and example are indicative of the same lack of journalistic integrity that he accuses video game reviewers for. I don't have any problem with anyone doing this--he has a right as a journalist to write a one-sided article when his reasoning leads him to that side--but such pieces should be labeled opinion rather than as tech news.
Retour en haut
