3DandBeyond wrote...
You do understand that well-known authors of merit have changed endings based upon fans' wishes and that as a writer any story you write will go through a blender before it gets to fans and it may bear little resemblance to what you originally wanted to tell. Movies are played for focus groups and endings are often changed to suit them. Games undergo beta testing for bugs as well as content issues.
Authors who have changed endings--Dickens, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Verne, Tolstoy. Ever see a movie that has a director's cut? You do know why and how that happens, right?
As a writer you are completely free to tell the story you want to tell and if no one buys it you are free to keep it in its pristine unread condition. You may not buy much mac and cheese that way, but it's about the art. Unfortunately, any author will say that writing is as much or more a craft as it is art. Before people buy it, many eyes will peruse it and will tell you to change it.
And you really do need to research all of the source material used for ME3's ending. To claim artistic integrity it should be your own complete work-games are derivative and the ending of ME3 is particularly so. And stories do have to have internal integrity-endings must fit with internal lore and promises that exist within. This view of artistic integrity as you see it says BW could have shown Shepard at the citadel surrounded by killer clowns who said this was all a joke as long as they mentioned reapers, war, the crucible, and Earth or some such. It wouldn't have to follow any themes or fit with the plot. It's their vision and you can either like it or just move on. The point is that's a very destructive view of things. If you don't like something that you've bought, you can take it back, remain silent and speak with your money-that says nothing because they don't know what's wrong. Or you can speak up and try to be constructive where possible and make suggestions.
I guarantee you if you send a publisher your manuscript and they say they like everything and would buy it if the ending was better, you would change the ending. If you wouldn't then you are writing for an audience of one. Artistic integrity is not bankable. And companies do need to pay attention to their customers. They are the canaries in the coal mine.
Even Leonardo da Vinci had to eat and he often created things as commissioned works under benefactors with specific instructions as to what was wanted.
Oh and on King Lear-there's actually 3 different versions of the ending.
Oh the editorial process is one thing. But catering to wishes of a segment of a fanbase of already released material is another. There are very, very vocal fans of the Harry Potter series who think that J.K. Rowling destroyed the series because she dared to not pair Harry and Hermoine in the end. These fans are a minority, but they are very vocal, have fanclubs dedicated to their ship. Some of the points they make are valid, others are ludicrous. But Rowling's not changing that ending, no matter how hard they complain. If she changed the ending, people wouldn't HAVE to buy the new copies of the book. But fans of the series would be rightfully upset. I mean wouldn't you be if a story you loved suddenly had its ending changed to something you didn't like, just because a vocal group of fans wanted it changed?
I'm telling you there's not a balance to be had. But there are always going to be detractors to a work. Nothing is loved universally. And sometimes opinions over things change over time. What's contraversial now could easily be seen as genius later. Besides, you'd have to show me proof that Bioware needed to compromise its artistic integrity and sell out for this new ending. As I've said, there are plenty of vocal minorites out there. Doesn't mean it's profitable or wise to appease them. If it was, then I'm guessing Bioware would have, especially since they released the EC.
You can talk about how the story doesn't fit. Here's the thing though; the stories fit in the narrative Bioware established. It may not have fit the narrative as you understood it but it didn't come out of left field. I walked into ME3 expecting to either be able to destroy the Reapers or have an option to become the dominant mind of a human reaper, I.E. the Harbinger/Sovereign type. Now, I wouldn't have taken the option, but I expected it. The control option turned out to be a more benevolent version of this in a lot of ways, with Shepard becoming even more powerful. I still won't take it but it's not THAT different from what I imagined based on the way the choices shaped up in the prior two games. The only ending which I didn't see any hint of was Synthesis. The other two have always been there, underlying.
And before anyone says the Catalyst doesn't fit the narrative, it isn't anything more than a glorified info dump. It exists to tell you choices and background if their effects, nothing more. It's an "evil" Vigil at worst.
You are asking them to change things, and fundamentally alter the narrative of their already published story. A story that people have paid for an enjoyed as is and with the EC. This goes beyond saying what worked and what didn't for future games. You are, of course, entitled to do as you please in that regard, but others are then entitled to question and disagree with you on it.
Lastly, yeah, when I first beat ME3, I was in shock. I didn't like the endings. But after discussing them with my friend and going over the different ways to approach the choice, I developed a new appreciation of it. The EC then improved on them by clarifying further. Six months later, I still go back and forth on what I feel most comfortable as the final choice. I haven't had too many games where I still wonder what's right after more than a playthrough. So I don't want that negated. I like that ME3 asks a tough question; and I don't want that question changed. It makes the answer you arrive at more rewarding.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
