[Stephani Silva]

Way to go slyme, you godwin'd the thread before we reached post 100. *golf clap*

I have to be honest, I think you missed nu_clear's points.

Um, you realize that there's been comparisons drawn between disappointed Mass Effect fans and a psychopath murderer from page two, right? My reference was meant to point out the absurdities of such a comparison.

[Celestine Stardust]

Um, you realize that there's been comparisons drawn between disappointed Mass Effect fans and a psychopath murderer from page two, right? My reference was meant to point out the absurdities of such a comparison.

Oh well. I still got to bust your chops a bit, as you were the first one I have seen referencing Hitler. Anyway... back to topic...

[Alan Cutler]

In hindsight, the Misery anology may have been made in poor taste. Again, my point was simply to (in my mind) make a distinction between criticism and entitlement, and questioning where the line should be made. But probably best to move on. My apologies if I offended anyone - that was certainly not my intention.

Now, the Joss Whedon angle and Bioware's response to all of this has brought me to look at this from a different perspective, as well - and specifically what role artistic integrity does play in all of this.

The thing is - Joss probably would hold his ground against any demands made on him. I think it's safe to say that he likely feels very strongly about all of the artistic decisions he's made in his work, and (whether or not you're a fan of his work) they are all very completely thought-out decisions. A true master artist is in control of all aspects of his work (regardless of medium) and every element is in place for a specific purpose.

If someone had started a letter-writing campaign against Serenity to have the film changed so that Wash survived, for example - I don't see him back-tracking on that. I also feel that he'd likely be able to articulate a counter argument quite well in defense of his decisions.

Where things get complicated in this whole situation (as I see it) is Bioware's reaction to this. Now, I could be reading things wrong. I purposefully avoided reading any articles or news bit about the Mass Effect 3 ending until I'd actually finished the game myself. So I could be a bit wrong in the timeline of things, or have even missed any number of articles or statements.

But it does seem like Bioware was pretty quick to back-pedal on this whole thing and make statements that lead me to believe that they are now working on content that (in some unknown and as-yet hypothetical manner) deals with the ending of the game. (At least, that's been my take-away from http://blog.bioware.com/2012/03/21/4108/ by Dr. Ray Muzyka.)

As I see it - artistic integrity is a two-way street. I can't shake the feeling that if they really were 100% behind these decisions, that they would have stuck to their guns a bit more. I also feel it would be a bit more of a black and white debate if they chose to more strongly defend their own integrity. As it is, I feel it just muddles things even more.

And don't get me wrong - I'd be very hypocritical if I were to stead-fastly defend Bioware (which I'm not,) and still be looking forward to at least seeing where they go from here in regards to any additional content that (may or may not) be forthcoming. It's just something I think that we, as consumers, need to decide on - is quite simply where the line is between criticism and entitlement, and at what point a video-game writer's commitment to his fans stops being art (if it ever was) and starts being pandering and fan-fiction.

If I go to a fancy restaurant expecting a fine dining experience, and the meal prepared by the chef isn't up to par - I'd rather the chef realize himself that he's not working up to the standards he himself has set, and fix the matter on his initiative. If he instead just decides to throw something together to shut me up, it's not going to be the same thing. If I'm going to send my food back, I'd much rather have something made for me with a bit of love (because he's realized his original work wasn't up to par,) than anger (and he's just trying to get me out of the restaurant at that point.)

[Kat Stewart]

For all their we have to stop and think about our decisions, obviously its easier to make decisions to make changes to multiplayer, since they have made at least something like 5 changes to multiplayer since it started. And all the first single player patch is going to be is the changing of coding so you can import your face, bit late for that, and how come they didnt know that before it was released.

[Jaylene Brower]

If I go to a fancy restaurant expecting a fine dining experience, and the meal prepared by the chef isn't up to par - I'd rather the chef realize himself that he's not working up to the standards he himself has set, and fix the matter on his initiative. If he instead just decides to throw something together to shut me up, it's not going to be the same thing. If I'm going to send my food back, I'd much rather have something made for me with a bit of love (because he's realized his original work wasn't up to par,) than anger (and he's just trying to get me out of the restaurant at that point.)

That's up to the chef. He can accept your criticism as valid and make you a new meal or stick to the slop he sold you. Doing it "out of anger" is dependent upon him and whether or not he chose to get offended. Why does he get to be so emotionally attached to food he's serving you? Especially if he then asks you to buy some dessert.

EDIT: There was more but. . .

[Dorian Cozens]

EDIT: I don't even want them to outright change the ending. I'm just tired of seeing the concept of 'entitlement' being brought up.

It's hard for it not to be brought up, with some fraction of the rioting masses acting like "we're The Player?, we're important, we deserve a better ending now dammit!"

No, you don't. "Interactive media" doesn't mean that. Yes, you have the right to say "Ok, this svcks for X, Y, Z reason," and hope that they'll understand that they screwed up and why (and take those lessons into their next project.) But you have no entitled right to have them change it because you say so.



(My position: yes, the ending svcks. No, I don't think they should change it. Just like I don't believe Beth should have changed the ending of FO3 with Broken Steel.)

[Eric Hayes]

As I see it - artistic integrity is a two-way street. I can't shake the feeling that if they really were 100% behind these decisions, that they would have stuck to their guns a bit more. I also feel it would be a bit more of a black and white debate if they chose to more strongly defend their own integrity. As it is, I feel it just muddles things even more.

I don't think they could've been 100% behind the decisions that formed the ending: it was obviously (IMHO) rushed and severely compromised as a result. One can only speculate as to the reasons, but given EA's involvement it's likely that it was down to the profit motive of getting it to market as soon as possible, whether or not it was ready, which strikes me as the polar opposite of artistic integrity.

Whether or not it was done with the idea of selling the ending as DLC is anyone's guess and we'll likely never find out for certain, though given the nature of other horrors like day one DLC it's not an unreasonable assumption. Again, nothing to do with artistic integrity.

[emma sweeney]

I don't think they could've been 100% behind the decisions that formed the ending: it was obviously (IMHO) rushed and severely compromised as a result. One can only speculate as to the reasons, but given EA's involvement it's likely that it was down to the profit motive of getting it to market as soon as possible, whether or not it was ready, which strikes me as the polar opposite of artistic integrity.

The release date had been set towards the end of 2011, the release date being basically the end of 2011, but then they decided to do multiplayer, and as Casey hudson says in his interview, they had to get a new team and they got a new bigger budget, but they were worried that players would see the single player side suffering, because they were introducing multiplayer, and that multiplayer would only add to the single player experience, and thats why it was held over, so they could put multiplayer in, but single player must have been done then they added the changes where multiplayer, plays a part in the single player game.

[Rudy Paint fingers]

I agree that Broken Steel should've never happened, Fallout isn't the Elder Scrolls. The TES players that got Fallout 3 should've adapted instead of whining and then Beth being the gracious angel said "sure we'll change the endings". Not to mention that Broken Steel completely overpowered the character with the 10 extra levels and Almost Perfect Perk.

Well, go to the Fallout section and you find people eager to tell you that Fallout 3 was made for TES fans. For a good reason, i might add. It's a bigger mystery why it didn't have an ending that allowed continuing to begin with. And those 10 extra levels was a good intention that backfired catastrophically, they wanted to address the "leveling is too fast" complaint, but didn't apparently think it all the way trough.

[Sami Blackburn]

snip

I think EA just cut out the actual ending and making Bioware sell the actual " on ending mission" for an extra ten dollars.

I know this has been shown, but I think this might change your opinion of whether Bioware really truly ended it on this note. It might seem like Fan fiction and crack pot but theres some decent evidence to back up the theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ythY_GkEBck

[Joey Bel]

But where is the line then? Art has always been about finding a balance between commercialism and artistic vision. And videogames are far from the only medium where the story and plot are created by a number of people working together. Even if you go freelance - you're still trying to get paid for your work.

...

That's why the whole "are videogames art" thing gets brought into this. Because if games are art: then either I now have a right to demand creative control over movies, books, and paintings - or videogames should have the same protection.

"But is it art?" isn't relevant to the discussion at all. Charles dikeens changed the ending to Great Expectations. What about abridged books? Revised books? Re-releases? Director's cuts? The Sistine Chapel has been repaired so many times... can it even be considered a work of art anymore? What about a photo of the Mona Lisa? Etc. Etc.

[Hayley O'Gara]

I had to delete some posts - this is a good discussion at the moment. But there are at least two moderators that are active in it - tempers are high, but we do need to keep civil on here.

That's up to the chef. He can accept your criticism as valid and make you a new meal or stick to the slop he sold you. Doing it "out of anger" is dependent upon him and whether or not he chose to get offended. Why does he get to be so emotionally attached to food he's serving you? Especially if he then asks you to buy some dessert.

EDIT: There was more but. . .

Well, let me try more clear example to illustrate where I was going. Where are we with Bioware at the moment, is like this (as I see it, at least.)

We've all (as a group) been going to a nice restaurant for about half a dozen years now. We've grown to trust the Head Chef and enjoy going here to eat. So for his culminating meal, he says he's going to cook us up something special. We won't know what it is, but he says he thinks we're really going to like it.

Now, we've eaten the meal and we didn't like it. Not only was it not what we were expecting, but it also didn't seem up to par with what we were hoping he was capable of. We've complained to the manager at this point, and he's assured us that he'll make things right. So now, we're sitting at the table waiting to see what comes out of the kitchen.

And here's what I'm wondering: There are now three ways this meal could go now (because we all know Bioware is now apparently big fans of three choices... )

Did he spit in it? Did he just throw his hands up in the air and make some pizza? (Because everyone likes pizza.) Or did he admit to himself that he's capable of better and he's now hard at work in that kitchen coming up with something really inspired?

[N3T4]

Of course my temper is high and im not being civil, i lost George my poor space hamster, dammit.

If anyone has seen George please contact me here.

[Micah Judaeah]

Of course my temper is high and im not being civil, i lost George my poor space hamster, dammit.

Recapturing the space hamster is the most difficult bit of ME3.

I never gave mine a name. I suppose she can be called Nigel.

Edit: I've changed my mind since I'm listening to The Damned, the hamster is now called Rat Scabies.

[Spooky Angel]

Recapturing the space hamster is the most difficult bit of ME3.

Wait. . .is this possible?

Did he spit in it? Did he just throw his hands up in the air and make some pizza? (Because everyone likes pizza.) Or did he admit to himself that he's capable of better and he's now hard at work in that kitchen coming up with something really inspired?

If he did A or B I'd consider him a pretty crappy chef. And a rather petty guy to boot.

[Da Missz]

Wait. . .is this possible?

Yes. It's running around in the area below engineering where Jack used to hang out. You can grab it when it runs past... if you're quick enough!