Yeah I had Fallout 3 in mind, a crapper ending made even crapper for the sake of mindless exploration in a post-MQ wasteland. Punishing the company for it's bad decisions is one thing but getting them to change their content and stories is something else; this wouldn't happen with a book or a film and I see no reason there-fore why the games themselves should be so maelable. If the company [censored]s up let that be it's punishment, let it learn from those mistakes and not pressure into re-writing what they, it's creators, intended; IMO they created it, their rules, voice your protest with your wallet and end-of.
I do agree, it's a horrible ending that doesn't explain [censored] and really has serious ramifications when you stop and think.
They haven't learned form their mistakes. Their stock used to be worth 70-60 dollars. It is was t 20 before ME3. It sunk to 17 and then started rising to 18 again with ME3 release. Then the ending occurred and it dropped down to 16.5. This is over a year or a tad more. EA isn't learning, time to give them their wake up call.
Again your focusing a book with a video game trying to think old instead of new. Video games are interactive, they HAVE to be played. Books, movies, and tv shows are all listened to or watched. You have no input on them other than your thoughts. Games are something a player has to experience as they play. It's completely different and the first step to a holodeck from Star Trek. It completely changes how we have to approach the medium. To this end I think when the player base calls for it, they should be changed. It's as much their story as it is the developers. It's a scary thought, but hey that's the future. I can't help if people couldn't foresee the consequences of increasing levels of interconectivity.
Edit
It is a tad militant. Know why? Companies don't listen unless we affect their bottom line. It's going to take a long term effort to pull this off and coordinating our angry players to get change to happen. So far it's been remarkably civil. Only video game news sites are hating on us for some reason. Biased too since none of them have given our side of the story. IGN the most notable one. They've released tons of videos hating on us. Why? They have an investment in the game their journalist plays Diana Allers. Conflict of interest. But oh no, that's never mentioned. Or how they pay for their sites with advertisemants from games. Games which sell more from reviews. Will it be worth it? Yes, think of the consequences of two times in history of the players changing the story. They're playing an active role in making these games in a way. On a meta level if your invested in the future of the game industry it's a very unique and big debate. This could be a shift in the dynamics of how corporations engage their fan base. Odds of success? It started out remote, but our movement has grown into a giant thing. Big enough to be featured on USA today and CNN. So there's a lot of angry fans out there. I would say if we can keep this up for the long run, whatever that may be we could get the ending changed.
They've already changed their tune form an adamant no to we're considering it as we panic our stock is dropping/not doing as well as we hopes.