I'd go as far as to say there is an obligation for people involved in the entertainment business to meet their customers' expectations. It's all very well to say "but it's art!" but the situation changes when the people who are ultimately funding it have been sold one idea and received something entirely different.
They aren't really funding it though, completely different. They are justifying it's existance to the
actual people whom fund it, the dev teams employers.
It's not as if it's something new: if Charles dikeens can rewrite one of his books after the ending was poorly received, I don't really see why Bioware consider themselves above doing the same and it does make the claims of "artistic integrity" sound a little overblown.
It's entirely the perogative of the artisan in question, it's their creation, period, so what right does anyone else have to demand they change it? I don't see the point either in pointing to someone and saying "If it's good enough for them," entirely dikeens choice, maybe he needed money - I don't know anything about the man apart from that most of his stories were initially published in serials. If he's willing to sucumb to peer pressure then that's him; I've always been a "stick to your guns" person.
What's more surprising is that EA haven't leant on Bioware to get it together, probably at their own expense. However you look at it, ending the series on such a controversial note can't be good for business: I'd have thought it would be in their interests to make sure things don't get to the point where their customers vote with their wallets...
Perhaps but I'm not all that familiar with game companies and such, EA publishes and makes games; games that I may or may not end up playing.
That's my only real knowledge on them as a company.
» Mon May 14, 2012 3:11 pm 
I totally don't visit here often enough.
