Do we, as consumers, have the right to demand change of a game's narrative?

Honestly, when it boils down to the core, the ME3 'oops, we had a **** ending' is just another way EA can milk cash from the players. There was day 1 DLC, and now this?

Does anyone seriously think Bioware would **** up so bad with the ending like this? Or do you think the extra DLC was planned for a deliberately **** ending?

/conspiracy

Both ways, I despise EA and how they scam the community.

---

---

When the discussion talks about video games being art, I say yes, of course they are. Games are supposed to tell the viewer/player a story, not treat them as an everyday fool and take their money.

When it comes to DLC (purchasable), I believe that it should only be to build upon the game, not repair it. The best examples of this are story-based, like in the recent Fallout games, WoW, Borderlands, GTA, to name a few. These are meant to evolve the game, by telling new stories, giving new perspectives or just plain elaborating. What this does is engage the players, and gives the game a little bit of that 'fresh and new' feel. Of course all of this is compiled with as you say: narrative, visuals, music, gameplay and more.

Multiplayer DLC I see a bit differently. I see it instead of trying to grab onto new players with new adventures, stories, music by fully engaging the players, they try and hold onto the older players and try to keep them from venturing off to the competition. Though these DLCs can be cash-grabs, many of them are legitimate: bringing new ideas, map designs, gameplay elements, visual designs, and overall creating a newer experience in an older game. Some prime examples of these are DLC you would find in Gears and Halo games.

Now patches. Patches should just be repairing the game. By repairing I mean bug fixes, things the developers either missed or overlooked. I love patches, because it fixes what is broke. I mean, who doesn't want more new hats?

What EA (because it is EA) are doing, are trying to repair a **** up, a break. Not just any break, the largest break possible in a very popular, often inspirational RPG trilogy that has defined what the 360 is all about. That is a colossal **** up. To add insult to injury, they are big enough dickbags to charge the players to see it fixed. To me, that is preposterous. They are willing to charge the players: the players who have put in countless hours doing side-quests, punching journalists, saving the right people, saying the right things, boning the right bitches. They are willing to charge these guys for something I think they deserve.
Because they see video games as a way to make money, not as an art.

/endrant

 

Do we, as consumers, have the right to demand change of a game's narrative?
I think this is entirely dependent on the project at hand.

I feel while it makes interesting discussion, we have no say in the matter. It's completely up to the development team whether or not they want to accept their audience's opinion. I think times are changing and the idea of testing crowds has become overwhelmed by the ability for the average joe to voice their opinion through the internet. All of these people combined makes it hard for devs not to notice the trends that people want. Take diablo 3 "looking too bright" as an example, the testers responded well to D3 but when it was shown the internet blew up with anger.

Devs should be able to do what they want. It should be their artistic ability telling them whether or not additional DLC is appropriate. If their motivation is money it will be obvious. If it's not, I feel the community will know.

*edit* berb posted while I was posting but this resonated with me and what I was saying

Games are a very strange artistic medium, the ability to update them is one is a great artistic trait that's probably being abused now.

I personally feel like we should only have limited say, we can discuss plot and stuff but it's up to the dev's to know whether or not it's in tune with what they envisioned the project as. You're paying for their creation, not a customized experience towards you. Unless that's the developer's ideals and he makes the game that way, ya know?

Again I think this is all in the devs hands. I'd love a game where all things are considered, and artistic elements are appreciated in each. But lack of 'art' in some areas doesn't constitute a pure commercial endeavor. I think Earthbound is one of the most artistic games ever made, but all it is a very basic RPG. It's also up to interpretation on the player's side too.



Idk, I'm just rambling. q: Art is subjective. Appreciate.

 

I agree with what Fbu said.

Developers always have the right to change whatever they want. Remember it is their time, their prerogative. It is ultimately up to the publisher if they are ok with their devs working on content that they didn't originally approve (though I believe BioWare has a lot more autonomy under EA than some other developers). If there is enough public outcry over a certain aspect of the game then if the developers have the power to change that problem and make it better as a result then I see no problem with that. More developers should try to fix problems instead of just glossing over them and saying essentially, "we're sorry you feel that way".

Now that is not to say that developers should listen only to their consumers when deciding the course of a game, that would be a horrible idea. Some great games have been ruined by letting fans decide major aspects. Its a balance that is dependant, like Fbu said, on a game to game basis. If the developers felt like their ending wasn't to their own standards but had to leave it at where it was due to time constraints, production quotas, etc then they have every right to want to correct the issue now that they have time.

The money isn't a big issue in this it really isn't.

 

Do we, as consumers, have the right to demand change of a game's narrative?

Absolutely not.

I don't understand how someone can demand a change of a story. It's like if your favorite character died in a TV show and you demanded a change to the story so the character didn't die.

Any decisions regarding story should be completely up to the writers.

Regarding whether video games should be art or products, I think art. IMO, video games are just interactive movies. If batman was killed in the Dark Knight Rises, people wouldn't demand a rewrite, they would accept the story for what it was, whether they liked it or not. Games should not be any different.

 

It's DLC. If you want to see a different ending, buy and play the DLC. If you consider the game to be a work of art and think it should stand on it's own, don't. I don't see any problem with developers releasing an alternate ending DLC, as it is completely optional. It just makes the game more interesting, imo.

And, Security, films sometimes do have alternate endings... just not ones added after fans complain about the original.

 

Games are art, and Mass Effect 3 is really, really shitty art. It's the Transformers of art, and if you bought it after playing Mass Effect 2, then consider that $60 you paid the price of being an idiot.

Have fun paying $10 for DLC that makes the ending slightly less shitty, but keeps the rest of the game at the same level of shitty you know and love. Enjoy the ass-slaps and fireworks from the new ending.

I think you've confused your characters with interesting characaters...

 

Yeah, but my point was as long as it's the writers' decision, I'm okay with it.

And only certain endings are canon.

 

Inside Gaming blog made a good point about this. People cried out about the end of Lost and the Sopranos and they didn't change it, so why should they change this ending. Yes, I haven't beaten it, but I just find it absurd someone would demand a change. What pissed me off even more is that they demanded it would be a free DLC to change the ending.

If they want to add more endings, go ahead. But demanding a change to the ending isn't the way to go about it.

 

BioWare Changes Ending & Dark Souls Details!- IGN Daily Fix: 3.21.12 - YouTube

 

...because without releasing a new season of those shows they can't "redo" the endings. Games do not have that problem. You can't make these comparisons between movies, television shows, books, etc with video games as far as "changing a specific part" is the context. Games have that capability now because of online capability.

Let me ask you this, everyone is fine with the concept of a patch right? Or fans releasing modded content right? Why can't the developer provide the "mod" as it were. As shaddo said this would be completely optional to the player. If they choose to improve the game (provided they pay for it) then they can, if they like it as is, they get that choice. There is no down side other then bitching about money.

 

What I hate most is when people talk **** about companies when the dont know what the **** they are babbling about. The Day one dlc had nothing to do with the main story. Its a mission and a new character. Not some money making scam. Jesus christ berb, you even haven't played the ****ing game yet.

Where is your proof that EA does this crap on purpose? They dont make a horrible game on purpose, seriously, the amount of money they invest in their games are huge. I hate when ass holes go and complain when the have never played the game before. It's probably Bioware that made the ending. EA didn't create Mass Effect, they are just publishing it.

Get your ****ing facts right, Berb.

 

I disagree with day one DLC. It's a cash grab because they could just ship it with the game. Its like if Halo 4 came with 10 maps on the disc, but there was 3 more that you could buy on the first day. inexcusable.

 

Yes Mocha, I know your mother works for EA.

I'm also 100% positive EA implement crap like "online passes" on purpose. The ME3 DLC fiasco is no different. Of course BioWare made the ending, they made the game. What I think is that EA have done or said something near the ending of the development for the ending to be that bad. I mean, do you honestly think a failure of that proportion was accidental? Do you really think that the game would be made so well, earning perfect scores, with one of the shittiest piss-off endings in recent gaming? Does also seem weird the second the fans air their feedback, one of the head guys for the ME3 team comes out and says they might release a DLC that changes the ending. A free DLC, which most likely means free w/ an online pass or some other subscription fee?

It might be me putting too much trust in the ability of the ME3 dev team, and not enough in the 'innocent' massive publisher that rips people off day by day.

 

I was always told when I was writing stories that I focused too highly on what the reader may want versus what I wanted. I would take things in a whole other direction because I felt that the reader may like it more.

I was right too.

My readers did like these endings and praised them, but I was never happy with the endings myself. I never realized this grave flaw in my story-telling capabilities until someone who knew me the least out the group of people who read my works came up to me and said that she could tell I tailored the story to her/the audience's liking and she was disappointed in it.

She said that, "If you are writing for your readers then it's not worth writing at all."

Story-telling is an art, and if your story is written only to appease the audience then the world could do just fine without it entirely. One of the best works of art I have ever seen is the one I hated the most because of how much it impacted me and how much it stands fast in my mind today. I respect the work and the artist because the creator did not regard MY taste when he was creating it but stood by what felt was the proper way to do HIS work. That is the way art works. THAT is the way creativity works.

 

The right to DEMAND no. The right to show discontent and REQUEST yes.

I think people's discontent from Mass Effect's ending is how it limits your choices. It's kind of like Fable, you have the illusion of choice but if you view your options like a tree the branches are stunted and just stop. Compared to Mass Effect's which branch out all over the place and intertwine with one another to create a narrative that is different each time in ways deeper than a change of scenery. Fable is fun in it's own right, but it's just aggravated many of the fans when that beautifully massive tangle of branches suddenly gets chopped off at the top to leave you with Fable 2's Love, Money, or Sacrifice choices. Even worse when none of the endings are a truly "happy" ending.

To argue with what Organite said, the story of Mass Effect isn't entirely the writer's story, because of the branching it can have endings to satisfy everyone. A book is limited to one ending while these games have many. Part of why the endings were so jarring is it immediately shifts from what the player wants to static endings that you can't change. How the writers wanted it to end could have been an included option, and other endings to satisfy others could have been included as well.

 

I love that the ending they've been mulling over for more than 5 years and actively working on for more than 2 is utterly terrible... and yet people think giving them 6 months to think of a new one is a good idea. With all that time, preparation, financial backing, team cohesiveness and creative scrutiny they still managed to **** it up, and that doesn't tell you something?

 

I don't often agree with Mocha, but when I do, it's about this completely.

What you said is half true. The false part is really really false. As I've explained countless times when this issue comes up there are two kinds of day 1 DLC. There is the DLC which is on the disc at launch. This kind of DLC is completely a cash grab because the content is on the disc and you just download a script that unlocks the content. That is the inexcusible part. What Bioware did and many other developers did is day 1 DLC which is not on the disc. "They could just put it on the disc". That is the incredibly false sentiment that tells me you don't actually know how the game development cycle works so you're speaking from your ass.

The development cycle for a game is set into concrete steps. This is done so progress can be made, if it was up to the individual developers nothing would get completed because they would keep working until it was literally perfect. First step is conceptualizing the game. This includes concept art, story boards, and sometimes a very rough prototype of gameplay. Next step few steps include developing the in house alpha build (which is showed to the publisher for approval before too much money is spent on the project). Then a more fleshed out alpha build is worked on. It is this build screenshots or trailers often pull stuff from. Then is the beta build and a playable demo. Then the pre-release build which gets playtested and bug checked relentlessly. Once this phase is complete only small refinements are done to the game. Once all the refinements are done the game is completely in the hands of the publisher. They package the game on to discs, package the discs, advertise the game, then distribute the game to retailers. This is all done weeks before release day mind you. From the time the developers hand over the game to the publisher to put the game on the disc, the developers can NO LONGER PUT NEW CONTENT ON THE DISC. I cannot stress thatenough. If you're a developer who had to cut content due to time constraints or there was an idea that you really wanted to do but didn't have the time to do it and you have the time between the release build and the release day of the game then why not work on it and sell it along with the game?

Should that content be free? Well that's complicated, it depends on the price of the DLC. Usually the answer is no, it shouldn't be free because the developers still worked on it so they deserve the money for the hours of work put into the content. Remember, the 60 price of games isn't just to **** the consumer. Advertising, packaging, and distribution costs that the publisher pays are much more expensive these days. The publisher doesn't always turn a profit guys. The developed salaries are often set no matter how the game performs so the success of a game really matters to the publisher.

So like Mocha said to berb, don't talk out your ass on issues you're only guessing at how they work

The intent of that sentence sounded rather personal berb. Be mature.

...of couse they did the online pass on purpose. As opposed to what, on accident. While I disagree with the concept of paying extra money to "unlock" multiplayer access or to pay a subscription fee on top of gold to play my games I understand the thought process behind it. Publishers make their money on new game retail sales. The publisher doesn't make a dime off of used game sales so when publishing a game is as expensive as it is now I can understand the temptation. So yes the point is to grab money. Money they are losing to retailers who sell their games used. I already explained to DLC thing to Benjii which you can read right above your quote. As far as the rest of your paragraph goes...it wad all ignorant garbage a 12 year old would say.