Fans, Capitalism, and Mass Effect 3’s Ending. Oh My.
|
How can something like this happen? My finger begins to cramp from scrolling through all the screaming and virtual facepalming over the Mass Effect 3 ending debacle on Twitter. I eventually felt pressured to race through the game just to see what was going on. While I didn’t like the ending, it was for completely different reasons than all the petitions and flash floods of protests on BioWare’s forums. Most importantly, the nature of the ending didn’t surprise me; it felt completely natural given the structure of the series, which let me personalize the experience but not dictate anything major. The only way someone could be so genuinely upset enough to demand refunds and reparations is if they weren’t aware what kind of game they were playing. However, facing claims of false advertisement and deception, is BioWare at fault for dissonance between its marketing and actual product? Why this conflict exists is layered but predictable, product of many issues in the game industry that we let fester and explode.
Let’s Start with Some Snobbery First, how can someone be upset with Mass Effect 3’s ending to such an uproar? There’s a usual expectation that endings of any medium stand a risk of being unsatisfying, with a usual negative response “meh, that ending sucked.” I saw this attitude mostly with other game writers and developers, who split on whether or not they liked the ending but didn’t seem surprised or shocked that it existed. Being a part of videogame development and media also distances a person from mass marketing because they are more aware of the relationship PR serves to the process of a game getting sold. So when advocates claim betrayal because the marketing doesn’t match the product, it shows these players have an investment to the culture that surrounds the game crafted by the company. They look back on the series and see BioWare’s catchphrases, everything as a result of their choices and personal stories. Players started to romance the brand of Mass Effect, especially as BioWare became more responsive to its fans. A critical eye can see that the Mass Effect series does not put player agency at the forefront of the narrative. I mean narrative as the structure and method of how a player experiences game, with only one aspect being the story. Having played the first two games multiple times with varying character and story goals, I went into Mass Effect 3 knowing there was little I was actually influencing. One way to look at what is actually going on is the player brings nuance to the epic story that is Shepard. The ending transcends Shepard from hero to legend, and legends lack nuance. We know the general events, such as saving the Citadel from Sovereign and defeating the Collectors, when it comes to legends, but what the hero was actually like is left to our imaginations. In a sense, Mass Effect 3’s ending clued us in that the player was merely filling in the details this whole time. The narrative structure of the series never allowed players to change or influence large events in the game; no matter what, someone has to die on Virmire, Sovereign will be overcome despite saving the Council or not, the Collectors will abduct your team and you will watch someone be processed into the human Reaper. There is only one large story choice the player has, and that’s killing their Shepard at the end of Mass Effect 2. The narrative doesn’t allow the player to interact enough with the story to change it radically, only determine some minor details. That’s not to say Mass Effect is a bad series or failed at this, but it clearly doesn’t match what the fans thought the series was all about. These fans are upset that the ending only added nuance to Shepard’s final action, unaware that’s what was going on the entire time. BioWare’s misstep was hyping up this player-centric rhetoric and thinking the simple addition of a dialogue choice was what the fans wanted.
Money is Our Weapon and Hostage Obviously, there are hobbyists who wrote out their analysis and feelings in an eloquent manner, but the vast majority (at least $80,000 worth) relied on what they perceive to be consumer rights to challenge BioWare. All of us have witnessed this when shopping or eating, when exchanging money for goods, there’s also a power relation where the customer gets as much as they want out of the transaction, including undue respect and service. We really shouldn’t be surprised about this reaction, because it’s endemic to a capitalist culture. Ever heard of “the customer is always right”? It’s now a subconscious mantra that manifests whenever we are displeased in a retail space. However, there is no law that states the customer is forever correct, it’s just many companies enact differing levels of this concept. This is the same with the videogame industry, companies ultimately bending to every whim of the player as long as they are a paying customer. A good fan is one that pays, and they can throw as many tantrums as they want as long as they keep paying. So the system is really what’s at fault here; fans are acting in such an extreme manner because of an ingrained “I give you money and you give me whatever I want” attitude, and companies’ customer service allows fans to be as vile as they want as long as they continue to give them money. It’s not a secret that the main goal of AAA games is to make money, and “pleasing fans” seems like a great way to make money on paper. This relationship now structures the video game community, with companies and fans trying to figure out how to get as much as they can out of one another, always in some form of money. Mass demand shapes development and media cycles, building up a game with intense hype until it releases, then forgetting about it a couple weeks later. This is why this movement used money as a way to threaten BioWare; they insisted on refunds, raised money to show their financial influence, and tapped into that customer-merchant relationship to imply BioWare owed them something because they paid money. BioWare has visibly become more “whatever you want, fans” by changing their attitude from epic storytelling to compelling action, including modes to satisfy non-RPG fans, and having the masses decide on a canon look for the default woman Shepard. Many decisions aimed to catch more fans while keeping current ones satisfied. The artistic direction the series goes comes into conflict with this, because in the end, videogames are art with creative people making them. There’s often a line between doing something for money and making something for art’s sake. The media is particularly interested in this tension, quick to explain why they think BioWare should or should not modify the game in any way. BioWare tried to stuff their face with cake, but not anymore than most videogame companies. The problem lies in the genuine creativity and progressive nature the company seems to have constantly being at odds with its financial relationship to a demanding audience. They should have seen it coming with the community’s reaction to Dragon Age II and how an artistic expression was ultimately ignored because it didn’t directly serve their customers’ expectations.
The End of the World as We Know It There are already the typical sky-falling predictions on both sides of the argument. If BioWare stands up for their product and tells fans to deal with it, they hold no value for those who support them. Decide to change the game in reaction to the fans, lose all artistic integrity. Many journalists disparage the fans for feeling entitled to their game, but participate in a media culture that has them remain silent about certain politics to keep readership. There is nothing innately wrong with anyone involved; what is wrong is how much we continue to support the negative aspects of the system we’re in. Capitalism is ultimately exploitative in nature, and things get nasty when that exploitation isn’t mutual. Because the relationship between companies, media, and fans are all monetary, peace is kept only with as much pandering towards the one handing over the money possible. Current events show that artistic and personal integrity are becoming domain of the buyers, and the only way to fix that is to change our relationship to money.
|
Best read I’ve found about this issue. People wouldn’t demand a different ending for a film or book. They do to an extent about TV shows, but usually only when they’re cancelled and want a TV movie to wrap up loose end. So why should video games be any different? Because they’re interactive?
Just say you didn’t like the ending and move on. It may not be satisfying, but it doesn’t invalidate the experiences you had prior.
Sadly it does. The ending resulted in the destruction of the galaxy. In all three of them. How does that not invalidate the experiences we had prior. After seeing it, I had no desire to replay ME3 again. Not only that, but I had no desire to replay the first two games either.
Why should I? They all die in the end and no one gets saved. Someone else once said that the “journey is what matters”. I disagree when the end of the journey itself is an affirmation of despair not hope.
It’s as if I walked a thousand miles to save the life of someone I care about, only to find out at the end that they died before I even started the journey. Why in the world would I want to relive the journey again when I already know how it will end?
Why in the world does the ending have to be hopeful? Because you want it to be?
Imagine if The Lord of the Rings Trilogy ended this way: Frodo and Sam finally arrives at mount doom. Boulmarringong is waiting for them and tells them they can’t destroy the ring. They don’t question him they turn around and leave. We immediately get to see Aragorn, Gandalf, Legolas and Gimli on a sunny beach standing next to each other. The End.
That is what the Mass Effect 3 ending is like.
And no… Boulmarringong doesn’t exist. He’s new 🙂
This sums up some of my feelings about the ending.
Allow me to plug this article here as this sums up very well why a number of people are truly upset about the conclusion to the ME trilogy.
http://www.themetagames.com/2012/03/why-you-enjoy-art-and-one-problem-with.html
The problem BioWare has run into is that they raised expectations to a certain level and then completely ignored reaching that bar. As many buyers will tell you, we don’t necessarily want a “happy rainbow” ending, but we wanted a proper end. Sadness, joy, victory, defeat none of these things were communicated to the player in a way that was equal to the storytelling we witnessed in the game up to the last 5 minutes.
It’s like watching an epic scifi movie with great visuals and right at the conclusion of the story the footage switches to someones iPhone footage and action figures to enact the final scene. It completely destroys the investment the participant has. But really, do take the time to read that article it will explain – in a much better way than I am capable of – why there is such an outrage.
Interestingly, if you believe the controversy (and I’m inclined to; people generally don’t get so upset about things that aren’t true), that’s exactly what happened. http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/5695/article/mass-effect-3-writer-allegedly-slams-controversial-ending/
The ending had a lot of problems. They created most of these problems over the course of the series. It would *not* surprise me if they imagined that instead of a series it would only be one game, that they’d be cancelled after Mass Effect.
Can’t speak to the end of ME3—though a lot of the complaints seem to have less to do with the amount of choice and more to do with (what I can tell) it being rampant halfassery with a “buy our DLC!” bit attached—but I do have to wonder about the notion that there the games don’t feature choice. The Rachni and Wrex in ME1, who lives and dies in ME2’s final mission, the disposition of the collector base, and even the bit about Virmire you mentioned are choices. Yes, those are constrained choices, but all choices are constrained; it’s the nature of the constraints and what one does within those constraints that matter. The “art” in the design of Mass Effect 1 and 2 is in the structure and management of those constraints to make players feel like they have a real impact, rather than just a superficial one.
It’s about that old gaming bugbear of “meaningful decisionmaking”. Even if the meaningfulness is a bit of an illusion, so what? At the end of the day, all gaming is an illusion. All STORYTELLING is an illusion. That’s the point.
From what I can tell, the point is that people aren’t getting that from the ending. It doesn’t even feel meaningful. It’s just an Ending Machine, and apparently it’s not even a very good one. The “art” of Mass Effect is gone. The illusion’s broken, so the storytelling’s crap.
Also, I’m a bit skeptical about how they’re all “customers get what they want!” PS3 customers don’t want to fall through floors and have their framerates drop by a third. PC customers don’t want to have to install Origin when it provides no meaningful functionality. And nobody wants to pay an extra ten bucks for content that could have been a day-one patch, or wants to be forced to play microtransaction-soaked multiplayer to get the best ending, (such as it exists,apparently) or wants to be banned from playing a single-player game because they accidentally joined a hacked server. With no recourse to refund, not ever.
How on EARTH is that supposed to be Bioware or EA catering to customers? It’s about as customer-unfriendly as it gets! And it’s a signal that we’ve redefined that into the ground when people are saying that something as basic as asking for a refund is somehow wrong, and others (though not yourself in this case) are throwing around the word “entitled” to describe a person who as traded money for a product?
Yes, a buyer should have rights!
When I get the opportunity to find out myself, maybe I’ll change my mind. Maybe I’ll love the ending, I don’t know. But I’m really, really uncomfortable with how the Bioware backlash is provoking an anti-audience, anti-consumer counter-backlash of its own. The publishers already have enough advocates.
Allow me to link you to this article
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/03/13/mass-effect-3-and-the-pernicious-myth-of-gamer-entitlement/
I’m of an even smaller minority on this issue. I thought the ending was about the fifth thing wrong with this game and simply felt this wasn’t their best effort. Knowing they did at least try with the first two games and were championed for it, I felt both critics and fans should have not let the entire series cloud their judgement with ME3 and judge it as a stand alone game. Which at the end of the day it actually was. Think both sides do need to grow up on the matter though. I sold the game back and moved onto another one. Most people should do the same. Bioware and critics alike, should both come out, apologize, and try better next time. Bioware because clearly this wasn’t their best effort. Critics because they clearly avoided most of the game’s short comings and highlighted its few pluses and then gave it a near perfect score because of the series as a whole. Then when onto insult their audience in the most Fox News truth spinning way possible. In any case, even when it comes to film, television, etc it all panders to the majority. It dilutes itself into becoming the most homogenized product it can be. Avatar, Two and A Half Men, Jay Leno, etc…
Until the audience starts asking for better, they won’t get better. Support your foreign and indie cinema. Support your shows that try for something different and don’t think of you as stupid. Call games out on not giving you their best effort and support games that do. Etc…
Oh and in the same way you would never dare even whispering artistic integrity with any of those aforementioned titles, you really shouldn’t do the same with Mass Effect 3 or Dragon Age 2. Clearly made to make a buck. Clearly made with a story second in mind attitude. If not third in mind attitude.
Or ignoring all that, just go through life drunk. Have a few friends that seem beyond happy doing that.
I had your reaction as well. Liked it in spirit, but the execution was laughable.
WHO WOULD WANT THE ENDING CHANGED WHEN IT HAD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=467pmIX-oZo&feature=player_embedded
I disagree with the conclussion about capitalism and nature of the buyers, somehow there were so many bad games in the past where people did not really mind bad endings or even a bad game; bad games happen … that is all, yet ME series is different, since in the common conscience of people 99% of the game is good, except for last 10 minutes, it is kind of surprising such a discontinuity ! when a game (or for that matter any kind of media/art) is average or bad, generally (statistically speaking) there is some coherence to it, some system reason (because authors had no talent, because the means of creation were not sufficient, etc …) and in ME3 there is nothing of a sort … game is a Class 10 blockbuster and even a classic reaching highness of PS:T up to … infameous 10 minutes.
I disagree also with a statement that a current ending is coherent with Mass Effect universe. It is always good to search for a basics … a sort of vision of Mass Effect. The whole game gives the message of hope even in the hopeless situations and of tolerance even when the important conflicts are at the stake … while the endings do exact opposite movement, compare it to putting death metal sequence in the end of Mozart’s ouverture. In the end, ME3 ending is not that much dishonest with the player’s vision of it, but rather with its own vision.
As for Casey’s bittersweetness …I already gave that example elsewhere: in real world there were many bittersweet stories, tragedies even, but there had been never a case of total despair and unreality as it is shown in the ending of ME3. Even in the darkest hours of human history there was always some hope. ME3 ending is written in such a way that it implies the second catastrophy arriving after a first one. For some the stargazer scene in the end might be a message of hope, but not to the direct spectator, a player, who sees two new characters that came from nowhere … and basically the player does not care about those two, he cared about his party members from the game, about civilisations with which he had interacted and not some stargazer and his grandchild in some non identified place and time. It is depersonalised, deindividualised, thus alien and rejectable by a majority of people.
I would like also to adress one more issue: reviewers vs players conflict arising more and more; some of reviewers consider that players are whining and worthless the development put in the game presented to them … while it will not be the reviewers that will bring the “art” flag on the creation, but a public, the players … in the end of the day, the players (“people”) decide which games become a legend and which are doomed to be forgotten.
Reviewers have forgotten their humility and objectivity. They even encourage people to think that so called “professional reviewers” are actually the corporate propaganda officers, corrupted by the “Majors”, thus, the best way to treat them is to avoid reading them, since they are a part of the public relations strategy.
Glad you guys finally got around to writing something about this, I’ve been waiting.
Anyways, I’m sorry but I do have to disagree that this has anything to do with artistic integrity. Art doesn’t end with a DLC reminder. Art doesn’t use a 15 minute photoshop for a beloved character. Art doesn’t remove and re-purpose content so that it can be sold for more money on opening day. Bioware and EA decided to commercialize their product and in doing so forfeited any artistic rights they might have had. If they decide to change/expand the ending and offer it for free, it will show that they do actually give a crap about their fans. If they instead charge for it or ignore the pleas, then it just shows what the companies really care about: money. I’m certainly putting my money on the latter; we’ve all seen the direction BW has been going lately.
Also, Bioware shifting to action at the expense of story-telling was not fan driven. It was done for sales. Now whether you want to argue that makes it fan-driven or not I suppose is certainly valid, but I for one wouldn’t say that everyone who purchases a game is a ‘fan’. They changed the image of their company to suit the mass markets, not the niche fans they have catered to in the past. That’s perfectly understandable from an economic point of view, sure, but certainly seems to fly in the face of integrity. Certainly BW does a good job including fans, but saying they help shape the games as a whole is a bit of an overstatement to me.
But that’s just my opinion, no need to go spreading it around.
Finally, man, you say that like it’s taken forever! Game is only a month ooold, we take our time. Still more to come on this issue, I’m sure. 😉
The great galleries of the world are full of masterpieces compromised by the money of plutocrats. Commissions, propaganda, vanity portraits, etc. So what? Money’s been a part of the art world for thousands of years. Sure, there’s “outsider art”, but Bioware doesn’t qualify. Now, I suppose we could ask ourselves: Is it preferable that Bioware be answerable to a cabal of wealthy patrons, or to its audience? In my socialist utopia, the state would subsidize all sorts of risky art-house videogames with huge budgets. Maybe one day!
But I’ll die happily if I never hear “artistic integrity” and “Mass Effect 3” in the same sentence ever again. Can’t we focus on the art itself? Why does a piece of art have to be off-limits the minute it is released to the public? Isn’t it possible that DLC could add something to the experience? Would such DLC subtract from the experience? That’s the stuff that people will be talking about in ten years. I don’t really care about the Ten Imaginary Commandments of the Church of Street Cred.
Gainax (unhappily, after a similar outcry) released a new ending for Neon Genesis Evangelion, and I thought it added a lot to the franchise. It didn’t contradict the old ending, but instead expanded on it.
Pingback: Why Mass Effect Is Not One Of The Most Important Science Fiction Universes of Our Generation « Alien Fiction
Pingback: Why Mass Effect Is Not One Of The Most Important Science Fiction Universes of Our Generation | Alien Fiction
Pingback: Writing | Mattie Brice