I, Probert - The End is the Beginning is the End

Wednesday, 28 March 2012 16:29

I, Probert - The End is the Beginning is the End

Written by Dave Probert

font size decrease font size increase font size
Print
E-mail

Rate this item

(2 votes)

The End is the Beginning is the End

So the gaming nirvana that is Mass Effect 3 has come out, been played and a vocal section of the game's fans have been very unhappy with the ending. This has led to some anger and demands that a new ending be provided, which the game developers BioWare appear to be responding to by offering an alternative, which has generated even more anger among people who thought the original ending was just fine.

In the name of full disclosure I haven't played any of the Mass Effect games. In fact I haven't had any games console in my flat for about 2 years, so I am viewing this argument from an outsider's point of view. Initially I understood why people were angry at fans demanding an alternative ending. It comes across as a little arrogant to say to the developers that they got it wrong and the fans know better, but the more I think about it the more I think where is the harm?

Gaming technology has evolved and with the advent of DLC, games have become a far more adaptable medium. Gamers know this which is why they know they can demand a new ending without having to buy a whole new game. What annoys me is that the most vocal detractors of the ending think they should be entitled to it for free. Providing a new ending for free is a slap in the face to all the people who were perfectly happy with the original ending and gives the impression that they were in some way wrong to accept it. However, if there is a DLC market for an alternative ending then it makes sense for BioWare to cater to that, but of course they are going to charge for it. If nothing else it makes good business sense and will provide the game with a little extra profit it wasn't expecting. I imagine it will be doughnuts all round in the BioWare offices that day.

The people angry at the idea that the haters are getting their own way are concerned that it sets a dangerous precedent. That it gives licence to any vocal minority to force changes on people who were happy with the original product. I think that so long as any changes made to a game via DLC are optional and charge those who want an alternative, then it shouldn't really affect those people who are happy with the original.

What I find interesting about the whole debate is that it is a uniquely gaming argument. While there were sections of fans who didn't like the endings to shows like Lost or Battlestar Galactica there was no one demanding the the final episodes be remade to their satisfaction. Mainly because that would be impossible to do as no network in their right mind would pay for an extra episode of something to silence some raging fanboys on the internet. Maybe they are missing a trick. After all, alternate endings can be marketable.

Alternative endings for films have existed for many years, in cases where the original endings don't go down well with test audiences. These changes are not always for the better; for instance the original ending of the Will Smith-starring I Am Legend was apparently much more in line with the original story, but was changed for a happier ending after test screenings. Thanks to the medium of DVD and Blu-ray we can see these original endings and judge for ourselves which is better. More savvy DVD publishers have come to realise that catering to divided opinion on alternate endings can pay dividends. Army of Darkness notoriously has two different endings. The double disk DVD had a full version of the film with each ending allowing fans to chose their favourite. The murder mystery comedy Clue had the unique selling point of having three alternative endings. Which one you saw depended on which screening you went to. The DVD has the option to play one of the endings at random or show all three as the film does when shown on TV.

I'm not saying that having a flexible conclusion is right for everything, but there is clearly room to do so for the right projects. Gaming is a medium that lends itself to this kind of flexibility, but that shouldn't come with a sense of entitlement. If enough people want an alternate end to a game then a developer is going to listen, but they shouldn't be expected to do it for nothing. It's the development of the charged-for DLC business model that allows gamers to be in this unique position. They should be happy that the opportunity exists rather than trying to bite the hand that feeds them.

Of course if you don't like the ending of this column I may be persuaded to change it...for a price.

The End is the Beginning is the End

Of course if you don't like the ending of this column I may be persuaded to change it...for a price.

Published in I Probert

Tagged under

Social sharing

Dave Probert

GeekPlanetOnline's Editor who also dabbles in reviewing, column writing and podcasting. He is one half of The Eclectic Podcast's dynamic duo and also co-hosts Shake and Blake, the Blake's 7 podcast. He has also popped up on The Gentlemen's Grindhouse, The Insideoutcast and A Disappointment.

Latest from Dave Probert

Related items (by tag)

More in this category: « I, Probert - And the Winner is... I, Probert - Cheer Up, It's The End of The World »

2 comments

Comment Link Monday, 23 April 2012 20:34 posted by Marauder Shields
"In the name of full disclosure I haven't played any of the Mass Effect games."

Then please, with all due respect, don't give an opinion. The only people who are angry at fans of ME3 for demanding a better ending are the non-fans. i.e. The people who don't care anyway, like high-and-mighty Dillon above.

When LOST fans went up in arms at its ending. I did not tell them they were silly and idiotic for not "getting it". Why should I? I never watched a single episode of it in my entire life and couldn't care less.

The only way an ending like that in ME3 would be acceptable is if you don't actually know anything about the backstory at all, just played it because it looked enough like Battlefield 3, or, like in your case, never played the series at all. In terms of how bad it was, imagine if the last 5 minutes of the Star Wars trilogy was Luke taking control of the Death Star and then ramming it into Endor and then it abruptly cuts to Darth Vader landing on Tatooine and then signing up for the next pod races out of nostalgia. And then it again cuts to Darth Vader laughing happily as he races alongside a mysteriously resurrected Obi-Wan before finally cutting to the credits.

It's THAT nonsensical.

And you're actually describing ME2 and ME1 already. Both of them HAVE alternative endings. Each of which tailored to the choices of the player. Each of which actually came with the full game. Heck, most RPG's do that already. ME3 is not breaking the mould by adding an alternate ending. It already broke the mould because it was the only game in the Mass Effect series in which your choices did not matter at all. The only thing it changed was the color of the explosions in the final cutscenes. Most importantly, ME3 has always been vaunted as a choice-driven game. Hudson bragged about "16 wildly different endings" because "being the last in the series, it's not constrained by having to tie in with a sequel". In short, not only was the ending nonsensical, Bioware also lied. And what more, they then call their fans the same names Mr. Condescension Matt Dillon above does, dismissing them as "entitled fanbois".

When the ending of a game that gave you the freedom of choices is a scene that then takes it all away (an ending that can be summarized as "they all die, the end"), it's called being a jerkwad. Tempt the players, bait them with 5 years of good storytelling, and then when they've emotionally invested themselves enough, cut them loose and then laugh at them. How can you still ask me to respect a company that does that? And how the hell does that qualify as "art"? I'm perfectly fine with them never remaking the ending at all. But don't expect me to buy anything else from them again. If that's the best the "Dungeon Master" can do, then excuse me while I find a better one who can tell a story without ruining it for $60.

Oh and in closing, Matt Dillon? You didn't recognize a rehashed Deus Ex ending with a bit of Gilligan's Island thrown in for no reason other than a jungle planet looks crazy cool? If that's the level of "creativity" you want in your games, and if that's your threshold for "art", I think you should go back to snakes and ladders. I bet you played Mass Effect only because it has guns and sploshuns. Or worse, you probably just watched it on YouTube.
Comment Link Friday, 30 March 2012 10:00 posted by Matt Dillon
I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree. Of course, I *could* start a Facebook group, kick off in the media like a whining bitch, and get my charity donations rejected by a an organisation which realises that I'm just trying to use them for free publicity, and then send you 1000 cupcakes in varying colours to try and get my way, but I feel acting like a grownup, expressing my views and then moving on with my life is probably the better way forward.

Your arguement is that we live in a world of DLC, and therefore why shouldn't the option (but only an OPTION) be available for the whiners to get their own way, provided that they pay for it. And certainly, if that's the route that Bioware choose, those whiners absolutely should bear the cost of the outcome (although I suspect that a lot of them will be disssatisfied with the new ending, and what happens then? A splinter group? A new campaign?). However, I don't think that, in this case, that DLC should exist.

I would agree with your point wholeheartedly if the point of Mass Effect - as with pretty much every other video game to date - the point of the game was the gameplay. For example, if the was a DLC pack available for Arkham Asylum that changed that final boss encouter you disliked so much, I would support that. It's only a final boss. It's something to pretend to kill with imaginary weapons. Once you kill that new boss, you'd still get the same end sequence, the same outcome to the story. Nothing in the narrative - the story that the writer is trying to tell - is impacted or changed. Everyone is happy.

In the case of Mass Effect 3, the changes being demanded would immediately and irrevocably change the story being told. Despite what a lot of these fanboys seem to think, Mass Effect does and way always meant to have a predetermined outcome. Whilst the gameplay mechanics and the beautiful choice/consequence system allowed us to play out that story the way we want it told, the outcome presented was always the terminus - and more to the point, if any of these people had actually paid attention throughout their experience, they'd know that. Yes, Mass Effect 1 and 2 had slightly (and I do mean SLIGHTLY) variable endings, but that was because they were designed to feed into Mass Effect 3. When you finish Mass Effect 1 and 2, the story isn't over yet. It's still being told. Your choices feed into the final act of the narrative, and lead you towards the conclusion. In Mass Effect 3, the story comers to and end. There's nothing to feed any further choices or variable actions into. That is IT. It's OVER. And the ending you experience is the one that the creators of the story meant you to have.

I think part of the problem is that people are differentiating between video games and other forms of narrative, because traditionally videos games have been a completely different medium of entertainment to, say, movies and books (which are more similar than dissimilar, in that they present a set story for you to experience, which you accept and consume). But the whole point of Mass Effect was to blur those lines. Drew Karpyshn, the head writer on the first game, has said on many occasions and in many interviews that Mass Effect was supposed to be a more technologically advanced version of the Fighting Fantasy/Choose Your Own Adventure books. The Take Back Mass Effect crowd are demanding instead that they change that to AD&D. They want to complain to the Dungeon Master, and have the story magically altered. It's NOT a group narrative. It's a set story, just like a movie; it's just being told using a more advanced medium.

And what does this say for the rights of the creative team at Bioware? Or any writer, director, actor or producer, for that matter? What these self-entitled yahoos are saying is that their false sense of ownership of something that they had NO part in creating overrides Bioware's creative vision. And if they get their way, it DOES set a dangerous precedent. Should all of the Harry Potter who were dissatisfied with the final chapter of The Deathly Hallows be allowed to dictate a new coda to Joanna Rowling? Should everybody who grew irritated with the faithful retelling of the end of LOTR be allowed to order Peter Jackson to edit it out? It pisses all over creativity, and (as Movie Bob over at The Escapist says) eliminates all risk from a creative venture. With risk comes the potential for greatness, but you only get the greats because there is an equal chance of failure. If you set out to keep everybody happy you end up with something average every time.

I for one loved the Mass Effect ending. Yes, if I hadn't, I'd have been crushed, and I'd have moaned about it (just like we all did over the Star Wars prequels), but that is where it would end. I'd get over it and move on, and that's exactly what Take Back Mass Effect should do. Frankly, if Bioware give them a new ending - and personally I don't think they will, I think they'll provide DLC which explores some of the deliberate ambiguity behind the ending, but IF they do? - then damn them. Damn them for pandering to self-entitled simpletons. They'll have done the world of expression some severe damage, and Pandora's Box will be open.

Comic: The Art Room

GPO Supports

Latest Feature