It's preposterous for fans to have so much say, such that bioware decides to create a new ending. This is the story they decided to tell and apparently it's a story with a shitty ending. But I don't think they should change it *because* of fan outcry. I likened it to reading Romeo and Juliet but hating that they both die at the end, so Shakespeare decides to change it. It was his story to tell, just as it was bioware's.
I can understand the analogies people have made to TV shows, movies, and hell, a Shakespeare play in Mal's case, they are good analogies, and they serve as important consideration for anything we might argue in this topic, but at the same time, we must also be aware of some differences:
1) The Mass Effect trilogy is a series of story-oriented, role-playing videogames. How is this important ? In the sense that, in essence, no two ME stories should be the same, no two Shepards should be the same, ideally of course, this doesn't happen while playing because Bioware, very wisely, eschewed some control from the player in order to direct the story into something more similar to Star Trek or Battlestar Galactica. But the point remains the same, the Mass Effect trilogy is a series of videogames that in essence, offers a different story for every player, that said, one should pressumably get different endings, as it was stated:
"This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot more different. At this point we're taking into account so many decisions that you've made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It's not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C"
Casey Hudson, Executive Producer for Mass Effect 1, 2 and 3.
"There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way. How could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets?"
Michael Gamble, Associate Producer for Mass Effect 3.
I haven't played the game, but as far as I understand, the choices are limited to "Red, blue and green", with an additional cutscene that "apparently" cannot be obtained without playing multiplayer.
2) I don't believe Bioware is obligated to change the ending.
Is it their story ? Yes.
Is it their game ? Yes.
But like in any enterprise or association, what you put as a stake is what you receive, if I spend more than 200-300 dollars in content, being a loyal midnight-release customer, following the development on forums, then doesn't that give me the right to at least complain ? Is there something morally reprehensible about voicing your opinions ? Would there be something wrong on also acting on my other right to not buy any Bioware products in the near future ?
If they drop any dlc in any form to alter the ending I can't see how they would possibly charge for it after all the negative press they've received. Particularly because whatever they release will significantly alter the ending for every person who plays - suddenly those who don't buy it (if they charge) are now experiencing a different game. I don't think they'd charge.
Are you sure the negative press is that overwhelming ?
The only real pressure Bioware got was from the Bioware Social Network and from some articles on Forbes, all other "gaming journalism" sites gave.........relentlessly.........perfect scores to the game, some websites, like Gamespot and Metacritic, have erased the negative scores from their user reviews section, granted, many of those reviews were inmature teenager rantings, and yes, those are private entities, they have the right to remove whatever they want from their site, but please, do tell me:
1) That it doesn't look bad at all when a company decides to censor their own users.
2) That it doesn't look bad when none
of the professional reviews even mention any of the issues the fans are complaining about.
2) That it doesn't look bad that companies with conflicts of interests (IGN, Gamespot, Metacritic, GameSpy, etc.) do their best to downplay the reaction of the fanbase by "strawmaning" it to death by making it an issue of "entitlement".
Felicity disagreed strongly on both points. What say Ye?Excuuuuse me ?
As I said yesterday, I don't feel fully convinced on the idea of a "Copy and Paste" ending, I'd rather have a "filler", something that explains the supposed plotholes and misunderstandings about the ending. Also, we can't deny that there is a succesful precedent here, Broken Steel for Fallout, which was praised not only as a high quality piece of DLC, but was also requested by the fans in reaction to their dislike of the ending.
In all honesty, I don't think Bioware will change it, too many strings attached.
But would it be really so bad ? So so bad that you could still get the original endings of the game as well as a new, DLC one ? The original ones wouldn't have been erased, there would just be more choices, for once Bioware would be actually delivering on a promise.