So some government agency, that has most likely never played this game, ruled it was different based on what EA and Bioware told them! If some government body thinks a few seconds of video and different colors are "radically different ending scenarios" it just proves they can take a bribe. Everyone knows the person with the most money will always win when government is involved, in every country. After all the UK was one of the "intelligence" groups the US used to "prove" there where weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, oops. Let me be clear I am not comparing this game to a real life war, just pointing out how government is wrong way more then it is ever right. After all it was the US Supreme Court that ruled corporations are people.
So Mr Sinclair, when are we the readers of Gamespot, going to see an article where the "16" endings are compared side by side frame by frame? Then we as gamers can judge for ourselves if they are really "radically different." I think it interesting that that same government body didn't take into account the public interviews where the most false claims where made, like "no A, B, or C endings here" or "MP will not be needed to reach maximum war assets". Wow that is one thing they based their decision on, the war assets and how that would change on past games, yet they ignored public interviews that lied about that. Good job government, way to look out for the everyday people and not corporations.
Why do these companies never listen to their fans? The only MP people I have ever seen people ask for is just an online Co Op mode with 2 to 4 players. You get followers in the single player, so why not just let me and my friends run around in Skyrim together, but alone, without all the 10 year old's and social shut ins griefing everyone's fun. It (Co op) worked in Borderlands and I only have to pay for the game once that way, forget these greedy fools that want me to pay a monthly fee to play a game. I will never pay a monthly fee to play a game to just grind out endless stupid fetch quests I could have done for free in a co op mode or alone in SP. This game will fail, just like about everyone warned would happen with The Old Republic, and that will be free to play soon enough. Stop making games people don't want, how hard is that for these companies to understand? How many copies of a SP, or even Co op, KotOR 3 would sell over the MMO version, or even a Battlefront 3 like all the fans wanted and asked for? I bet it would have beaten (or at least come close) to Call of Duty and that is no small feat!
I agree with @Polybren on this issue in gaming (and Westworld!). It reminds me of when the music industry started using Parental Advisory stickers. The artists used that almost like a badge of honor, next thing you know every CD seemed to want that sticker on it. After several years it became so normal to see the sticker that everyone just kind of ignored them. Same thing here, every game now wants to be bloodier then the other guys just to try and sell a few extra copies, it is becoming routine and boring now.
Don't get me wrong I still like a good decapitation as much as the next person but after seeing it 1000 times it does get stale. I would like to see games start to really push things and start using more nudity and even sex to give adults a whole new direction in gaming. That is one thing I just do not understand about our modern society, many parents seem OK with violence but not sex or nudity. They buy CoD, Battlefield, GoW, GTA, etc, etc, for little Timmy where he can cut your throat, hack you up with a chainsaw, blow your brains out and watch it stick to walls, and listen to constant swearing in game by characters and online by people, yet God forbid little Timmy see a naked woman or man. That could scar little Timmy and his tiny brain to see a naked woman in a games strip club like GTA right? Much better for him to just go in the club and cut off peoples heads rather then get a lap dance in game that has nudity to them.
Games are rated M for a reason, so if a parent can not read and figure out what they are buying for their child, I feel bad for that kid, not the stupid adult that bought the game for that kid then cries about the games contents and claims "but I didn't know." There is even an AO rating for games why not use it!
I agree with this article. Most times the quick time events take away from the game play. I can do all these cool moves and killer combos but to kill a boss I have to do a Dragons Lair hit the button on time or die instead of use my powers I have unlocked. Then the game is reduced to memorizing a button pattern over using your characters skills to progress, a bad and lazy game design choice to me. Nice article Kevin.
@Polybren Starting to understand your point of view more so let me help you a bit, even if I strongly disagree with you about changing things in "art". To me It is natural based on a long history of it being done in all forms of entertainment "arts". Even more so with ME3 and how it was sold to us all. Like I have stated before I do tend to view MOST games and movies as entertainment, but I do think there are games and movies closer to "art" then not.
Granted by the very broad definition of "art" just about everything qualifies as art, even war sadly. Art is so subjective that only you as an individual can decide what is or is not art and it only applies to you. You do have the right to feel that all games are "art" or that Metal is better then Country music for example. Likewise you, or anyone else, have zero right to expect anyone to agree with what you call "art" just because you like it. You must keep in mind, and accept, that art is too subjective to force people to accept your point of view outright just because you call it "art".
Let me help you make a better case as to why games could be considered art. Instead of picking a falsely advertised game like ME3 and saying "don't change it because I feel it is art" when you know over 90% of people think the end sucked and they feel betrayed by Bioware. Why did you not pick games that really blur the line between art and gaming instead. How about LA Noire, The Journey, Limbo, Katamari Damacy, The Last Resort, Ico/Shadow of the Colossus, Portal, Okami, and those are just off the top of my head. You might be able to make a case for the Elder Scrolls, the Fallout games, Red Dead, maybe even the GTA games. All those games got made, took chances, where successful, and no great majority felt upset and demanded that they change them did they? Doesn't even matter if you like or hate those games they are better examples then Doom 3's flashlight and ME3's end about what might be "art."
Even with ME3 you could make a better case for by pointing to the things it did right instead of focusing on the end and them fixing it. Even if you disagree with them fixing it, your in a small 1 to 2 % so it can not help your case with that game. Kind of like the very few people that tried to stick up for the Piss Christ Photo from Andres Serrano, some things you should not try to defend if the vast majority are against it and it is a bad example of that form of "art."
++++ Spoilers follow about ME3 ++++
Sticking with ME3 instead of the ends, why not point out the parts like the Genophage and that story arc? If your a renegade and chose not to cure it, the confrontation with Mordin (if alive) might just make you teary eyed, it invokes true emotion from the gamer (assuming they have emotions!) Not to mention what happens if you kept Wrex alive and what happens when he finds out, how about that little talk with Garrus on the Normandy about it. Hard to not feel guilty about that whole thing in the end isn't it!
++++ end spoilers++++
So please if you want to change peoples minds about what you want to be called art, pick games that are good example of it, not ones people have strong negative feelings toward. It is kind of like trying to convince people movies are "art" just because it was made into a movie, then picking The Human Centipede 2, Howard the Duck, Catwoman, and Battlefield Earth as your examples of that "art." The game industry and movie industry have one thing in common, there are really only a few titles made every year that are "art", the rest are just made to (hopefully) entertain you while making a profit. Most will be forgotten with time, but the really good ones will be remembered.
@musicallie44 It makes you Axl Rose! But kidding aside your 100% correct, as a musician as well, I feel I have a responsibility to my fans giving me money to watch me play and give them my best on stage and play the songs they want to hear. A fact of life for many musicians is there are songs that the fans like more then we do, so those are the ones we will play for them. You still can play the songs dear to yourself and give the fans what they want as well. If you don't do that you wont be playing at any shows!
Take Metallica and Enter Sandman for example, that is not their favorite song, but because the fans love it so much they play it at almost every single show. When they play it they still give it 100% because they know you as a fan want to hear it and they need you or they would have to get "real" jobs. I just think that is a smart thing, know your fans and what they like about you, and what they do not like that you have done. If you listen to them and are not a complete fool, like Axl Rose, then you might just keep your fans and sell more records as a result to keep doing what it is you love to do.
@xdrmonkeyfishx So what about the people mislead into buying a crappy game that you cannot return? So Bethesda with Fall Out New Vegas should have not updated the game with a patch to fix game breaking bugs? So you think it would be better to not fix broken things and just make a new game? Well who is going to buy that new game, the people left with their broken unplayable game that was never fixed? BTW how can a fan give feedback for a game they haven't played like say ME3 before it is released. What about being mislead as to what that product was? Is that OK with you to intentionally mislead people into buying your game with false promises and outright lies? Then you want them to not fix it and leave the gamers with a flawed product. That sure sound more retarded to me then making your customer happy so they might buy future games from you. I agree with one thing you said however, if it was good change would not be necessary. That said what about patches that add things to a game like horse combat with Skyrim, is that OK in your mind then?
@nyran125 I think you are missing the point. Bioware LIED to all of us about their product, not EA the publisher, it was Bioware (the developer) and their staff that lied about their product. If you think it is innovation to outright mislead people about your product, your wrong. If you care about gaming you should be sticking up for the gamers that where misled by the developer about that game. So who is the fool the people lied too about a product (gamers) or the ones that lied to you about that product (developers)? Again EA (the publisher) didn't make the game or the false claims, that was all (developer) Bioware. No different then a publisher of a book written by an author, they just make sure it gets to a store for you to buy. By no means am I defending EA just pointing out a fact.
As a gamer:
I never asked for MMO pay to play, online passes, restrictive profiles that can't share game saves with friends, DRM, always online, short 10 hour games, yearly versions of a game, content cut out of the game to be locked on disc that you need to pay for (things that used to free like new outfits and characters), and I sure didn't want a game to ship with major bugs that break the game, like Fallout New Vegas as just one example. So you should rethink who is at fault, it sure isn't me as a gamer. Maybe it is people like you that continue to defend total garbage in the name of "art and innovation" even when it totally sucks.
MinerAvatar's comments