At some point it has to be faced up to that there's a significant portion of the protest movement which will not be satisfied with anything less than a complete retcon of the events of the ending as originally told by Bioware. And that's not going to happen.

So they were reported to the FTC/petitioned/protested/planned lawsuit because people felt that Bioware owed itself to craft a better ending to their own story? Sometimes stories have plot holes/weak endings, and threatening to report/sue them is not the best way(or even what I would consider a valid way) to say 'We hoped you would do better'.

Agree about passion, disagree about mis-steps. I did a lot of reading about the endings last night and this morning (though I haven't seen them myself yet, I'm only about half way through the game) and it seems to me they did a decent job with the endings. Past player decisions all contribute in minor ways to the military strength, which limits which endings you can get. Depending who is alive or dead, and who you use the most in your playthrough, you'll see different survivors emerge from the Normandy. Your Shepard will probably die, but in some of the endings it is possible to see a hint that he or she survives. Most importantly, the player gets to choose one of several futures for the rest of the galaxy, and the choices are interesting. None of them is the Hollywood "the heroes all ride off into the sunset and everyone lives happily ever after" ending, but one option lets you utterly destroy the Reapers, and another option lets you permanently neutralize their threat without killing them. To me personally, the Synthesis option seems like the most interesting choice, effectively "uplifting" the organic beings and turning them into something else.

Few games have ever offered players these kinds of choices. Deus Ex: HR might be the closest example, though it also reminds me of the "weird" set of possible endings for Farenheit/Indigo Prophecy. I think its great that Bioware made this the way they did, and left out the Hollywood ending.. whatever choice you make, the galaxy is forever and irrevocably changed.

*One* guy did that, and the bulk of the movement surrounding the ending publicly distanced itself from him. Please don't assign the actions of one person to an entire group. That has only ever ended poorly.

Please don't blow it up to be bigger than it was, either. It was a complaint filed with the FTC objecting to false or misleading advertising. There was no threatened lawsuit (of which I'm aware, at least), no action taken pursuing this course beyond the original complaint, etc.

@Wylie

I agree the endings were very interesting choices. But my biggest complaint is that the third option just "magically" changes organics (and not synthetics?) without describing how it happened and what it actually does.

I understand they had a hard time trying to determine how to depict the effect Shepard had, but the whole war assets seems to be, to be a choice out of time-constraint than intention from the beginning. Overall, I just love this world that BioWare created.

"BioWare made some very major fundamental missteps with the crafting of their story and player experience with the third and ostensibly final game in a trilogy that has been crafted around significant player investment."

That's one opinion and, as such, not necessarily correct or true. You can take just about any story and find flaws with it, even if it's won numerous awards.

@Wylie,

I have to disagree. In my opinion, the endings are clearly a misstep (but then again, I hated the ending of Deus Ex: HR too, so I'm clearly stating my bias).

We often like to deride what we term the "Hollywood" ending, but I just don't think that an any media is improved simply by throwing in a "rocks fall, everybody dies" ending. Darkness has its place, but it feels misplaced in the final game of the Mass Effect trilogy. The only thing I get from the ending is that Bioware wanted to pull me out of the game by exposing the lack of choice you really have.

It also seems like a massive tonal shift. Things were grim, there have been sacrifices, but Shepard managed to go one-on-one with the avatar of a Reaper, take out a couple of honest-to-God Reapers on foot, and survive being blown up and reentry, etc. The game had been training us that things were tough, but that a victory of sorts was possible if you played your cards right. That this was a Hollywood blockbuster kind game. Well, that all goes away at the end for a poorly explained deus ex machina in the Catalyst at the end and being forced to choose three unpalatable endings.

Honestly, I wasn't expecting Shepard to survive the trilogy, but the ending being so nonsensical and grim really soured me on that idea.

Now, I understand that you might fine the ending "okay" as life does not always end in closure, but we, the consumers, do not have to tolerate that from the products that we buy.

Now, I used generic economic terms here for a reason; This has nothing to do with anybody's creative vision. The developers haven't done anything but caved to their publisher who pay's their bills, same as always. That's the difference between a small indie company, and one of the most recognized dev shops from THE most recognized publisher in the world.

Bioware isn't doing this based on problems they or the fans have with the ending; they're doing this because EA's stock dropped based on the ending, and so now they have to "fix" their "product". I know this looks like a blow to someone's creativity, but what it really is is simply a business call. It's just part of the deal when you move from a small studio beholden only to your creativity to a big name that has investors to placate. And investors do not like it when the number one news about their big new product is how much it pissed people off.

I don't know, but I don't think they are changing the endings. But adding more explanations and detailing what happened with each ending.

I mean people that were on Earth, were now on a ship that somehow knew to try to outrun this wave. There needed to be an explanation as it was just left with a big "what happened there?". Unless that was their intent to leave mystery, but apparently it wasn't seen as an intention and more of an omission. But that's perception and everyone's is different.

But the game wasn't meant to be a collaboration. Maybe you're right, but this project doesn't seem to have been meant to go that far in terms of interaction, otherwise the fans would've been able to edit the script as they saw fit before the game went gold.

I think that it would be interesting to have a game that grew based on fan interaction with developers, but Mass Effect was just a different animal.

"this project doesn't seem to have been meant to go that far"

Well, it's gone that far now. Which is an awesome "problem" to have.

"it would be interesting to have a game that grew based on fan interaction with developers"

Now Mass Effect *is* that game.

BioWare has done many things because the fans voiced a desire for it. Tali and Garrus as love interests yes. More Joker..oh god yeah...a little too much. But that's me.

DLC that gave the player more to do with Liara. They added same-sex romances in ME3 because of the fans desire to have that.

That is even more surprising as that was in the first game, but taken out for unknown reasons, maybe technical or maybe they thought they were pushing the envelope too much.

BioWare has always listened and responded to their fans. Why would they stop now?

GRRM is going to get a very angry email about book 3...

- deleted, replied in the wrong place -

"To give a recent example, remember the public backlash of "The Tree of Life" from Terrence Malick. People left the theaters, demand ticket refunds... What did Fox (the distributor of the movie) did? Nothing! The movie is what it is. This Mass Effect case would be like asking Terrence Malick to change the ending on the DVD version."

A movie is not a game.

Just make a compelling argument -why- this is bad for the industry or designers, don't just state this like its a fact and self evident that the same applies to games.

??Yep, a movie is not a game. Just like a book is not a movie. A song is not a book. What's your point? Did you read everything I wrote?

"publishers will become even more risk averse of creating compelling new experiences and pushing forward storytelling in video games. Why? They will not want the risk of fans demanding new endings as they please. Prepare to see even more brainless shooters as the future of video games."

This is the risk with this case. It's bad for the industry as a whole. And I can bet there will be quite some writers who will prefer to avoid writing for games altogether from now on. If you cannot understand the sense of authorship of a creative piece, then this whole post is pointless for you.

Best article about this case: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/03/mass-effects-fans.h tml

"A mature audience for an art form would never do this, which shows us what a predicament gaming is in. To further the HBO analogy, compare this situation to another famously dissatisfying ending of a beloved series: the final episode of “The Sopranos.” Although many fans complained that the episode was confusing and inconclusive, no one seriously suggested that HBO reshoot the show. Sophisticated audiences understand that while they might hate any given plot decision, they ultimately have to respect the creative wishes of those who made the thing great in the first place; this is what gives the medium integrity."

Ditto!

Aleksander: That's kind of a pointless argument. You could extend it to say, "That's an RTS not an FPS," or "That's 2D not 3D," etc. They are both story driven entertainment. The standards for that should extend beyond medium.

"Yep, a movie is not a game. Just like a book is not a movie. A song is not a book. What's your point? "

None of those are interactive.
None of those have input from the consumer.

Its the difference between riding a roller-coaster and free-climbing, both will get your adrenaline up but only in one are you actually doing anything.

If people can't see the difference, then no wonder the games-industry is all up in arms about this.

"This is the risk with this case. It's bad for the industry as a whole. And I can bet there will be quite some writers who will prefer to avoid writing for games altogether from now on. If you cannot understand the sense of authorship of a creative piece, then this whole post is pointless for you."

Agency is the keyword.

If you can't understand that interactive mediums like games are -not equal- to authored mediums like movies and books (and they are simply not, this whole situation -proves- this) then yes, those writers and designers that think the same way will not write for games.

And good riddance.

I am quite frankly surprised that people do not seem to grasp this, especially on this website with professionals supposedly 20+ years in the business.

Using narrative like you would in TV/Books/Movies just does not work in the interactive medium, exactly because you run into the problems like Bioware did.
This isn't some entitlement issue of some whiny people online (its easy to dismiss this as such), its a systemic failure of writers used to writing for authored content writing for interactive content without the regard for player agency.
Bioware and the Mass Effect fiasco is just a big blip on our radar because the production is large and the developer well known, but this is not the first time this has happened.

The sooner writers get their head out of their ass and start adapting to the medium, the better.
This situation might do just that, force a change and evolution -long- needed in the industry.

@MichaelThe point is exactly that they don't.

"there will be quite some writers who will prefer to avoid writing for games altogether from now on."

Artists should choose a medium that best suits their creative ability and artistic ambitions.

Some narrative designers might love to work in a medium that includes player/audience agency as part of a mix of top down narrative, bottom up narrative, socially mediated narrative, and computational narrative. Other narrative designers may want to use video games as a one way top down narrative medium.

I don't see why there can't be multiple interpretations or uses of the same medium. Does the mere existence of kinetic sculpture malign sculpture as an artform?

@Aleksander

For me it tells everything when you spend the time talking about player agency, and on the other side that writers should get their head out of their ass (your words). You have the exact same attitude of the people who are "demanding" BioWare to fix things. Do you want to know one thing? It doesn't matter how many DLC's BioWare releases. There will be always people who will not be pleased.

Oh, and if you think that interactivity in storytelling only appeared with video games, then you should study quite a lot more on that subject.

@ Bruno
"To give a recent example, remember the public backlash of "The Tree of Life" from Terrence Malick. People left the theaters, demand ticket refunds... What did Fox (the distributor of the movie) did? Nothing! The movie is what it is. This Mass Effect case would be like asking Terrence Malick to change the ending on the DVD version."

You mean like they forced Ridley Scott to change the ending of "Blade Runner", when the test audience found it to depressing?
Besides, what people disliked about "The Tree of Life" was more then the ending, it's a movie with an artistic vision, it's natural to polarize people. A movie like "The Tree of Life" is more comparable to a game like "The Path" and nobody ever asked "Tale of Tales" to turn "The Path" into a straight survival horror game.
But besides, changes like that aren't unprecedented in popular media, just look at the "Spider-Man" series, when Marvel decided to do the clone saga in which Ben Reily is revealed as the "real" Peter Parker and the Peter we thought to be real as the clone, it was meant to be permanent. Fans outcried and Marvel decided to undo the whole story.

@Christian

The Blade Runner case is different to ME3. The Blade Runner ending – and the terrible, terrible voiceover – were a result of test screenings. Luckily, this travesty is gradually being forgotten, as the director’s cut minus the tacked-on ending gradually takes precedence in people’s movie collections. So there is some justice in this world. The important is that in the end the view of the creator prevailed. With ME3, they want the gamers voice to prevail.

ME3 is a huge undertaking. A fantastic epic told as a trilogy. And, when something like this is created, there will always be plot holes and disagreements regarding how the story should have been unveiled and ending. Star Wars, Matrix... Just a few franchises of note that suffered criticism for that. The task of creating the game systems for something with the scope of ME3 is daunting, and I'm afraid that any DLC will feel like it will be shoehorned into the main story line.

I gave the example of "Tree of Life" as I could have said "Matrix Reloaded". It polarized audiences completely. Some people loved it, others hated it. And if you read interviews with the Wachowsky's from that time, they stick to their guns. They did what they thought would be best for their product, their vision, and then continued with Revolutions. A lot of people say that the "real" Matrix is only the first one. I loved all the trilogy. Every media product has the capability of polarizing audiences, and if we start changing our products based on popular feedback, we will kill innovation. People will always want things they are comfortable with. The duty of an artist (being him a designer, writer, etc...), is also to educate, and show to the audiences new ways of experiencing a story.

Regarding the Spiderman clone saga, Marvel did quite a lot of wrong things with it. It was supposed to be a small story arc, the whole storyline, which was supposed to simplify Spider-Man's mythos and ultimately bring him "back to basics" ended up complicating everything beyond what anyone imagined! But the things is, that even un-popular, it sold very well, and some elements from the story arc are now part of the whole Spiderman universe.

"For me it tells everything when you spend the time talking about player agency, and on the other side that writers should get their head out of their ass (your words). You have the exact same attitude of the people who are "demanding" BioWare to fix things. Do you want to know one thing? It doesn't matter how many DLC's BioWare releases. There will be always people who will not be pleased."

Who cares if some people will not be pleased?
Thats not what we are discussing here, its not an argument why this is a bad thing, its a deflection via slippery-slope, the sky isn't falling here.

You have yet to provide anything even resembling an argument here beyond logical fallacies and ad-hom.

The second Bioware gave the player agency in their narrative, their narrative became interactive, it was not "Biowares baby" anymore.
How everyone keeps acting surprised at this notion, that players now were unsatisfied with an authored ending, when before it was interactive, is really beyond me.

Its like making a shooter where you give the player agency over the guns, except the guns don't do anything, and then you act surprised when the player decides that your combat is shit.

The sooner writers/designers recognize the crap they are doing narratively in games, the better.

Biowares case might just be the long needed wake-up call.

Ha, now you must be joking...

"Who cares if some people will not be pleased?"

Did you read the title of this article, "Free Mass Effect 3 DLC to address complaints from fans"? This whole question is exactly about that!

"...that players now were unsatisfied with an authored ending, when before it was interactive."

*Everything* in the game is authored, not only the ending, whether you want it or not . Your character does what the designers/writers want him to do. Your character only can pronounce the words that the writer wrote, not you. Not the player. The dialogue trees are supported by complex dialogue systems that the designers envisioned. Every type of interactivity is limited by the rules that the designers created for that whole universe.

"The sooner writers/designers recognize the crap they are doing narratively in games, the better."

Haha! Oh well, looking forward to see some of your games then.

Oh, and btw, if you can show me that "..."shooter where you give the player agency over the guns, except the guns don't do anything", I would like to take a look.

@ Bruno
I haven't played ME3, so I don't have an opinion on the ending, I am more looking at the debate in a general way and from that POV some questions emerge.
Basically you say, movies, TV series, comics and games can be compared, when it comes to sticking to your artistic vision. If this is the case, is it okay then, if a developer changes the game mechanics of it's title with a patch?
RTS titles are constantly changed this way, if players start complaining about the balance of the game. Why does this don't harm the artistic vision of the game?
Another example, look at "Viewtiful Joe" on the Gamecube, the game was re-eleased in Japan 6 months after launch with an extra "sweet mode" difficulty setting, because players complained the game was to hard on the easiest difficulty setting. Did this setting compromise the original vision of the creators, because the game was intended to be hard?
You can argue in these cases only the gameplay elements of a title are touched, but is it possible to divide a game completely into story and gameplay? If this is possible, wouldn't it be better for the creators to stick with non interactive media?
I don't have an answer for these questions and I don't have an opinion on the ME3 changes either, but I think it's not as easy to find an answer as it seems first.

@Christian

Balancing game systems post-launch is something that is widely used. I spend a lot of my days looking at spreadsheets doing exactly that :)

For me the problem with this case is the demand of new endings based on some people not liking it and finding plot holes. And the new DLC will not fix that, as there will always be people that will want things differently. This is a story issue (btw, I agree with some of the problems in ME3).

Numbers balancing post-lunch (like balancing economy systems) are critical withing game design, as a lot of times only when you have a big number of users you will start detecting it's flaws.

I agree that the whole subject is tricky, but I would split story and gameplay. In ME3 we have story issues, and not any kind of gameplay issue that would make the game unplayable. It's a matter of taste.

@ Bruno

So basically it boils down to this:

The gameplay can have flaws, which creators are allowed to fix, if the audience is complaining and the story can have plotholes, which the creators aren't allowed to fix if the audience is complaining?

This argumentation seems to be a little bit unfair for the creators of a story, because they don't have the freedom to adjust their work to the taste of the audience, something a creator of gameplay is allowed.

Yes, you are right, no additional DLC content will please everybody complaining now, there will be people still unsatisfied and others, that were completely satisfied so far, that now feel cheated. But is this different, when you adjust the gameplay mechanics of a game? Every strategy game, that changed it's gameplay mechanics, angered some people that decided not to update and stick with the original version, while others complained, that their vision of the gameplay wasn't realised with this update.

On this level, I don't see the difference between story and gameplay and because a game offers interaction, something a book, movie or comic doesn't, it can be argued, that changing the gameplay mechanics is spoiling the original vision of a game even more.

@Christian

I do not see the split as unfair. The concept of "story balancing" based on customer feedback is very tricky. Basically because liking a story or not, it boils down to a question of taste. You, as a person, you create empathy with a type of characters much easier than with others. And vice-versa.

The creation of the world, all the world building, characters, dialogues... That needs to be rock solid on an RPG. Then in terms of gameplay we can balance character stats, items, loot drops ratio, etc... But the whole background story is the glue that supports an rpg, back from the table-top times with D&D's and the figure of the Dungeon Master, the storyteller.

And a gameplay mechanic change on an RTS does not change the mechanic per se. It fine tunes it. Designers can do that for several reasons, including making the game more "fair", balancing difficulty or even gameplay blockers.

"I do not see the split as unfair."

It's one approach that will give one type of results. As opposed to various models of game/story unificaiton such as game as story and story as game.

"The concept of "story balancing" based on customer feedback is very tricky. "

The ideal would be dynamic "story balancing" based on tech tools that model player agency (task selection, affect, engagement/interest etc).

"D&D's and the figure of the Dungeon Master, the storyteller."

Or one could look at a Game Master as the dynamic story balancer. Top down "storytelling" is only one aespect of classic tabletop RPGs.

@Joshua

Hi Joshua,

Tech tools that model player agency sounds great. I want to see all this as growing pains of the medium maturing. There is a long road ahead in terms of technology to help designers and writers to model character behaviors and dynamic "story balancing". The classic choice of you being a good or a bad guy is not enough. If we want compelling narratives that will shape your character persona and where every decision you make impact how the story and the gameplay unfurls, we need to have the technology to do that. As it is right now it's a titan's quest to create a game like Mass Effect.

Since we have those type of restrictions, I would love to see BioWare exploring more the sense of exploration from the first ME.

Sort of like the precedence set by Bethesda when they launched Skyrim for the PS3 in an unfinished state.