
Behold Space-Kanye. Internet demagogue.
Yes. I've already conveyed my thoughts concerning Mass Effect 3's ending, and why it irritated me so much as a writer. We're good. We don't need to pull from that well again, so you can rest easy. This isn't another foray into that. Though, to be perfectly honest I could go on at great length as what I see to be pure ad hominem attacks from both the pro and con camps, as well as what I see to be the completely idiotic adoption of the pedigree/opinion problem from some gaming "journalists". For those of you playing along at home, the pedigree/opinion problem is basically the idea that an opinion, however properly constructed or rationally delivered, is directly proportional in it's legitimacy and weight to the pedigree of the person giving it.
Basically, it means that if you're some nobody online, the chances of your opinion actually carrying any gravitas is about as likely as your newest gamer webcomic becoming a smash hit. Why? Because you're from the internet, silly - don't you know that everyone online is nothing more than self-entitled misinformed barely-human blog-goblins? It doesn't matter if you've done your homework, refrain from logical fallacies, or deliver your opinion in anything resembling a grammatically correct statement, or clever Oscar Wilde-esque rejoinder. You're a whiny basement dweller from the web. The funny thing I see about certain game "journalists" adopting this stance is that journalism in and of itself was partly aimed as a check against this kind of class establishment mentality. Hence the oh-so-sublte quotation marks.
I'm so damned witty.
But this isn't about the ME3 ending(s), or knee-jerk labeling. This is about the possibility of a new conversation between creator and consumer.

Before I shuffled off of DeviantArt, there was an interesting article posted up concerning the developments at Bioware and the conversation between fans and creators that pulled on quotes from the community- including established personalities within the professional side of the venue. It was a pretty involved read, as these things are wont to be, but there was a lot of high-concept hyperbole being thrown around that I can't help but think damages the discussion more than it helps.
I'm paraphrasing here, but one comment in particular amounted to stating that this development with Bioware constituted a new dialogue paradigm; a new situation that was as important to communication as the invention of the written word itself.
At the risk of engaging in an ad hominem juvenile slugfest . . . lol whut? I believe the words you are looking for here are "presumptuous", "pretentious", "misleading", and "what is this, I don't even...".
Off kilter stumping aside, I have to point out something that's patently obvious here. The discussion, orBioware's seeming capitulation to the mob (hardly a surrender, as they're not changing the ending at all, only providing MORE of what some online were railing so loudly against) is not a shocking turn of events. You see, this isn't a new discussion, for one, and for another thing it's hardly any kind of new development in the life cycle of the creator versus the consumer. There has been a constant back and forth for ages, only exacerbated by the acceptance of the internet itself.
We geeks are a passionate lot, and can flashmob online like nobody's business when it comes to causes we believe in. No cause is more ready-made for our virtual ire than a poor ending or rationale-breaking change to a beloved piece of entertainment we've invested ourselves in. See also: anytime a class is changed in an MMO, the ending to Battlestar Galactica, "Nerfing" in any video game, changing established characters in a television series in bizarre fashions, delays concerning sequel releases (hello there, Half Life Episode 3), certain TCG cards being ruled illegal at tournaments, radically different versions of tabletop RPG franchises being released, etc etc etc . . .

You get the idea.
Yes, sadly, there are a LOT of geek campaigns and geek campaigners out there who are charging up their respective hills to achieve victory purely under the "we are owed this" banner. We do so because we're passionate, and at times it honestly feels that it's the only way to affect the world around us; or that the time we spend invested in and supporting the things we love automatically (or should) guarantee a payoff; or at the very least some kind of soul-soothing refund. But this is hardly a universal constant, and the idea of a company or creator actually listening to the fans being presented as a new or radical concept is out and out ridiculous, if not completely misleading.
IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.
So why the big to-do over it now? Because it's Bioware, and because the Mass Effect franchise is something of a milestone in interactive story-telling and content experience. However, that's not why it's so hard for people to accept, or even acknowledge as business as usual. It's because the idea that these creators are inherently against us sounds far more plausible to our minds. It's the acceptance of the conspiracy theory - it makes us feel smarter, more informed, and able to outmaneuver the machinations of "them". When we feel that something we love is ruined, we quickly switch mental modes from "the creator is AWESOME" to "torchesandpitchforks.exe". This is unfortunately perpetuated based on two huge misconceptions, flavored with some truth, a dash of conjecture, and a huge dollop of pre-programmed mistrust. Let me tackle those, and I'll use the current situation with Bioware as an example.
1. They are evil, and only out to make money. They don't care about us.
This one kind of boggles my mind in a whole circular-reason-come-lately vein. I get it. We've been bred on the idea of a corporation as an evil entity bent on pure unfiltered malfeasance. The fallacy here is that one trtuh does not validate the following suppositions. Yes, they are out to make money. That's kind of the idea behind a business. The notion that such a drive is fundamentallyevil, because of power or greed or what have you, is one best left to people who really miss the hammer and sickle days.

If you've taken any kind of economics or business class in high school or college, you should know by now that a company that doesn't listen (at least on some level) to their clients is doomed to failure. I mean, seriously? If Bioware was the monolithic pillar of indifference you're thinking them to be, then we'd never have played ME2 at all. They would have folded early on - like Baldur's Gate 2 early on. I get the allure, though; the reasoning follows that since Bioware was acquired by the Evil Empire That Is Electronic Arts (he who controls the spice controls the future DLC)-

- it follows that Bioware has immediately taken on the mantle of evil apprentice to EA's sith lord. But that's just oversimplification - it's the cry of foul from the jaded gamer.
Bioware's in it to make money, and has chosen to do so by trying to make products people love. How do you get there? By listening. Like it or not, believe it or not, Bioware and companies like them DO listen. It's utter nonsense to believe that they don't; their survival depends on it. Before the PR catastrophe that's lately occurred, Bioware was adamant about handling issues in house. Artists would routinely check out the latest fan art offerings on DeviantArt to see how their creations were being digested. Hell, one of their newest artists got his position based solely on the virtues of his fan art of Mass Effect characters. Even with the flubs concerning community managers, Bioware is savvy enough at what they do to ingest community feedback, filter out what's non-applicable (we're not all genius creators, let's please stop fooling ourselves) and apply what's best not only for the fanbase, but the product itself. Yes, all of this erudition and interplay is aimed at a profit, but you can't MAKE a profit if the quality of the work suffers. They know this equation, and it's in no way shape or form a red flag pointing to their allegiance to the Dark Side.

Good Game = Profit, and by extension, Listening + (Following Trends + Innovation where needed)( Attention to detail and quality) = Good Game. Sure, they could have handled the current crisis better, or not allowed EA to step in on something they've routinely handled themselves, but that's no an issue of them being malevolent; it's simply an issue of bad PR management, and some of the suits at EA adopting that whole pedigree/opinion gig I mentioned earlier.
2. They hole up and create without ANY feedback or input from us.
Now this is a bit more understandable. It's easy to get depressed and take on this tunnel-vision of not being able to make a difference when a creator does something you don't approve of. Why should they listen to you? What good is it to reach out and appeal to someone who gets paid to create? Won't that make them instantly know that they know more about things then you do?
Well, yes. Chances are they do know their craft. That's why they get paid. But that's not to say that they aren't capable of making mistakes. We get to a point where our fandom blinds us to the basic fact: talented though they might be, they are human and fallible. They can make mistakes. I think one of the fumbles with the PR regarding the ME3 extended ending DLC is that Bioware or EA seem unwilling to accept that notion themselves, and instead of simply stating "The ending wasn't as clear as we initially thought it was, so we're adding content to solve that problem," we get the the obfuscating advertising jargon that the press release seems to be littered with.

But even if we take the idea of the two head writers sequestering themselves in a room to craft the ending on their own, it's not like these creative decisions are made in a complete vacuum. The story is picked over by a team, which is picked over by various departments concerning cinematics, ADR sessions, build teams, and even the art departments and auxiliaries. Even at just the writing level, every option and story arc is agonized over and picked apart by committee long before it even gets the green light by the high ups. They're looking for continuity, clarity, pacing, and believe it or not the most important thing they are looking at is how fans might react. Not a single creative talent out there who is banking on a paycheck from their work ever goes at the craft with their fingers in their ears.
The mere fact that this DLC is coming out at all, regardless if you agree with the decision or not, shows that they're listening. You might cry out that it's just a hallmark of them trying to cover their own asses and please shareholders. Yes. It is. I really need you to go back and re-read point one again. No, it might not be the ending you want, or even touch on or confirm whatever theories you subscribe to, but to argue that Bioware's not listening at all at this point is flat out untrue by way of empirical evidence. They're listening, and it doesn't matter why you think they are listening. They do care, even if it's not on the mutual-friends-on-facebook way you want them to care. Either way, that works out in our favor.
No, seriously. It's a fantastic truth.
Warren Spector was quoted at GDC, stating "Games are unique among all media, among all art forms. We are not novels. We are not movies. We aren't television. We shouldn't try to be like that. We can do things that no other medium in human history has ever been able to do. We have to focus our energy on those things, the things that makes us unique."
Take DLC. It's simply the law of the land now, even though gamers railed against it's impetus. I was guilty of this too, because I could not stop and really explore the opportunities it presented. Now, I take full advantage of them. New weapons and armor? Awesome. New maps and game modes for multiplayer? Friggin' sweet. You're giving me expanded missions and side quests to prolong the replayability of my old game? SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY. We may scoff at the idea, or grumble that the DLC is just a way to nickle and dime us to death, but more often than not good DLC breathes new life into games we might have otherwise shelved, given away, or sold off.

It's opportunity on both sides of the equation. We accept patches now, because it gives developers the chance to fix unforeseeable issues. You can test and test and test into a comatose state, but you can never truly know what a player will find or do with your title until it's out there in the wild. The same's unfortunately true for how the story will be received.
DLC is the opportunity, as Mr. Spector stated, for games to focus on what makes them unique. And one of the things that makes them unique is that the experience is rarely a fixed affair. While player agency might not reign supreme (seriously, folks, even ME3 is the conclusion to a finite choose-your-own-adventure), that doesn't mean that the story can not be augmented, adjusted, adapted, or even completely rewritten. Published books don't have that luxury. In-theater movies don't have that flexibility. Television shows don't have that expanse of leisure.
So while there was a crowd screaming "you owe us", what they should have been yelling is "this is your opportunity- don't waste it". Bioware owes us nothing beyond what they must undertake in order to remain successful. They defended their art, and rightly so. Geeks often jump to the defense of games as an artform, but that suddenly flies out the window when they feel themselves wronged, and the volume of their ire increases based on the two wrong assumptions I just covered. There were faults on both sides of the coin, but we can't have it both ways, guys and gals. If games are an artform, then we have to be ready to respect if not accept the sanctity of the creator's work; not to refrain from critique, but to understand that we do not get the right to demand a change to anything that does not effect the mechanics of gameplay itself. The outcry to Mass Effect 3's ending is, valid or not, one concerning creative choices. It has nothing to do with whether or not the game works, and we do not get the right to scream for a fix.
However, that's where opportunity comes in. Bioware, and game companies in general, CAN leverage DLC when it comes to creative concerns. If there's anything truly new about the conversation, it's that these companies and creative teams can address these kinds of issues if they so choose. They can fix dialogue, or poor voice acting. They can combat plot holes and murky narrative elements. They can flat out rewrite things that contradict earlier developments.

If they choose to.
I would ask that, if there's a need for a "new conversation" for the sake of the current debate, that the new discussion take on the role of gentle reminder rather than screaming advisor or personal antagonist. Instead of attacking, simply and patiently remind those you support of the tools at their disposal. Will they agree with you? Maybe, maybe not. But I for one would certainly be more apt to listening to the well-intentioned and calmly delivered statement about what my options are rather than what I MUST do.
They owe us nothing, but profit aside they've given a lot, and know they have the power to make us happier so we'll buy more games. That's REALLY exciting to me.
But that's only if we can begin to accept a LOT of things that we've flatly refused to consider before now. Otherwise... well... would you really want to do anything for a group of people who are making physical threats against your person all because of an idea you thought was awesome at the time you wrote it?
Bioware, unfortunately, is now too big to fail. I don't mean that in the same way certain financial institutions and auto companies tried to convince the government of a few years back. I mean that Bioware has grown to the point in popularity where every move is triple-guessed by the outside world, and that when a mistake is made it's now a no-win situation, even if they bend over backwards to solve it. There's no version of this now where the larger portion of their fanbase will be pleased, or at least accepting.
We geeks are a passionate lot, and what fools we geeks be.
The conversation between the creator and consumer remains unchanged. What's changed, at least in the video games medium, is how content, art, and story can be handled and shared.
I'll just end here with a quote from Ken Levine from Irrational Games: "I think this whole thing is making me a little bit sad because I don't think anyone would get what they wanted if that happened." He was referring to the prospect of Bioware completely scrapping the ending they delivered with Mass Effect 3 and implementing (trying to implement) an ending that would please the fans.
The only winners here are the companies who don't have "Bioware" written on their letterheads. Perhaps we could simply accept that, and hope that the next opportunity is seized, or considered, before we reach for the digital muskets.
