Forums › Mass Effect 3 Forum › Mass Effect 3 Xbox 360 Forum › GameInformer responds on ME3 ending and ...

GameInformer responds on ME3 ending and on artistic integrity

« prev next »

Page:

This topic is now read-only on GameSpot.
To post new messages, please visit GameFAQs and log in using the same email and password that you use on GameSpot.

SonicMonkeys

Jun 5, 2012 7:41 pm GMT
From this month's GameInformer found in my mailbox today!

After first giving ME3 a 10/10 and saying that the "ending outcry is ridiculous" (GI is one of the very few reviewers that reviewed ME3 after its release, and hence, after the outcry) GI has published a single letter on the subject 2 months later.

(They also defended day 1 DLC in all its forms with a ridiculously bad hamburger analogy 2 months ago)

Anyway, here is the letter they chose to publish and respond to.

A Question of Integrity

"I can't say I'm surprised you gave Mass Effect 3 a perfect score while dismissing the massive controversy surrounding the ending. The fact that fan outcry has led to EA being voted The Worst Company in America according to The Consumerist, and a complaint being filed with the FTC for false advertising should have precluded it from a perfect score.

Go ahead and preach "artistic integrity" all you want. The fact is endings have been changed before (Broken Steel, anyone?). Let's not forget that "artistic integrity" is the shelter of hacks, sycophants, and terrible web comic artists to justify never acknowledging any criticism.

BioWare should be above that, and the fact that they're responding to the dissatisfaction is a lesson the game journalism should take to heart.

Incidentally, my latest Game Informer came with a sticker reminding me to renew my subscription. I believe I'm going to pass."

--Eric McNaughton via email

GI's response

"Your utter contempt for the concept of artistic integrity certainly explains your dissatisfaction with companies that don't conform to your opinions. But BioWare shouldn't feel pressured into changing its ending because another company did so in the past, and we're not going to misrepresent how we feel about a game because of upset fans or the threat of canceled subscriptions. Since when do we all need to have the same opinion anyway?"

I feel like GameInformer chose the weakest letter to use as a strawman argument they could reply to easily. Even then, their response is basically non-sensical. They attacked peoples' opinions and now they're saying everyone should have their own opinion. They even ignore and deflect the actual argument presented about endings being changed in other media (which happens in literature, TV, video games, even paintings)

Anyone here send them an e-mail? Thoughts on their response?
---
Blame your fate.
Frizzurd

Jun 5, 2012 7:55 pm GMT
I used to agree with the complainers. Now that I see whiners buying the freaking multi-player packs, I agree that they are nothing but whiners. Hold the line? in a pigs eye!
charon78au

Jun 5, 2012 7:55 pm GMT
They have no journalistic integrity. ME3 is a long way from being a 10/10 game. Any reviewer worth their salt should be able to determine that, easily.

That said, I understand that game magazines are a dying breed. They need advertiser dollars to make up the difference I guess. A shame that they can't see how short sighted this approach is.

Pretty poor response really. Didn't serve the interests of the publication at all.
---
Oh you managed to work "bro" into Paarthurnax? You must be quite the wordsmith.
GT: Charon78
Tenkirin

Jun 5, 2012 8:01 pm GMT
I didn't send them an email because I couldn't give the slightest of ****s what some paid-off video games "journalist" thinks in the first place, and neither should you.

---
I see dead people.
Hockeyking89

Jun 5, 2012 7:58 pm GMT
Well, typically someone with a strong opinion will tell his friends to disregard the opinions of someone who disagrees with him. Game Informer wasn't really saying that dissatisfied fans had no right to an opinion, it was just telling its readers not to be scared by those opinions, that GI thinks the game's great and its readers should give it a shot.

I personally agree, though I don't support their stance as strongly. I think it's the developers' decision. If a company doesn't like that its fans aren't satisfied and they want to redeem themselves by changing something, they have that right. If a company believes in what it's done and the whole world is crying foul, they have the right to maintain their ending. It's their work, not the consumers'.

That said, they'll reap what they sow. If they don't cave into the consumer's will, they face the threat of poor sales in the future. Money drives business, so I think if this becomes a trend in the video game industry, companies will gradually move more and more towards consumer satisfaction and away from artistic integrity.

Capitalism is selloutism.
---
Shepard: "I'll dance next to you. If you wanna think we're dancing together, go ahead."
Spartan647

Jun 5, 2012 8:15 pm GMT
Considering how they hand-waved the entire issue without any real mention originally, this is just par for the course.

Some people genuinely like the game's ending. I disagree with them, but I don't have a problem with that.

But GameInformer;

A) brushed aside the entire matter over the course of one dismissive sentence in their review, despite the fact that it IS a widespread deal, legitimate or not

B) picked the biggest pile of BS in last month's (or maybe the one before...? Can't remember) fan letters to represent the pro-ending side of the matter where it essentially blamed the fans for the critique because they "didn't get it" and put it against an anti-ending letter with no real rational points on why it is disliked beyond vague terms

and
C) was purely dickish about their support for artistic integrity as an excuse for not changing the ending. This in spite of Bioware themselves setting the precedent with Deception's reprint, along with Bethesda on Fallout 3. Should the creator bend to the wishes of the fans all the time? No, of course not. But dismissing it out of hand simply because of integrity is a fast-track to failure. Who would you be more likely to go back to; the expert artist whom you hire to paint a hillscape but gives you a crude seacoast, and when you bring it up only responds by telling you that it was *his* vision... or a somewhat mediocre artist who paints you that same coast with even lower quality, but when you mention that you wanted a hill, gives you that damn hill?

All of those really just tell me "stop subscribing to this magazine." Which is sad, since even with all this, I still consider them quite above the usual drivel of online "journalism".
---
So they'll insult me, because I can take it. Because I'm not their hero. I'm a vocal critic, a watchful commenter... A Snark Knight.
OmniVoid

Jun 5, 2012 8:03 pm GMT
I agree with you. A pretty typical move of someone whose business depends on their reputation. Understandable, but a bit disappointing nonetheless.

ME3 ending thing aside, I really don't think anyone should take "professional game reviewers" seriously anymore. They've shown time and time again that they're pretty out of touch with the gamers of today.
---
Cortez is not going to leap out of the TV screen and pound you in the ass, so relax. Stop being so uncomfortable. -PharoahPelican
BurstBear

Jun 5, 2012 8:17 pm GMT
OmniVoid posted...
I agree with you. A pretty typical move of someone whose business depends on their reputation. Understandable, but a bit disappointing nonetheless.

ME3 ending thing aside, I really don't think anyone should take "professional game reviewers" seriously anymore. They've shown time and time again that they're pretty out of touch with the gamers of today.

I stopped taking them seriously when they started giving Dynasty Warriors games 1s and 3s and use the review as an excuse to pat themselves on the back be "clever".

You want a good ME3 review? Toonami. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYjpiddvMVU
Radiant_Sol12

Jun 5, 2012 8:24 pm GMT
Even if GI decided to clap their ears and not listen to the obvious plotholes in the ending, I'm still going to stay subscribed to them. Say what you want about online journalism and stupidity, they're probably the most unbiased of gaming reviewers and make entertaining to read magazines.
---
"If the Illusive Man was voice by Charlie instead of Martin he'd be snorting coke off Miranda's ass." -Revan73
GT: Radiant Sol
mensroom_leader

Jun 5, 2012 9:30 pm GMT
Hockeyking89 posted...
companies will gradually move more and more towards consumer satisfaction and away from artistic integrity.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive, however.
cornix1

Jun 6, 2012 12:13 am GMT
as a former gamestop employee i can tell you this about GI it's sole purpose is to drive business for the store. if you pay close attention to the inside of a gamestop you will notice that the vast majority of games that are heavily marketing in store through posters and the sales people are giving very good reviews in GI.
no one should be surprised that they come down on bioware's side in this. right or wrong GI almost always sides with the company. it's their job.
---
"You don't suck b/c it's hard, it's hard b/c you suck."- me, Cornix Black
http://www.youtube.com/user/jimathers#p/search/0/c211yCCZdJY GT: cornix5
xKryptonKnightx

Jun 6, 2012 12:19 am GMT
cornix1 posted...
as a former gamestop employee i can tell you this about GI it's sole purpose is to drive business for the store. if you pay close attention to the inside of a gamestop you will notice that the vast majority of games that are heavily marketing in store through posters and the sales people are giving very good reviews in GI.
no one should be surprised that they come down on bioware's side in this. right or wrong GI almost always sides with the company. it's their job.

Didn't stop GI from calling Dragon Age 2 one of the biggest disappointments of 2011. I liked the game but whatever.
---
Beware the fury of a patient man.
GT: xMarvel Knightx
CrusnikCain

Jun 6, 2012 12:22 am GMT
yeah i like Dragon Age 2 though it was disappointing
---
Gamer Tag : CrusnikCain
chakramstrike

Jun 6, 2012 12:37 am GMT
well having beat the game before actually reading the review i did sit flabbergasted that the game recieved a 10/10 (and then a 9.75/10 second opinion if i remember correctly). i asked myself did they even play the same game as me.

yeah their review was paid for by EA...but would you have expected anything less from the worst company in america? but i also thought that GI would be above that and give an honest and fair review of the game. Sadly the game didn't live up to what everyone wanted.
---
http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=32139
akaCitizenSnips

Jun 6, 2012 12:43 am GMT
From: chakramstrike | #014
Sadly the game didn't live up to what everyone wanted.
How so? The only thing I'm disappointed about is the ending and squad. Honestly I think any score from 9-10 is a good score to give the game. In reality I don't think any game deserves a 10/10 but I guess Game Informer has done so in the past.
---
"Be still, Mouse. You can change your pants in a moment"
JL: GL
Giant2005

Jun 6, 2012 2:31 am GMT
Keep in mind that a reviewer's job is to relay their opinion not to relay your opinion.
Just because you feel outraged by the ending, doesn't mean their review should reflect that.
If they themselves aren't outraged then their review most certainly should not reflect that. A journalist doesn't let outside opinions influence their own - that is called bias and is very, very frowned upon in the industry.

They may have been paid off or let their profits bias their opinion in the first place but that isn't something we can determine. The fact that their opinion differs from yours doesn't suggest bias.
SymbolicGamer

Jun 6, 2012 3:09 am GMT
Eric McNaughton sounds like a giant toolbox.
---
''Peace'' is a registered trademark of Smackdowner Inc.
All Rights Reserved 2002 - 2012
Olympus_Mons

Jun 6, 2012 3:40 am GMT
Some higher ups at Game Informer got behind this game. Now they have to hold the line because it's about them and their job or reputation..... Now they may have loved a lot of things about this game. There were many parts of it that could get a 10/10. But to totally ignore what this ending has done to this games reputation (still) and playability is so irresponsible.

Also it was stated in this topic that many people really loved the ending. Honestly where are these so called people who love this ending?... Give me a person who really loves this ending. Can you please make a topic here and express in equal detail why and what we missed?

I could say more, but its been said already 1000 times (for good reason too). I never bought Game Informer anyways. I've read reviews that payed us off as just whiners, only to have them admit they had not even played the game yet....

Multiplayer BTW is really a totally separate game. We got two with ME3. I had fun with it, but mixing up its success and thinking its as a whole success is missing a serious point here. Of course the business people are more than willing to do this and that will be such a shame for thie game/series in the end

I loved this game. It had huge potential. How the same team that did the Tali home world story line and Eve and all, could so totally miss that ending is tragic. I hope the Extended cut works out somehow to patch it up.
Spartan647

Jun 6, 2012 1:16 pm GMT
Giant2005 posted...

If they themselves aren't outraged then their review most certainly should not reflect that. A journalist doesn't let outside opinions influence their own - that is called bias and is very, very frowned upon in the industry.

The problem isn't just with the ending, though. The review is *so* glowing, and it mentions absolutely none of the tangible flaws that the game actually does have, which isn't opinion or not. Regardless of the quest-journal's broken state actually bothering you, it IS an actual flaw that SHOULD be brought up by a professional reviewer. Otherwise, what is the point of typing out two-to-three pages to describe the game? Why not just say "I liked it. It is good."

There's also the lack of any actual effects when it comes to your past choices, as aside from the Tuchanka and Rannoch primary-arcs, everything is hand-waved away through convenience (and even in those, you get superficial "consequences" like Not-Mordin and *SPOILERS FOR RANNOCH* Tali's suicide, which is only mentioned by two of the characters in one statement each.)

I'm sitting with the magazine right now; and after glossing through it again, they do not mention a single flaw. Not one. It is quite literally two pages of unadulterated circle-jerk over how awesome the game is in every way, shape, and form. The closest thing they get to bringing up any sort of mark against it is the ending, which is thrown out as butt-hurt fans who don't "get it".

Even if that is honestly how they feel, the review is an absolute white-wash of the game's quality, as even though I personally think the game is great (ending aside), there *are* problems present.
---
So they'll insult me, because I can take it. Because I'm not their hero. I'm a vocal critic, a watchful commenter... A Snark Knight.
moodyjm2

Jun 6, 2012 1:42 pm GMT
Game journalists, pigeon-holers, other other sweeping generalists need to understand a few things:

The fact is that Bioware flat-out LIED about the ending. Period. It's in print. What they promised, what they said they wouldn't do, what they actually did. It was a huge slap in the face because they did exactly what they said they WOULDN'T do.

Second, the ending is an UTTER RIP-OFF of Deus Ex. A complete rip-off. Compare the to, and it's undeniable. I mean where the **** does Synthesis ever come in to the series except for the last minute?

These, among other arguments I will not get into here, prove that Bioware does not carry this integrity they so defensively tout.

SEACREST OUT.
---
Ahoy!