The recent uproar among fans of the Mass Effect "trilogy" over the disappointing ending to Mass Effect 3 has seen immense derision from professional critics from various media sources. Some have been generous enough to simply disagree, but when that is the generous response, do I even need to go into detail about the not-so-generous ones? And it got even worse after BioWare's co-founder, Dr. Ray Muzyka, issued a statement that implied BioWare would at least develop some extra downloadable content for the game to "help answer your questions."
Nowhere in the statement is it implied that BioWare intends to change the ending. He appears to be simply offering to fill in some of the massive plot holes and unresolved issues. Of course, this creates an enormous, derisive response from critics claiming it creates a dangerous precedent of "changing the ending" whenever people don't like it. Not a single one could even admit that the fans might actually have had a point about the ending, whether or not it was right to "change the ending." No critic's response from all of the ones I had read even mentioned ANY of the arguments the fans had brought forward, instead attacking straw men to claim themselves superior. None acknowledged any of the plot holes or nonsensical circular logic. At least one writer from GameSpot.com went so far as to throw homophobic insults out while blatantly admitting to not having played the game to begin with.
It is this incident that has led me to conclude that the established media for the video game industry is corrupt. Many of them commented that the only person who wins if BioWare "changes the ending" is Roger Ebert, referencing his famous quote that "video games can never be art." However, after this shameful episode, it has become clear to me that the only reason Roger Ebert is proven right is their own damn fault. Roger Ebert, at the very least, can analyze story, and provide an educated response to whether the story makes sense, or if the ending is a trite, quickly thrown together patchwork of pseudo-philosophical nonsense. These critics have focused so broadly on gameplay and the story up to that point that they can't even recognize a bullshit plot twist when it is set right beneath their noses and had the scent "livened up." Essentially, the only reason Ebert's assertion is affirmed is because these critics, in the context of claiming to understand art, don't understand art.
None of this is to say that Mass Effect 3 is not a good game. It is. It could even be considered "great" in many ways. But the ending is severely lacking in material where it counts, and instead just comes off as though BioWare just threw it together at the last minute to meet a deadline. Most critics who are analyzing "art" or "story" would recognize that. Instead, they are focused so much on actually playing the game that they don't sit down for a second and analyze the story itself. Many of them don't even seem to have finished the game or know the ending, and the ones that do don't even seem to want to acknowledge any of the actual criticisms.
The deplorable, shameful behavior I've seen while purporting to represent major groups in the gaming media has put a very dark stain on them that I feel will be very hard to wash from my mind. The treatment I've seen them give to their own readers is very much like an abusive relationship, beating them down for having a difference of opinion and saying it's their own fault. Some would claim they're bribed by game companies. I don't know what the cause is, but entitlement to a superiority legitimized by receiving a paycheck seems enough to me. The critics are lying to you.
No comments:
Post a Comment