Gaming, Creator Intent and Player Agency

[Drewsov]

So, I'm creating this topic to discuss a few things. There was another thread that featured a couple of posts in it... the discussion was taking away from the purpose of the thread, so here we are.

The main question is, does the creator of a game have final say in what the game is?

In the last decade or so, there's been more and more push to have "choice" in games.

This choice is an illusion.

No, let's be more blunt: this choice is a lie.

Let me explain.

In almost every example of fiction, there's a three or four act structure. There's a beginning and an end. There's the hero's journey, or examples of the monomyth. Game developers have been eschewing typical narrative storytelling in favor of presenting an illusion of choice, stating time and again, "This is your story, this is your game." But the truth is, it's neither. When a story provide four points of difference - four choices - those choices are not true decisions: they are slight deviations from linearity, which will then regroup onto major plot points. These plot points, just like the decisions, are scripted. Certain details might change - who the characters involved are, who lives, who dies - but they aren't substantial enough to state that your tale is independent from anyone else's.

Nate DaZombie and I have been having a bit of a discussion about the nature of this type of story, particularly relating to Mass Effect 3.

In essence, he believes that the endings weren't adequate. I don't know how he qualifies that.

For me, the endings were significant. I can say that I've read a great deal of classic sci-fi, I'm a writer, and I study English literature in school. I did not find the ending lacking. Remember that "unexplained" does not mean "plot hole" when it comes to story.

I've pulled the following quote from Nate's original post in another thread in order to respond to it without taking up unnecessary space.

Why, exactly, does it need to be done?

Because it doesn't make sense. If you'd like to get into semantics, fine, it doesn't need to be done. But we've all poured dozens of hours into this story, shouldn't there be some closure? What happened to the galaxy? Did my crew survive? Did I really make an impact? Did I even have a choice? What colored explosion is the best? (it's red)

The closure that you expected wasn't there. That doesn't mean there isn't closure.

Everything else is explained.

Your crew survives, as shown in the original ending. The impact that you made is shown in a significant post-credits sequence.

Your choices were established, but in the scope of Mass Effect's ultimate philosophical statement, you had no impact. The insignificance of humanity in the grand scheme of things - this is part of a philosophy called cosmicism - is one of the overarching themes of the series as a whole.

So, to answer your question, you never had a choice. Not from the very first game.

Because you didn't understand it? Or because there was internet outcry?

There wouldn't have been an internet outcry if the ending wasn't broken, and I'm normally the last person to complain about an ending.

The ending wasn't broken.

Your questions above show your misunderstanding of the ending as a whole.

The best fiction - and that's what Mass Effect 3 is, a fiction - doesn't explain things. It just lays them out. The reader interprets those things.

I understand the idea there, but exactly how does that make sense? I get it, leave room for sequels, let the reader/player decide (in their mind) how things play out, have a thought provoking ending, etc... But don't you care in the least about what happened to everyone else? I do.

It makes sense because exposition is something that occurs far too often in gaming.

Gamers as a whole are used to it. It's not about sequels. It's not about unanswered questions. It's about art being more than just what's explicitly stated, and it seems that you're failing to understand that in spite of the ending showing everything it needed to show, and doing so beautifully.

What I gather you wanted instead was a Hollywood ending, where everything was explained. But since it wasn't - and in the Extended Cut, still isn't - it needs to be fixed.

Compared to what it is currently, yeah, I would prefer a Hollywood ending. What would have been best though, is if BioWare would have ignored the fans and worked to make a true ending.

I remember when I saw No Country for Old Men in the theatre.

If you've never seen it, here's the ending (don't worry, the rest of the movie is brilliant enough to see, and this really isn't spoiling anything):



After that amazing sequence, the theatre was silent. Then, someone broke the silence: "That was it?"

Yes, that was it. It's not a Hollywood ending. It doesn't provide a lot of resolution for the story. But then, not all endings have to provide resolution. A story just ends. The original author of No Country, Cormac McCarthy, didn't end it much differently. The brilliance of the ending is that it's a meditation on death, it's a study on growing old, and it deals with the impact of violence.

Most gamers don't want that sort of thing in their games. They want everything explained. Looks like you're one of those people (and there's nothing wrong with that), but don't go on about the "true" ending. Bioware's decision to release the extended cut was like putting a big middle finger in the air towards the complaining gamers. It proved that the true ending is exactly what they released, which means you have no room to complain about the endings.

They said what they wanted to say and what the story demanded they say.

Let me put it this way: authorial intent should have no concern for the audience. The author is god, and the universe that an author creates is a deistic place. The author creates things and lets things unfold, but does not intervene. The audience observes, but must be impartial, at least in the author's eyes, or the piece loses meaning.

I'm not saying they should pander to the audience, I'm saying they need to finish the ending.

It was finished.

So what I'm saying is, you're wrong.

The extended cut was without soul. It was a terrible thing, and it robbed one of the most brilliantly flawed endings its sense of purpose and place. And it's the audience's fault.

I've since watched the endings, and they're not that bad. Generic, maybe, but not horrible. Why blame the audience for calling BioWare's bluff? They promised A TON of things about the ending, and they had a reason to be let down.

What bluff was called?

I'm sorry, but honestly, I really get the impression that you don't understand story at all. Your comments also give me the impression you have a very rudimentary idea of how game development works.

[Nate DaZombie]

For me, the endings were significant. I can say that I've read a great deal of classic sci-fi, I'm a writer, and I study English literature in school. I did not find the ending lacking. Remember that "unexplained" does not mean "plot hole" when it comes to story.

And that's where I feel that I have a disadvantage. To you, this ending doesn't seem out of place. It makes sense. To me, it just doesn't. I don't care if the ending is happy or sad, but I want to feel closure. I want to know that Shepard's story is over, and that the galaxy moves on, in whatever direction that may be.

Everything else is explained.

It is now that the extended cut is out.

Your crew survives, as shown in the original ending. The impact that you made is shown in a significant post-credits sequence.

Yes, on some random jungle planet which they mysteriously come back from in the extended cut.

Your choices were established, but in the scope of Mass Effect's ultimate philosophical statement, you had no impact. The insignificance of humanity in the grand scheme of things - this is part of a philosophy called cosmicism - is one of the overarching themes of the series as a whole.

I suppose you're right, that is a major theme in Mass Effect. Problem is...

Your questions above show your misunderstanding of the ending as a whole.

Or, they bring up valid points that some are willing to overlook.

It's about art being more than just what's explicitly stated, and it seems that you're failing to understand that in spite of the ending showing everything it needed to show, and doing so beautifully.

Everything it needed to show? Yes. Beautiful? Yes. Everything it should have shown? No.

Now I don't want the "Shepard and Garrus sipping drinks on the beach" type of ending, but the whole "it was a dream, your friends are dead or stuck on that jungle planet, and you're halfway dead" just isn't going to cut it for me. Yes, it's an ending, but I don't think it's a good one.

Most gamers don't want that sort of thing in their games. They want everything explained. Looks like you're one of those people (and there's nothing wrong with that), but don't go on about the "true" ending. Bioware's decision to release the extended cut was like putting a big middle finger in the air towards the complaining gamers. It proved that the true ending is exactly what they released, which means you have no room to complain about the endings.

You're correct again, to a degree. I do like my endings to be explained, at least enough so that I don't have to look on the internet to figure them out. And yes, I suppose the extended cut does explain quite a few things, but it felt like some old war movie, an unfitting end to Commander Shepard's story.

What bluff was called?

I refer you to this again.

I'm sorry, but honestly, I really get the impression that you don't understand story at all. Your comments also give me the impression you have a very rudimentary idea of how game development works.

How so?

[CountKrazy]

I'm sorry, but honestly, I really get the impression that you don't understand story at all. Your comments also give me the impression you have a very rudimentary idea of how game development works.

Before someone comes in and says "EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS STORY, IT'S A UNIVERSAL THING," I think the important thing to note here is that the dissatisfied group in question aren't even focusing on story. Sure, everyone gets story on a rudimentary level. Storytelling has been with humanity ever since the beginning of our own story. It's innate to us, even if different people have different opinions on what makes a good story. The issue here, I think, is an issue of entertainment. I'm a massive believer in the importance of entertainment in any art. I have no interest in anything that feels like a labor of love. I want it to be fun, I want it to be a rest from the difficulties of general existence. I do, however, oppose sacrificing story for entertainment.

I would argue that gamers didn't feel entertained enough by the ending of Mass Effect 3. Entertainment is, after all, pleasure-centric, which is in turn a very selfish thing. Not necessarily badly selfish, but it can very easily become that way. I think gaming is unique in that it is arguably the most entertainment-focused form of storytelling there is. I know I experience a higher, more potent state of pleasure when I'm sucked into a game than I do with even movies, which is my favorite form of storytelling. It's the most valuable part of gaming, but also what's probably kept them so stagnant.

This whole fiasco with the Mass Effect 3 ending is pretty evident of that. The gamers weren't pleased. They didn't experience the pleasure they had planned on experiencing. So instead of disagreeing with the ending, instead of just leaving it at "I think it sucked, but what can you do," they're trying to force it so they can get that sense of pleasure, that sense of "WOW THAT WAS A GOOD STORY THAT TOTALLY MET ALL MY DESIRES" But instead we get "I hate this ending. Somebody give me the right one or we're not playing anymore." I have never, not once, seen that in any other kind of storytelling. It baffles me. It's treating a game like food bought at a restaurant. "I paid money for this and it doesn't taste good, so could I change my meal?" Of course that's justifiable with food because food is entirely reliant upon the taste of whoever's eating it, but story's different. Story is reliant upon the taste of the storyteller. The audience may enjoy or may hate it, but as Drew said, the storyteller is god. In general, I think society accepts that.

But not with games. Because we want what we thought we were paying for. We're mad because we weren't entertained. We're mad because someone dared to exercise their own personal narrative in something that should, according to some, be entirely impersonal. That is ultimately what they're saying: "Who cares about the writer, give us what we want!"

So if this is going to be discussed, I think it's important to see that somewhere along the line, story and entertainment somehow became separate from each other. Whenever that happens, problems will inevitably arise.

Which leads me to this...

Yes, it's an ending, but I don't think it's a good one.

With all due respect, you've got to deal with that, man. I might've hated the ending of Inception (I didn't), but I'm not about to insist that it be changed. The ending's there. The ending is whatever the writer chooses it to be. It's not my choice. The story is not a product that I can return. Story isn't a product at all. It's organic and personal to the creator. If you don't like the story they're telling, find one that you do somewhere else. Once you start on the path of insisting that people tell you the story that you want, you're on the path of turning games into a market of businessmen, not an industry of storytellers.

All that said, I can appreciate both sides of the argument. Whether you hate the ending or not, that's your own prerogative and I'm not going to take issue with it. What I do take issue with is treating it like a faulty product that needs to be fixed. That, I think, is wrong.

[Nate DaZombie]

With all due respect, you've got to deal with that, man. I might've hated the ending of Inception (I didn't), but I'm not about to insist that it be changed. The ending's there. The ending is whatever the writer chooses it to be. It's not my choice. The story is not a product that I can return. Story isn't a product at all. It's organic and personal to the creator. If you don't like the story they're telling, find one that you do somewhere else.

I'm past insisting that it be changed. In fact, it's too late now for it to changed at all. But I still take issue with all the statements BioWare made. Anywhere else, that would be false advertising, yet here, it's not treated as such, and that baffles me. I'm not angry that BioWare made the ending they wanted to make, but I have to ask, why? Why, after all the statements and expectations did they choose to do this? It's obviously too late now, and I'm sure this controversy will be forgotten, but assuming BioWare knew the backlash they would receive (which I'm sure they were aware of), why go through with it? (yeah, yeah, artistic integrity)

[Drewsov]

For me, the endings were significant. I can say that I've read a great deal of classic sci-fi, I'm a writer, and I study English literature in school. I did not find the ending lacking. Remember that "unexplained" does not mean "plot hole" when it comes to story.

And that's where I feel that I have a disadvantage. To you, this ending doesn't seem out of place. It makes sense. To me, it just doesn't. I don't care if the ending is happy or sad, but I want to feel closure. I want to know that Shepard's story is over, and that the galaxy moves on, in whatever direction that may be.

And if you watched past the credits, hey, that's exactly what you get.

Shepard becomes a myth, a legend. He is "The Shepard," as corny as that sounds.

Everything else is explained.

It is now that the extended cut is out.

Everything that I pointed to was from the original cut.

The one additional sequence involved Shepard ordering his team off the planet. This could have been assumed, and again, was not a plot hole.

Your crew survives, as shown in the original ending. The impact that you made is shown in a significant post-credits sequence.

Yes, on some random jungle planet which they mysteriously come back from in the extended cut.

No?

That was in the original version.

They are able to leave the planet in the extended cut, granted. But the planet is in the original cut, and the crew is shown to have survived.

Your choices were established, but in the scope of Mass Effect's ultimate philosophical statement, you had no impact. The insignificance of humanity in the grand scheme of things - this is part of a philosophy called cosmicism - is one of the overarching themes of the series as a whole.

I suppose you're right, that is a major theme in Mass Effect. Problem is...

Almost every one of those quotes is justifiable as correct from a certain point of view.

I could easily argue that they never lied.

People were hurt that the ending wasn't what they wanted. That's all.

Your questions above show your misunderstanding of the ending as a whole.

Or, they bring up valid points that some are willing to overlook.

None of your points have been valid.

They've all been complaints from someone who summarily doesn't understand - admittedly so - the nature of the ending.

It's about art being more than just what's explicitly stated, and it seems that you're failing to understand that in spite of the ending showing everything it needed to show, and doing so beautifully.

Everything it needed to show? Yes. Beautiful? Yes. Everything it should have shown? No.

Who are you to dictate what the ending "should have" shown?

Now I don't want the "Shepard and Garrus sipping drinks on the beach" type of ending, but the whole "it was a dream, your friends are dead or stuck on that jungle planet, and you're halfway dead" just isn't going to cut it for me. Yes, it's an ending, but I don't think it's a good one.

None of that happened.

There were answers.

The cosmicism that was shown in the ending shouldn't have been unexpected. The entire series had a consistent thread of, "You're human... you're insignificant. You can't do these things."

It's in humanity's nature to fight against that type of thought. Mass Effect 3 showed what a futile - or productive - effort that is.

Most gamers don't want that sort of thing in their games. They want everything explained. Looks like you're one of those people (and there's nothing wrong with that), but don't go on about the "true" ending. Bioware's decision to release the extended cut was like putting a big middle finger in the air towards the complaining gamers. It proved that the true ending is exactly what they released, which means you have no room to complain about the endings.

You're correct again, to a degree. I do like my endings to be explained, at least enough so that I don't have to look on the internet to figure them out. And yes, I suppose the extended cut does explain quite a few things, but it felt like some old war movie, an unfitting end to Commander Shepard's story.

Because it basically was exposition to the max?

...I'll bet you didn't like Lost.

What bluff was called?

I refer you to this again.

I refer you to my earlier comments.

I'm sorry, but honestly, I really get the impression that you don't understand story at all. Your comments also give me the impression you have a very rudimentary idea of how game development works.

How so?

[/quote]

A great number of the quotes can be dated because of the sites they're on.

The ones that were made during development could have changed during development. Game development is a constantly changing thing. Things get cut. Things get moved, reduced.

The stuff that was at the end of development - the last month - is all stuff that is arguable. Did the Rachni play a big role? I'd say they did. I'd say that they played as big a role as the Krogan home world sequence. I would call it one of the major points of the game. There are other quotes that are arguable, too. It's all about perspective, with "fans" nitpicking based on their assumptions.

[Drewsov]

With all due respect, you've got to deal with that, man. I might've hated the ending of Inception (I didn't), but I'm not about to insist that it be changed. The ending's there. The ending is whatever the writer chooses it to be. It's not my choice. The story is not a product that I can return. Story isn't a product at all. It's organic and personal to the creator. If you don't like the story they're telling, find one that you do somewhere else.

I'm past insisting that it be changed. In fact, it's too late now for it to changed at all. But I still take issue with all the statements BioWare made. Anywhere else, that would be false advertising, yet here, it's not treated as such, and that baffles me. I'm not angry that BioWare made the ending they wanted to make, but I have to ask, why? Why, after all the statements and expectations did they choose to do this? It's obviously too late now, and I'm sure this controversy will be forgotten, but assuming BioWare knew the backlash they would receive (which I'm sure they were aware of), why go through with it? (yeah, yeah, artistic integrity)

Uh.

Because it's their game?

[Drewsov]

I'm sorry, but honestly, I really get the impression that you don't understand story at all. Your comments also give me the impression you have a very rudimentary idea of how game development works.

Before someone comes in and says "EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS STORY, IT'S A UNIVERSAL THING," I think the important thing to note here is that the dissatisfied group in question aren't even focusing on story. Sure, everyone gets story on a rudimentary level. Storytelling has been with humanity ever since the beginning of our own story. It's innate to us, even if different people have different opinions on what makes a good story. The issue here, I think, is an issue of entertainment. I'm a massive believer in the importance of entertainment in any art. I have no interest in anything that feels like a labor of love. I want it to be fun, I want it to be a rest from the difficulties of general existence. I do, however, oppose sacrificing story for entertainment.

I would argue that gamers didn't feel entertained enough by the ending of Mass Effect 3. Entertainment is, after all, pleasure-centric, which is in turn a very selfish thing. Not necessarily badly selfish, but it can very easily become that way. I think gaming is unique in that it is arguably the most entertainment-focused form of storytelling there is. I know I experience a higher, more potent state of pleasure when I'm sucked into a game than I do with even movies, which is my favorite form of storytelling. It's the most valuable part of gaming, but also what's probably kept them so stagnant.

This whole fiasco with the Mass Effect 3 ending is pretty evident of that. The gamers weren't pleased. They didn't experience the pleasure they had planned on experiencing. So instead of disagreeing with the ending, instead of just leaving it at "I think it sucked, but what can you do," they're trying to force it so they can get that sense of pleasure, that sense of "WOW THAT WAS A GOOD STORY THAT TOTALLY MET ALL MY DESIRES" But instead we get "I hate this ending. Somebody give me the right one or we're not playing anymore." I have never, not once, seen that in any other kind of storytelling. It baffles me. It's treating a game like food bought at a restaurant. "I paid money for this and it doesn't taste good, so could I change my meal?" Of course that's justifiable with food because food is entirely reliant upon the taste of whoever's eating it, but story's different. Story is reliant upon the taste of the storyteller. The audience may enjoy or may hate it, but as Drew said, the storyteller is god. In general, I think society accepts that.

But not with games. Because we want what we thought we were paying for. We're mad because we weren't entertained. We're mad because someone dared to exercise their own personal narrative in something that should, according to some, be entirely impersonal. That is ultimately what they're saying: "Who cares about the writer, give us what we want!"

So if this is going to be discussed, I think it's important to see that somewhere along the line, story and entertainment somehow became separate from each other. Whenever that happens, problems will inevitably arise.

Which leads me to this...

Yes, it's an ending, but I don't think it's a good one.

With all due respect, you've got to deal with that, man. I might've hated the ending of Inception (I didn't), but I'm not about to insist that it be changed. The ending's there. The ending is whatever the writer chooses it to be. It's not my choice. The story is not a product that I can return. Story isn't a product at all. It's organic and personal to the creator. If you don't like the story they're telling, find one that you do somewhere else. Once you start on the path of insisting that people tell you the story that you want, you're on the path of turning games into a market of businessmen, not an industry of storytellers.

All that said, I can appreciate both sides of the argument. Whether you hate the ending or not, that's your own prerogative and I'm not going to take issue with it. What I do take issue with is treating it like a faulty product that needs to be fixed. That, I think, is wrong.

I don't necessarily believe that it's all about entertainment, but for sure, you're onto something.

And also, you seem to be talking about games as a whole, which I attempted to do at the beginning of my post. That's really what I want to discuss in this thread.

Not just Mass Effect 3.

[Nate DaZombie]

I see we're not going to agree, (which is fine) but I really don't want to waste time arguing. Here's my opinion condensed, feel free to disagree

1. BioWare's original ending was broken. The, "what colored explosion would you like?", felt lazy. It was thought provoking, but made me wonder what exactly happened and whether or not there was any difference between endings.

2. From my understanding of the ending, everyone in the whole world is partly synthetic, the destroy ending was supposed to be the "good" ending, you were indoctrinated, your remaining friends are stuck in the middle of nowhere, and the mass relays are destroyed. Shepard may or may not be alive, and he is now a legend.

3. The extended cut seems to contradict the indoctrination theory, which makes me wonder how the ending was meant to be interpreted. Just about everything the child says, happens. That means he isn't lying to you, which means you must not be indoctrinated, right?

4. I can live with the extended cut, but I could have lived with the original ending as well. At the end of the day, a game is a game, a book is a book, and art is art. They may be able to affect people, and they may even be able to affect the world, but they are still just stories. I won't lose any sleep because I don't agree with the way BioWare ended the series.

5. I don't agree with Retake Mass Effect. I believe the ending needed to be clarified/fixed, but not necessarily changed. Normally, I'd be vehemently against forcing a developer to change something about their game, but not this time. Here, I felt it was needed, but BioWare shouldn't have caved so quickly. They should have taken their time and create an ending worthy of the Mass Effect series.

6. I'm satisfied with the extended cut. It could have been done better, but I feel closure. Shepard's story is done; though, he will live on in the stories and legends. The galaxy was forever changed, and there is now hope for a better existence.

Now, this is entirely my opinion; I don't mean to state this as fact. I'd just prefer if I didn't have to write, "I think/believe", at the beginning of every sentence.

If you wouldn't mind, I would be interested to see your opinion as well. It can be hard to see where someone is coming from, and I'd like for this to be a conversation, not a debate.

[Drewsov]

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond; I've been ridiculously busy, what with work and life and whatnot. Sometimes it takes a bit to actually sit down and open up my laptop.

My opinion spreads out to more than just Mass Effect 3. I don't believe that it's the only thing worth talking about.

For example, I was far more dissatisfied with Heavy Rain and its ending - and gaping plot holes - than I was with anything that had to do with Mass Effect 3. And see, that's a pretty hard thing for me: I love story based games, and I truly adored the game that the Heavy Rain devs had put out before, called Indigo Prophecy (Fahrenheit in Europe and Canada). I played through it something like three times, because it was just so good. Then here's comes Heavy Rain, and before you know it, I don't even want to play their next game, called Beyond: Two Souls.

I've become so bored with conventional gaming. Seeing things that truly attempt to break out of boring design boxes and familiar, cliche storytelling really catches my attention. There's something magnificent in experimentation. There truly is.

So here's the thing with the Mass Effect 3 ending: It's ultimately been received the same way that Dragon Age 2 did by the "fans".

There was this set expectation of how the game was going to end. Let's start with that.

I don't know if people thought there was going to be a climactic battle with some Reaper, or if they thought that there was going to be some happy ending. There was nothing like that in the foreshadowing leading up to the third game, or in the third game. There was nothing in the design of the previous games that hinted that Bioware would play it safe and create a giant boss battle. There was nothing that said there would be resolution.

The beauty of the ending is that we went in blind and the unfortunate fact is, some people went in with expectations of how the game should end, and were completely disappointed that the ending didn't meet these impossibly high goals that they set for it. Mass Effect 3's story is such that there wasn't a good resolution. There couldn't be. What there was instead was an ending, to Shepard's character arc and to the relationships you had with your characters. That it was an ending to the tale of the Reaper invasion was, for all intents and purposes, a byproduct. By forcing you to make a bad decision, one that - no matter the result - would kill you, Bioware turned the entire Mass Effect franchise into a tragedy. It wasn't as tight as, for example, the storytelling in 2008's Prince of Persia, and it wasn't as sprawling and unfocused as the Assassin's Creed trilogy, but it's quite evident that the creators of Mass Effect realized that they had something to say and said it. Everything was leading up to this, even if there were bits and pieces that weren't resolved.

That lack of resolution is important, too. It says that Bioware respects their players. And not just their players. They respect the intelligence of their players, as well.

To me, it seems like it might be the players themselves that are underestimating Bioware.

I've got more to say, but sleep comes first (I have to work in the morning). Expect the second part of my comments tomorrow evening.

[Nate DaZombie]

That lack of resolution is important, too. It says that Bioware respects their players. And not just their players. They respect the intelligence of their players, as well.

I'll admit, that's a pretty rare thing nowadays.

[ArcticFox]

I thinking about the issues surrounding the endings of games in general, it occurred to me that there's a reason people get so passionate...

Ever beaten Super Mario Bros.? I'm talking about the original, not any of the other sequels. You could play that freaking game for months and months and when you finally win the game and reach the princess, the ending is over in the blink of an eye.

*angst*

There are parallels to some of the criticism I've heard of the original ME3 ending. So much work, so much effort, so many options, so much game play, so many hours... And the ending didn't satisfy.

Are they similar because the Super Mario Bros. story was awesome like the Mass Effect story? Er, no. Are they similar because it was the concluding chapter of a trilogy? No. How then, can they be compared?

They can be compared like this: The ending of a game, whether the story is very simple or very detailed, is not like the ending of the movie. You can compare the ending of Mass Effect 3 to No Country for Old Men on a story level if you like, and that's a fine comparison, but at the end of the day you're comparing apples and oranges. The ending of a game isn't the resolution to the story, it's a reward for the player. It's the carrot that's been dangling in front of your nose. It's the hearty pat on the back and an "attaboy!" for beating it. It's the dessert at the end of the meal. People want to be rewarded. We don't necessarily play games for the story, or because we want to make it to the last chapter to see what the developers and writers had in mind. We want to beat a game and feel like we accomplished something. The ending of a game should be a Crowning Moment of Awesome.

That's the part where I'm with Nate. I loved the Mass Effect 3 story and yes, I was very interested in the resolution of the story, BUT at the same time I had played my way through dozens of hours of gameplay, cutscenes, decision making and resource management, and I wanted my reward for beating it!

For the record, I liked the ending, even before the revamp, but it was a sort of mixed bag for me. I wanted to see more resolution, not because I need to have it spoonfed to me, but because it's like a parade of emotional payoffs. "You've saved the Galaxy! Look at Liara, she's doing great! Look at all the reunited families! Look at how Happy Jeff and EDI are together! Look at how there are *no* Reapers around! All thanks to you! Hero!"

The ending of a game is your laurels. Your payoff. Your reward for all that effort. It isn't about directorial tricks or plot symbolism. A game should end like the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and not like No Country For Old Men or Inception.