Bioware rewrites parts of ME book,Artistic Vision still an issue?

  • 80 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Pinworm45 (4088 posts) -

So a while ago, A mass effect book was released. This book was called Deception, although many fans label it "Derpception'. The reason for that is, in addition to being awful, the book took some pages from ME3s ending and has many aspects that are either completely wrong, incorrect, or out of nowhere. Characters that were gay are suddenly straight, characters with Autism turn their disease on and off, people teleport around and so on and so forth.

Naturally, Bioware isn't content with a story they told being inconsistent, substandard, or bad, so they are of course releasing a new version of the book that fixes these endings. Oh, this version is okay, though, but changing the ending is not - I guess when fans complain about something being awful, they'll change it, but if they say "hey, you already end the game saying there will be DLC, why not include DLC that makes this ending better?" then suddenly that's an insult that Artistic Vision.

Because of course, it's not when it's in book form. No, in that case, it's just "fixing errors", I'm sure, despite the fact that the end to ME3 has many, many provable errors and impossibilities.

What a joke. The argument of "artistic vision" was always a joke, but now that they are literally going one step further than fans even asked, just for the wrong product, it's so ridiculous I can't see anyone still defending this argument.

But of course, I'm sure you will.

Edit: forgot to include a source. http://www.joystiq.com/2012/02/04/bioware-fixing-mass-effect-deception-novel-mistakes-in-future-e/

#2 Posted by Dagbiker (6898 posts) -

Have you not heard of the Inception Theory.

#3 Posted by allworkandlowpay (874 posts) -

Man, can you write a more pretentious post? e.e

#4 Edited by Pinworm45 (4088 posts) -

@Dagbiker said:

Have you not heard of the Inception Theory.

You mean the Indoctrination Theory? What of it? Bioware has all but confirmed it's not intended. To say nothing of the writers scribblings from Final Hours showing that they had no idea what was going on in the ending either, and wanted to cause "lots of speculation".

#5 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -

Is this the book that the original writer got all sorts of facts wrong?

#6 Posted by onan (1277 posts) -

- That is a ridiculously good point. The main differences in these cases:

1. The book was completely full of inaccuracies, while the game, with probably 99% of ending critics in agreement, had some pretty amazing stuff leading up to the the ending they objected to.

2. The book was written by one person, and blame can be placed at the feet of one person, especially if you don't include all of the editors and whoever that were part of the process and are conveniently hidden from scorn. The game was the result of thousands of man-hours of effort from hundreds of people.

Admitting the book was a poor judgement call is easy. Admitting the same about a multimillion doillar media project is another thing entirely. I find it incredibly hard to believe that all the people working on ME3 agreed that the current ending was crucial to the artistic vision, and I doubt they took a poll. The current posturing is just saving face. I'm ok with that, because regardless of how they want to phrase it, they're putting out free apology DLC in addition to a changed ending. The end result for both is still the same.

#7 Posted by xaLieNxGrEyx (2579 posts) -

The first mistake was assuming Mass Effect was ever even good. This is just a downward spiral to an overrated first release.

#8 Posted by nintendoeats (5975 posts) -

@xaLieNxGrEyx: Posts like that are the Epic of Gilgamesh of trolling.

#9 Posted by BrockNRolla (1702 posts) -

@Pinworm45 said:

Naturally, Bioware isn't content with a story they told being inconsistent, substandard, or bad, so they are of course releasing a new version of the book that fixes these endings.

Yeah? How exactly do you explain Dragon Age 2 then?

#10 Posted by Octaslash (435 posts) -

@BrockNRolla said:

@Pinworm45 said:

Naturally, Bioware isn't content with a story they told being inconsistent, substandard, or bad, so they are of course releasing a new version of the book that fixes these endings.

Yeah? How exactly do you explain Dragon Age 2 then?

The story was the least of DA2's problems.

#11 Posted by onan (1277 posts) -

@Pinworm45 said:

@Dagbiker said:

Have you not heard of the Inception Theory.

You mean the Indoctrination Theory? What of it? Bioware has all but confirmed it's not intended. To say nothing of the writers scribblings from Final Hours showing that they had no idea what was going on in the ending either, and wanted to cause "lots of speculation".

#12 Edited by Blackout62 (1303 posts) -

@Pinworm45 said:

@Dagbiker said:

Have you not heard of the Inception Theory.

You mean the Indoctrination Theory? What of it? Bioware has all but confirmed it's not intended. To say nothing of the writers scribblings from Final Hours showing that they had no idea what was going on in the ending either, and wanted to cause "lots of speculation".

No the Inception Theory that you dreamed the entire ending when Bioware broke into your mind to remove the debacle that was Deception from your memory in a dream within a dream within a... ah forget it that jokes already done.

#13 Posted by stryker1121 (1237 posts) -

@onan said:

- That is a ridiculously good point. The main differences in these cases:

1. The book was completely full of inaccuracies, while the game, with probably 99% of ending critics in agreement, had some pretty amazing stuff leading up to the the ending they objected to.

2. The book was written by one person, and blame can be placed at the feet of one person, especially if you don't include all of the editors and whoever that were part of the process and are conveniently hidden from scorn. The game was the result of thousands of man-hours of effort from hundreds of people.

Admitting the book was a poor judgement call is easy. Admitting the same about a multimillion doillar media project is another thing entirely. I find it incredibly hard to believe that all the people working on ME3 agreed that the current ending was crucial to the artistic vision, and I doubt they took a poll. The current posturing is just saving face. I'm ok with that, because regardless of how they want to phrase it, they're putting out free apology DLC in addition to a changed ending. The end result for both is still the same.

Agree with this almost to the letter...you're talking apples and oranges here, OP. Deception is a blip in Mass Effect lore read by a small percentage of those who played ME3.

#14 Edited by mylifeforAiur (3479 posts) -

Eh, it's too late, Bioware. I've read the book and it was awful. I really do dislike retroactively implemented endings, or narrative improvements. I mean, I know what happened originally, do you really think that I'll just happily forget the original content and accept the new content without question. All they're doing is diluting the quality of the mythos and setting altogether, at this point. Also, maybe fix the horrid characterization in that novel. I'd suggest that all the previously un-established characters (characters not in the video game series) off themselves in the first paragraph. Fixed.

#15 Posted by BrockNRolla (1702 posts) -

@onan said:

@Pinworm45 said:

@Dagbiker said:

Have you not heard of the Inception Theory.

You mean the Indoctrination Theory? What of it? Bioware has all but confirmed it's not intended. To say nothing of the writers scribblings from Final Hours showing that they had no idea what was going on in the ending either, and wanted to cause "lots of speculation".

This image made me laugh out loud. Thank you for that.

#16 Posted by onan (1277 posts) -

@stryker1121 said:

@onan said:

- That is a ridiculously good point. The main differences in these cases:

1. The book was completely full of inaccuracies, while the game, with probably 99% of ending critics in agreement, had some pretty amazing stuff leading up to the the ending they objected to.

2. The book was written by one person, and blame can be placed at the feet of one person, especially if you don't include all of the editors and whoever that were part of the process and are conveniently hidden from scorn. The game was the result of thousands of man-hours of effort from hundreds of people.

Admitting the book was a poor judgement call is easy. Admitting the same about a multimillion doillar media project is another thing entirely. I find it incredibly hard to believe that all the people working on ME3 agreed that the current ending was crucial to the artistic vision, and I doubt they took a poll. The current posturing is just saving face. I'm ok with that, because regardless of how they want to phrase it, they're putting out free apology DLC in addition to a changed ending. The end result for both is still the same.

Agree with this almost to the letter...you're talking apples and oranges here, OP. Deception is a blip in Mass Effect lore read by a small percentage of those who played ME3.

Not sure if you actually read what I wrote. I was agreeing with the OP about the hypocrisy. The novels are considered just as much canon as the games. The reason the Illusive Man is able to augment/indoctrinate all of the Cerberus soldiers is because of experiments he ran on one of the protagonists of the book series who gets mentioned multiple times in ME3. David Anderson and Kahlee Sanders (The blonde instructor from the Jack mission at Grissom Academy) know each other very well from their adventures across the book series. They took on Saren before the events of ME1 as he was going rogue, tangled with Aria T'Loak on Omega, and that's all canon. Kai Leng is an ex-N7 soldier that served as an antagonist in multiple books as well, and he was one of the major villains in ME3.

Previously they all synced up perfectly with the games because the lead writer of the games was also the writer of the books, Drew Karpyshyn. Drew left, and writing duties were taken up by other people, and the book, well, no idea what happened there. The guy they got for Deception didn't do his research at all. He didn't even have Quarians in environmental suits. I'm in complete amazement it was ever published.

My post was about how they can freely admit the issues with the books because blowback can be blamed on someone who is effectively a contractor. The exact same issue in the murky waters of a collaborative game, however, and it turns into a quagmire they can't ever admit to screwing up on, but instead spin it in another way. Not only is it about saving face, but it's also about maintaining respect as the premier developer of Western RPGs in the market today.

It's apples to apples.

#17 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -

@onan: God, Inception is such a good fucking movie.

#18 Posted by Hailinel (22712 posts) -

My question is, why didn't anyone at Bioware point out how batshit-off-the-rails Deception flies from established canon and logic before the first edition was published and require a rewrite?

#19 Posted by Freshbandito (611 posts) -

@onan said:

@Pinworm45 said:

@Dagbiker said:

Have you not heard of the Inception Theory.

You mean the Indoctrination Theory? What of it? Bioware has all but confirmed it's not intended. To say nothing of the writers scribblings from Final Hours showing that they had no idea what was going on in the ending either, and wanted to cause "lots of speculation".

Alright guys, pack it up, this thread has already delivered the best it has to offer for this world.

#20 Posted by GunslingerPanda (4480 posts) -

If it's just clearing up inconsistencies then I don't see a problem with it. Shit, an ME novel wouldn't be the first to do this.

#21 Posted by egg (1339 posts) -

sucks for those who already bought the book

#22 Posted by mordukai (7092 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

My question is, why didn't anyone at Bioware point out how batshit-off-the-rails Deception flies from established canon and logic before the first edition was published and require a rewrite?

Pfft. Who the fuck knows what goes on there at this point. I think they were so busy with ME3 production that I won't be surprised if the book never went through Bioware's hands.

My question is, why didn't anyone at Bioware pointed out to Casey Hudson how badly written the ending was, or how bad it's presentation is. I'm sure someone there knew just how bad it is. Is it the "Lucas" effect where this is the result when you have no one telling you "NO, that crap"?

#23 Posted by Undeadpool (4868 posts) -

@onan said:

@Pinworm45 said:

@Dagbiker said:

Have you not heard of the Inception Theory.

You mean the Indoctrination Theory? What of it? Bioware has all but confirmed it's not intended. To say nothing of the writers scribblings from Final Hours showing that they had no idea what was going on in the ending either, and wanted to cause "lots of speculation".

HAW!!!

#24 Posted by JasonR86 (9379 posts) -

What would the internet be like without Bioware, EA, and Mass Effect 3? What the fuck would people talk about?

#25 Posted by Hailinel (22712 posts) -

@JasonR86 said:

What would the internet be like without Bioware, EA, and Mass Effect 3? What the fuck would people talk about?

Hilarious image macros of cats.

#26 Posted by xyzygy (9625 posts) -

Out of curiousity, which character was turned straight? I read the other books and don't remember a gay character... but that was years ago

#27 Posted by MEATBALL (2786 posts) -

This thread is stupid and poopy.

#28 Posted by TheHT (10284 posts) -

@MEATBALL said:

This thread is stupid and poopy.

#29 Posted by Ghostiet (5153 posts) -
@xyzygy

Out of curiousity, which character was turned straight? I read the other books and don't remember a gay character... but that was years ago

Hendel, I believe.
Also, Gillian drops her autism which is called a 'phase', Kai Leng eats Anderson's cereal when he's in his apartment and oggles asari dancers, even though it was previously established that he finds their bodies repulsive. And quarians dress in rags, like space gypsys and give out ships by the fuckton.
#30 Posted by egg (1339 posts) -

it's sort of a catch 22. If I made two paintings and post them on deviantart, and people complain about one but I stand my ground, but later change the other. well I have every right to do that. It's my work and I should decide.

doesn't mean Bioware aren't being douchebags but the whole artistic vision argument is subjective and tough to debunk. But even then you could still disagree with their ''vision'', being a vision doesn't make it good.

#31 Posted by Skald (4366 posts) -

@nintendoeats said:

@xaLieNxGrEyx: Posts like that are the Epic of Gilgamesh of trolling.

Ah, so that's why I'm following you.

#32 Posted by Matfei90 (1288 posts) -
@Pinworm45 said:

Naturally, Bioware isn't content with a story they told being inconsistent, substandard, or bad

lol.
#33 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -
@Hailinel said:

My question is, why didn't anyone at Bioware point out how batshit-off-the-rails Deception flies from established canon and logic before the first edition was published and require a rewrite?

I dunno, probably because they are the same type of people who decided that Square should make Mass Effect uniforms a key marketing aspect of Final Fantasy XIII-2.  You're assumption that people who produce this shit (ME and FF) actually really care about their products is hilariously naive. 
#34 Posted by Mike76x (555 posts) -

@egg The difference is you aren't selling your art. Videogames are a mass produced, advertised product. EA is Bioware's boss, and they made them cut out Javik. It was a business decision about a product. We the consumer are Bioware's clients, or customers. We (the people that have issuse with the ending) have a complaint about a product. "My game glitched and I can't play it anymore" "Tough shit, it's art." Videogames are an artistic medium, some people consider it art, but in the end it's still a product and needs to meet certain expectations.

#35 Edited by Pinworm45 (4088 posts) -

@BrockNRolla said:

@Pinworm45 said:

Naturally, Bioware isn't content with a story they told being inconsistent, substandard, or bad, so they are of course releasing a new version of the book that fixes these endings.

Yeah? How exactly do you explain Dragon Age 2 then?

Well, the fact that I said it as a joke is a good explanation. I mean, it was pretty obvious sarcasm.. I said that in the context of them not changing the ending

#36 Posted by Mars_Cleric (1587 posts) -

yawn

#37 Posted by Brodehouse (9370 posts) -
@Hailinel

My question is, why didn't anyone at Bioware point out how batshit-off-the-rails Deception flies from established canon and logic before the first edition was published and require a rewrite?

It came out in February right? I think they had some other things on their plate at the time.
#38 Posted by mandude (2667 posts) -

The game was based on an artistic vision. The book wasn't. It was based on the game. Not that I know any of the details of what happens in either, but unless they're changing parts of the book that were also fundamental parts of the game, then I don't get it...

#39 Posted by drag (1223 posts) -

@egg: it's more like ... you made one painting that everyone liked and enjoyed even though there was something a bit busted about it. Then you commissioned someone else to make a song about your painting which sounded fine, until everyone actually looked at the lyrics and noticed some big problems. So you went back and changed their words a bit so it fit the theme and details of your original painting ... and then everyone saying you should change the thing they didn't like about the painting because you've just shown that you obviously don't care about why you made it in the first place.

In other words, this thread is stupid as all hell and makes no sense.

#40 Posted by Enigma777 (6047 posts) -

Is this thread for real? Because there's just so much dumb in the OP that I don't even know where to begin...

#41 Posted by Hailinel (22712 posts) -

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Hailinel said:

My question is, why didn't anyone at Bioware point out how batshit-off-the-rails Deception flies from established canon and logic before the first edition was published and require a rewrite?

I dunno, probably because they are the same type of people who decided that Square should make Mass Effect uniforms a key marketing aspect of Final Fantasy XIII-2. You're assumption that people who produce this shit (ME and FF) actually really care about their products is hilariously naive.

What does FFXIII-2 have to do with this?

#42 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -
@Hailinel said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Hailinel said:

My question is, why didn't anyone at Bioware point out how batshit-off-the-rails Deception flies from established canon and logic before the first edition was published and require a rewrite?

I dunno, probably because they are the same type of people who decided that Square should make Mass Effect uniforms a key marketing aspect of Final Fantasy XIII-2. You're assumption that people who produce this shit (ME and FF) actually really care about their products is hilariously naive.

What does FFXIII-2 have to do with this?

Oh, not much....
 
  
#43 Posted by Hailinel (22712 posts) -

@SeriouslyNow: No, really. What does a rewrite of a terrible Mass Effect novel have to do with Final Fantasy XIII-2? I'm aware of the DLC, but you seem intent to bring it up apropos of nothing. Any marketing of the FFXIII-2 DLC was handled by Square Enix's marketers, not EA's or Bioware's, and any approval process on Bioware/EA's part would not require the same level of effort as proofreading a novel.

#44 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -
@Hailinel said:

@SeriouslyNow: No, really. What does a rewrite of a terrible Mass Effect novel have to do with Final Fantasy XIII-2? I'm aware of the DLC, but you seem intent to bring it up apropos of nothing. Any marketing of the FFXIII-2 DLC was handled by Square Enix's marketers, not EA's or Bioware's, and any approval process on Bioware/EA's part would not require the same level of effort as proofreading a novel.

We're talking about Artistic Vision.  You're being your usual obtuse and defensive self.  I'm sorry, does Mass Effect fit with the Artistic Vision of Final Fantasy in your eyes?
#45 Posted by Hailinel (22712 posts) -

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Hailinel said:

@SeriouslyNow: No, really. What does a rewrite of a terrible Mass Effect novel have to do with Final Fantasy XIII-2? I'm aware of the DLC, but you seem intent to bring it up apropos of nothing. Any marketing of the FFXIII-2 DLC was handled by Square Enix's marketers, not EA's or Bioware's, and any approval process on Bioware/EA's part would not require the same level of effort as proofreading a novel.

We're talking about Artistic Vision. You're being your usual obtuse and defensive self. I'm sorry, does Mass Effect fit with the Artistic Vision of Final Fantasy in your eyes?

It's an optional piece of DLC, same as with the Assassin's Creed-inspired DLC and the various other non-game-inspired outfits. They have no bearing on the narrative and can be easily ignored by anyone that doesn't want to buy them. The artistic vision of the story is not affected by the fact that if you want, you can dress Serah and Noel in Mass Effect costumes. That is in no way the same thing as making substantial edits to a story presented in a novel.

In other news, apples are not the same thing as oranges.

#46 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -
@Hailinel said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Hailinel said:

@SeriouslyNow: No, really. What does a rewrite of a terrible Mass Effect novel have to do with Final Fantasy XIII-2? I'm aware of the DLC, but you seem intent to bring it up apropos of nothing. Any marketing of the FFXIII-2 DLC was handled by Square Enix's marketers, not EA's or Bioware's, and any approval process on Bioware/EA's part would not require the same level of effort as proofreading a novel.

We're talking about Artistic Vision. You're being your usual obtuse and defensive self. I'm sorry, does Mass Effect fit with the Artistic Vision of Final Fantasy in your eyes?

It's an optional piece of DLC, same as with the Assassin's Creed-inspired DLC and the various other non-game-inspired outfits. They have no bearing on the narrative and can be easily ignored by anyone that doesn't want to buy them. The artistic vision of the story is not affected by the fact that if you want, you can dress Serah and Noel in Mass Effect costumes. That is in no way the same thing as making substantial edits to a story presented in a novel.

In other news, apples are not the same thing as oranges.

I never said they were they same, but they are definitely related in the fact that neither creative collective actually gives a flying fuck about their audience.
#47 Posted by Hailinel (22712 posts) -

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Hailinel said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Hailinel said:

@SeriouslyNow: No, really. What does a rewrite of a terrible Mass Effect novel have to do with Final Fantasy XIII-2? I'm aware of the DLC, but you seem intent to bring it up apropos of nothing. Any marketing of the FFXIII-2 DLC was handled by Square Enix's marketers, not EA's or Bioware's, and any approval process on Bioware/EA's part would not require the same level of effort as proofreading a novel.

We're talking about Artistic Vision. You're being your usual obtuse and defensive self. I'm sorry, does Mass Effect fit with the Artistic Vision of Final Fantasy in your eyes?

It's an optional piece of DLC, same as with the Assassin's Creed-inspired DLC and the various other non-game-inspired outfits. They have no bearing on the narrative and can be easily ignored by anyone that doesn't want to buy them. The artistic vision of the story is not affected by the fact that if you want, you can dress Serah and Noel in Mass Effect costumes. That is in no way the same thing as making substantial edits to a story presented in a novel.

In other news, apples are not the same thing as oranges.

I never said they were they same, but they are definitely related in the fact that neither creative collective actually gives a flying fuck about their audience.

You're stretching your argument.

#48 Posted by Dookysharpgun (586 posts) -

@Freshbandito said:

@onan said:

@Pinworm45 said:

@Dagbiker said:

Have you not heard of the Inception Theory.

You mean the Indoctrination Theory? What of it? Bioware has all but confirmed it's not intended. To say nothing of the writers scribblings from Final Hours showing that they had no idea what was going on in the ending either, and wanted to cause "lots of speculation".

Alright guys, pack it up, this thread has already delivered the best it has to offer for this world.

I think we should rechristen it: 'Shepception'...it just works better.

OP: Anyway, yes, literary works should always be changed, because its much easier to do so...you know, reprinting those copies of books...killing more trees to print shit on...

Honestly, fuck that noise, I mean, volumes of some of the best works of literature have been released over the years to accommodate for bad translations and shitty, out of place chapters or plot elements. This isn't even exclusive to books! The Muppet Christmas Carol, the new DVD versions anyway, cut the shitty song with Scrooge and his woman because it was so out of place and boring...I knew that from watching it as a kid.

The minute you mention changing something in a videogame to make it work better, people yell 'Artistic Integrity' like we're supposed to care. Entertainment comes first, and there are plenty of ways of keeping integrity while changing what you made to suit your audience better. There are very few cases of a writer getting it right on their first try, and the ones that did have solidified their place, for better or worse, in history as the top-tier of creativity. ME3 will never transcend time, it'll never be beloved the way books and movies are...hell even some TV shows have reached that status, but not many.

Creating an ending to generate controversy isn't the same thing as art. Changing a book is, in my view, a double-standard, when you argue artistic integrity for a freaking videogames...something that is much easier to alter by comparison.

#49 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -
@Hailinel said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Hailinel said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Hailinel said:

@SeriouslyNow: No, really. What does a rewrite of a terrible Mass Effect novel have to do with Final Fantasy XIII-2? I'm aware of the DLC, but you seem intent to bring it up apropos of nothing. Any marketing of the FFXIII-2 DLC was handled by Square Enix's marketers, not EA's or Bioware's, and any approval process on Bioware/EA's part would not require the same level of effort as proofreading a novel.

We're talking about Artistic Vision. You're being your usual obtuse and defensive self. I'm sorry, does Mass Effect fit with the Artistic Vision of Final Fantasy in your eyes?

It's an optional piece of DLC, same as with the Assassin's Creed-inspired DLC and the various other non-game-inspired outfits. They have no bearing on the narrative and can be easily ignored by anyone that doesn't want to buy them. The artistic vision of the story is not affected by the fact that if you want, you can dress Serah and Noel in Mass Effect costumes. That is in no way the same thing as making substantial edits to a story presented in a novel.

In other news, apples are not the same thing as oranges.

I never said they were they same, but they are definitely related in the fact that neither creative collective actually gives a flying fuck about their audience.

You're stretching your argument.

No, you're ignoring the evidence.
#50 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -
@Dookysharpgun: Cheer up Charlie!

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.