I’ve hinted at this in several past posts, but I thought I would explain my decision not to purchase Mass Effect 3 in greater detail. I’m not doing this in order to convince anyone of an opinion which may be counter to their own, I’m simply sharing my own feelings on the matter. Judging by past discussions I’ve had with people on the subject, it’s become pretty apparent that people have already made up their mind one way or another about whether or not they will be playing BioWare’s latest space opera, and further attempts to convince them otherwise are probably counter-productive.
Therefore I say one more time: I am not attempting to change your own opinion here. I am stating what I believe, and why I am sticking to it.
Allow me to preface this with a page or two from my gaming history. I like BioWare. I like them a lot. I have played the vast majority of their games over the years, and many of them have formed some of the most memorable experiences I’ve had in the Western RPG genre. If such a thing as a “gaming canon” were to exist (which, after plenty of discussions with others, I probably come down on the side of disagreeing with) then titles such as Knights of the Old Republic and the Baldur’s Gate series will likely be held up as fine examples of how to tell a convincing, sprawling epic with very realistic, believable characters.
Mass Effect 1 came along and was a showcase for the Xbox 360. Despite a few glaring technical flaws such as Unreal Engine 3’s early texture-streaming issues, the game was great. We had a protagonist who both had a voice and whom players felt like they could shape the game’s depiction of through their actions. We had a memorable supporting cast. And we had an excellent sci-fi story worthy of the best written fiction and movies.
Mass Effect 2 came along, fixed a bunch of the flaws that were present in the first game, made the whole experience less stat-heavy RPG-like and more shooterish, but this didn’t cause the story to suffer.
Until the DLC started. Mass Effect 1 had some half-hearted DLC, but having played it, I can report that it wasn’t that good. Mass Effect 2, meanwhile, launched with some “Project Ten Dollar” content which only players who purchased the game new would gain access to (which, I have to say, actually turned out to be a bit rubbish, too) and then subsequently expanded the experience with several other adventure packs, each of which offered a few hours of gameplay of varying degrees of quality — including one designed to serve as a prologue to Mass Effect 3.
I wouldn’t have a problem with this were it not for the fact that by the time all this content hit, I had completed Mass Effect 2 and didn’t have any particular inclination to go back to it at that point in time. Now, as the sequel approaches and I might want to consider catching up on all this content, I would have to spend almost as much as the game cost on its initial release to play some episodes which vary in quality, as I understand, from “great” to “blah”.
Of course, they’re optional, you may say, it doesn’t matter. But the simple existence of these extra episodes makes it feel like the base game isn’t a “complete” experience, like there’s stuff “missing” from it. Sure, Mass Effect 2 stands by itself as a great game. But I know I’d find it inherently less satisfying knowing that I’m not seeing certain story content, including the reappearance of a cast member from the original game.
Then Mass Effect 3 shows up and it emerges that it features day-one DLC that is both exclusive to the more expensive Collector’s Edition of the game and extremely relevant to the overarching lore of the Mass Effect universe — though I’ll grant that most people are yet to play this DLC (and those who have are likely gagged by an embargo) and as such commenting on its “importance” may be premature. However, in my own personal opinion, this does not excuse the excising of content from the main game for separate release on the game’s launch date.
It’s at this point that people normally chime in and say that said DLC was probably developed by a different team, given its own budget and wasn’t ready when the main game was submitted for the various certification processes that come with releasing a game on console. And to that I say “fine, but why not wait a bit?” Because buying a new game and being informed on the same day that you’ve spent over £40 on it that there’s a bit of extra story you don’t have on your disc is, to me, unforgivable. I have zero respect for publishers who butcher a creative work (because that’s what a story like Mass Effect is) in order to turn it into a product, and I have no wish to support it. It’s like buying a book and having a chapter or two missing from the middle, or buying a DVD and some scenes from the movie are missing. I wouldn’t stand for it there — and thankfully no-one has tried it — and I see no reason to stand for it here.
But there’s a growing acceptance, it seems, of the “games as a service” model, whereby the product you buy in the shops for £40 isn’t the finished product — rather, it’s the skeleton onto which other bits and pieces will be bolted. And in some cases, this is fine — I have no problem with first-person shooter and racing games releasing map packs to extend what are already potentially infinitely-long experiences anyway (though this raises a completely different issue of userbase fragmentation) — but in the case of narrative-based games, I believe that the “service” model is fundamentally incompatible with the way video game stories are structured. You can’t write a good story that has a beginning, middle and an end and then later go back and add some more middle. You can’t write a good story that has a beginning, 90% of its middle and an end. You can’t write a good story that has a beginning, middle and an end and then a bit after the end and then a bit after that. (Well, you can. But it’s called a “sequel” or an “expansion pack”, the latter of which seems to have all but ceased to exist except in a couple of isolated instances.)
In order to successfully peddle a “games as service” model onto narrative-based games, you have to change the way in which that story is delivered. Structure it more like a TV show than a movie. Don’t make players feel punished if they miss out on some content, and offer them the facility to “catch up” on a “season’s” content for a reduced price.
Oddly enough, Mass Effect 3 publisher EA has already successfully released two games under this model on iOS: Surviving High School and Cause of Death. Both feature weekly episodes which are free to download and play for a week, then deleted. Individual episodes can be purchased to “catch up” on missed content, and at the end of a “season”, a vastly-reduced price pack of all the season’s episodes may be purchased, offering roughly the same amount of content as what you’d expect from a “typical” game of its type.
But going back to Mass Effect 3, the various business decisions which have been taken by EA have caused me to simply not want to support this game any more. I am hugely torn over this fact, as a longtime BioWare fan — and I remain a fan of the developer’s culture and attitude. I strongly believe that were it completely up to BioWare as an independent entity, that they would do things in the way that they did with their old PC titles — release a game that is content- and feature-complete, then six months down the line release a substantial expansion pack which functions as a quasi-sequel, then a bit later release a full sequel. Obviously I have no way of knowing this for sure (and EA’s PR department likely has the BioWare staff suitably gagged with NDAs and the like to ensure that nothing like this slips out) — but given what I do know of the company, its culture and its history it seems like this is what BioWare could (or should) do were they independent of a giant like EA.
Another argument in favour of EA’s practices normally comes as people say that they want their favourite developers to continue to make money, to keep their staff and to be able to continue making games. Now, in principle, I’m OK with this, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of perfectly reasonable consumer expectations, it shouldn’t come at the expense of the integrity of a creative work and it certainly shouldn’t lead to people ranting about a supposed “culture of entitlement” from people who are simply saying “hang on a minute, that doesn’t seem particularly on to me.” In fact, I’d go so far as to say that while it would suck for a developer to find its members laid off after a big project is finished, I would much rather they leave the confines of a publisher such as EA and subsequently find their way to a publisher who would treat them and their fanbase well rather than simply attempting to milk as much money out of the public as possible. You can be fair and still make money — look at Skyrim and a whole host of other titles over the last few years that have flourished without exploitative business practices. You can even have a DLC strategy without being a dick about it — look at Gearbox and Borderlands, or indeed any of Bethesda’s more recent games.
I’m a consumer. I have no interest in the company’s bottom line or what the shareholders think. I want the company to provide the product that I pay for in complete form without expecting additional handouts from me starting from day one. That’s not being “entitled”, that’s being a savvy consumer. Whenever I make any purchase, I choose whatever is best going to fit my needs. I wouldn’t choose a TV that didn’t come with a remote, a car that came with no wheels, a book that had chapters missing or a DVD for which half the content was missing. So I will not purchase a game which isn’t complete in my eyes, because I’m looking for an immersive experience that will allow me to escape to another world for a few hours. Nothing breaks that immersion like being informed that you could go on this adventure if only you pop in your credit card details and click “Confirm”.
As such, I will be voting with my wallet from now on, and however good a game looks, if it makes use of this sort of exploitative business practice, I will not be purchasing it. I won’t lie, coming to this decision has been a large influencing factor in my decision to focus on “pile of shame” and lesser-known titles over the course of the next year.
As I said at the beginning of this piece, I am not attempting to convince you that you should not buy Mass Effect 3 if your heart is set on finishing Shepard’s saga — by all accounts, the game itself should be a great experience, and I hope you enjoy it.
Personally speaking, however, I feel strongly enough about my objections to forgo the end of a series that I have enjoyed to date. My non-purchase of the game will be a drop in the ocean to EA, so I have no illusions that I’ll make a difference by doing this. But I hope at least that people continue to think very carefully about what it is that they are paying for — and what it is that they’ll have to pay extra for. I hope discussions will continue to give people food for thought. And I hope people who feel as I do continue to stand up and explain their beliefs calmly and rationally in the hope that someone whose decisions matter will take note. Because I’ve seen a worrying trend of people stating their objections being shouted down recently (usually using the “E” word) and a seemingly blind acceptance of publishers calling the shots. I don’t want to see a future where these practices are even more commonplace than they are already.
Thankfully, not all publishers follow this business model. Smaller studios and completely independent developers continue to create great works, release them as a complete product and turn a nice profit along the way in the process. I will continue to support these studios wholeheartedly, and where possible, I will continue to support older titles also.
And with that, I officially set aside this whole debate. Enjoy Mass Effect 3 if you’re going to play it; if not, I have some great recommendations for things you should try.
Discover more from I'm Not Doctor Who
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
