Mass Effect 3 is part of a video game series recently criticized by its fans for having a bad ending. The companies behind the game (Bioware and EA) promised to take action and a few weeks ago, they released an “extended cut” installment to the game which in my opinion changed the ending significantly.
How similar is the art of game making with the art of comics making?
Games are yet to be established as Art. The decision to change the ending suggests that Mass Effect is not Art, but a commercial product. If it was Art, Bioware and EA would have said something like: sorry fans, we will learn from this and make a better game next time but no, we are not releasing another version of the ending.
I wonder if all comics that thrive on the internet share a similar situation. Printed comics have not yet been given a place in all Art circles and its little brother webcomics has even further to go. If readers want to change something in the story, should authors comply?
Consumers of fiction and non-fiction media are more connected now through the internet. Gone are the days of raging in isolation over a comic book with a bad ending. Today, readers may present their complaints at the authors’ virtual front doors. And if there is significant money at stake and especially if the artists’ livelihood is affected, reader’s will get the revision they want. If not, at least there will be an attempt to address their concerns.
Technology allows readers to connect with authors closer than ever. More importantly readers are able to communicate with other readers as well. Whatever the reaction is about anything, it is being multiplied by knowing somebody else shares similar sentiments and can chime in on your complaints.
A very popular comic recently had a very bad ending, and the internet is raging about it. Is it still relevant in today’s age to defend artistic integrity and not change the ending or is it better to update the work based on reader feedback?
PAGE COMMENTS