User blog comment:Kaloneous/Mass Effect 3 Ending DLC Denied and PAX/@comment-1900300-20120408085950

The entire concept of "artistic rights" in this case is somewhat pompous to me. I would agree that artistic freedom and rights should be important, but usually that isnt because something is considered bad, its because of politics. People being oversensitive and/or politcally offended over a piece of political or social art that is controversal shouldnt have the right to get the ending changed simply because they have differing politcal views. That is what is important and its the reason the freedom of speech exsits.

But this has nothing to do with oversensitive people getting angry at a work that undercuts or contradicts their politcal, religious or social views. This is FANS of the series complaining to the company that made it that their work was not of the quality that it should have been, and by all rights giving them a chance to make it better and more profitable. No one would defend George Lucus' "artistic rights" if we campained to have Jar-Jar Binks taken out of the prequels because we know it would have been better without him. Its not about politicals or us attempting to empeed the work of an artist at all.

The fact also remains that Mass Effect is not a political, religous or social study, it is a piece of entretanment made for profit. And in that bussiness their is next to no "artistic rights". Movies and video games change all the time based on test runs. Producters, directors, writers and editors all have power over how a movie turns out and often one takes priority. Is this violating "artistic rights"? Well who is one who has the true rights to the movie? Directors need writers if they cant do it, they need money, and editors. whos more important? And this happens all the time. Do director's cuts technically count as a case of a director offending the "artistic rights" of the ones who made the film as it is? Why is the director the one with the priority when they needed others to make it? And if it is ultimatly a good change does that still count? We have no real idea how many films out they BENIFITED from executive meddeling because no writer or director wants to admit someone else made their film great. Maybe the "artist" was that one making thei mistakes and produced the ending that made no sense and was not what their customers wanted, requiring an outsider who focuses on that to point it out.