krystalevenstar wrote...
It was easy to say that they might have just missed these things and since this makes so much sense they'd go with it in the beginning, but there is just too many things that fit now. If all the people in this thread have come up with this conclusion from what we've discovered, do you really think that after X amount of years of development, no one on the ME team noticed these things?
THIS IS DELIBERATE.
And it's brilliant.
It will go down not only as one of the greatest game series in history, but the greatest reveal for the ending of that series.
Mass Effect could never go out on a whimper, it's going to go out on an earthshattering bang. Just like it should.
Keep in mind; with such an ending without a closure, it is very easy to see what we each want to see. It's very easy to read into the narrative and find things that are not there. Hope, combined with emotional desperation, makes a most persuasive force. (This reminds me of TIM's own falling)
I myself am wary of giving the writers too much credit; especially in instances where there is the possibility of me deluding myself into making a masterpiece out of someone's sloppy work. Traditionally, Mass Effect followed fairly conventional soap-opera conventions. Unlike the Matrix, which sought to question reality from the onset, we do not have this meta-narrative coming from the last two games. Making the last 20 minutes of Mass Effect 3 into a post-modern meta narrative that is an 'indoctrination' of the player; while entirely plausable, is unlikely.
The thing is, we can't tell if this is deliberate just yet. I'm most willing to buy into this theory, but I can't help but ask myself:
If this was really true, why hold the 'real ending' back? Why not just release it with the rest of the game, and be credited for the stroke of genious? Why risk the fan backlash? Why look sloppy when you can look good right off?
Why troll us, their fans?
You know, they could have just told us in a press release, with a sly smile, that it's not over yet. Then they wouldn't have any of this PR firestorm on their hands.
Even if it was true, the current state that ME3 was released in (supposedly a complete game out of the box) is also paramount to bad writing. The narrative, as it is now, it violates the reader-writer contract by not offering the real ending to provide closure to the story. Even if there was an overarching meta-narrative embedded within, the writing must be consistant and clear enough for us to reach that conclusion without having a 'panel' to 'interpret' the ending for us. Mass Effect 3 has neither.
The very fact that the 'panel' has to 'interpret' their vision to us shows how the narrative has failed to communicate the different levels of the narrative.
In addition; the whole crucible sequence itself could have been handled more adequately. Hallucination is not an excuse for sloppy writing. The writing for the crucible onwards; while brillant if this theory holds true; still feels sloppy and rushed. Imagine how much more convincing if they had a fluent narrative without the gigantic plot holes, and the Normandy had a proper reason for running away with your crew all on it. It also end with Normandy getting knocked out of FTL, but not show the crew coming out of the Normandy on some random planet.
The fact that the ending feels rushed worries me; because such meta-narrative twists require a high level of finesse to pull off.
What worries me the most is that people are losing their objectivity, calling what what may very well be a rushed conclusion 'a stroke of genius'. We must never forget that Bioware is telling us a story, and the very fact that we are unable to see the structure of the meta-narrative clearly (if it even exists) shows an inability to communicate their artistic vision properly through the medium.
So here's to all of us: Keep hoping, keep objective, keep playing.
Modifié par JasonTan87, 12 mars 2012 - 07:29 .