14 réponses à ce sujet

[balmyrian]

A lot of people have issues with the way things play out after the Beam, and how Shepard feels pulled out of character and out of context.

I need to make clear that it disturbed me as well at first and for quite a while, although it makes complete sense and in a way is completely right. But again, what we feel here is the result of very poor direction in storytelling and a very nasty work in properly setting up context.

I'm probably not going to get popular for this, but I feel that it needs to be clarified, especially where Bioware won't do it. If only because I am one of those people for whom tough emotions need to be digested on the intellectual level to be integrable in some sort of constructive process, and there might be other like me around here.

There are other theories out there, including the "hallucination" theory. I find that theory has its merit, but as a writer myself, I can't really imagine why Bioware would do that. Bearing in mind everything is possible though and the theory has its merits, I am open to it being proved factual by future events.

But for now, let's go forward and begin with our analysis of the context and subtext within the series overall. First of all, there is one important thing that's being disregarded:

1°) Pre: Eden Prime. Simple Soldier. 
Shepard prior to player control.

We inherited Shepard in ME1, a character that already had a basic personality structure and a general history.

The basic personality structure was, "Shepard is a soldier, will always do the right thing, in the right way or in the wrong way". General history was, commendable military person, went through a very tough spot in a difficult mission, came through in a certain way.

We take it from there by choosing how Shepard came through, and play Mass Effect One, Mass Effect Two and a good deal of Mass Effect 3.

So just the same Shepard has a "past life" that's outside of our control and definition, the thing wraps itself up by a convergence of all our own "versions" of Shepard back to a preset premise, and out of our hands. Not the renegade, not the paragon. The soldier. I know the idea of losing control can be unpleasant, and it's central to understanding and processing what happened, and why it was so bad and hurtful. So bear with me for a moment still as we get deeper into this.

2°) During Mass Effect 3: Simple Soldier again. 
Shepard moving beyond us, players.

The theme of "our" Shepard losing its distinctiveness is creeping up over the course of the entire game as we see Shepard more and more feel and react independent of player input. It gets straight into view when we set foot on Earth and go for the final rush before the beam. From that point on it's just autodialog.

When we try to shoot the first two missiles at the Reaper and they have no effect, we can hear quite clearly hear something new in Shepard: despair, for the first time. If we play Female Shepard in that scene, we can actually end up wondering "Did they mix up and Liara's voice actor did that line", because Shepard sounds utterly different and overemotional.

We eventually manage to destroy the reaper with the second shot but at that point, and particularly as of everytime they bring Anderson on screen, there is no more Commander Shepard, there is just "a soldier". Carrying orders. Not challenging them, not coming up with new plans, not daring the impossible. Just awaiting and following orders. Because this time, and with every wound that led up to here, it's just too much to handle alone.

3°) The Beam: Shepard no more. Only Mission.

By the time Shepard gets hit by the beam and wakes up with armor broken (they probably thought of the symbolism of that), there is no more Shepard. There is just a determined soldier who will accomplish the mission no matter what. Even the horrible puppeteering with the Illusive Man illustrates that. Without giving him godlike powers, Anderson and Shepard are so broken up by what they have been through that it's not totally illogical that they might fall victim to his new "powers", those of control, typical of a Control Freak who's himself an antenna for indoctrination.

If I recall right, it's the first time we actually see Shepard's blood, but that's a side note.

After the scene with the Illusive Man, by the time Shepard is ready to go to bed, Hackett calls back and Shepard's like "What do you need me to do". The laughable dialog "there must be some kind of button up there" is followed by the scene where Shepard finally gives up, probably for simple "technical" reasons of exhaustion and blood loss, but maybe because this time there are no more visible options, no more clear orders, it's that one stretch too many.

4°) Hero and Ego.

The scene with the space kid follows on with that. The "Shepard" ego is definitely gone, all that matters now is to do the job, carry it through, and see it all end. Only, now it happens outside of asymmetric warfare, it gets on some cosmic stage.

There is an important duality between The Illusive Man and Shepard, clearly the most powerful and defining figures of their time. It's the fact that The Illusive Man was ultimately devoted to his own views and goals, whereas Shepard was always devoted to the greater mission of saving the galaxy as a whole, in its diversity, richness and infinite possibility. Not saving his/her idea of what the galaxy should be.

That is precisely why the Illusive Man ended up losing control over self and fell into the clutches of the Catalyst: ego inflation, the refusal to truly sacrifice oneself to something far greater than yourself, or even greater than your ability to comprehend. It is ironic that The Illusive Man speaks of sacrifices to Shepard since he has yet to make the only true sacrifice of all: ego.

One that Shepard has long made.

And it is precisely why the "dying" Shepard is brought to face the Catalyst, to a point that nobody has reached yet. Because not only Shepard brought together something that was never achieved before, but he/she did that losing sight completely of personal motives, in complete self-sacrifice.

4°) Narrative Failure

The reason it did not work is because of a very shy or clumsy work in contextualization and conditioning. 

The very power of Shepard as a hero for each one of us is in the way he/she is a vessel for our own ego. Through Shepard, we project our views and choices and invest defining personality components. Shepards responds to that awesomely throughout the series by carrying our "instructions" with his/her own flavor in text and action. And it's quite a trip, each time.

The big problem is that while Shepard as a character follows an ascending/elevating course of self-sacrifice, nothing is done to make us to make us party to the process, to make us other than spectators. Nothing ultimately is done to make us feel ready to "let go" of Shepard in full acceptance that what is at stake is more important. Why? Because the ultimate choices and consequences as presented in the end section are things we cannot relate to. They are so badly put up and presented, and overlook the things we have truly come to care for and about, that they make everything seem worthless and inconsequent.

That is also why many people wanted a happy ending. Because a happy ending is something you can relate to. Even if Shepard dies no matter what, the consequences displayed before you are things you can relate to. You can see your squadmates and their peoples carry on, rebuild, and so on. You can see the galaxy ultimately thrive again and so forth. Or you can see a blank slate and a fresh start and understand precisely why it is a good thing, get in the right perspective to appreciate it.

But again, the ending is so badly put together that while you can dig up for the hint of those things behind the nasty images we're shown, it's definitely not enough, unsatisfactory, sketchy, irresponsible and scornful. It is bad work. Unfinished work. A big WTF moment.

I am sure that most people would have been fine with Shepard's ultimate sacrifice if the "greater good" for which that is done was something one could relate to. I am sure that in the wave of emotion swelling up from that other outcome, people would have been more than lenient with the plot holes, the illogical arguments, the illusionary "your choice matters". Because in terms of ultimate "meaning", the experience as a whole would score powerfully and elevatingly, and not in a strange way both trifle and arcane at the same time.

Of course that analysis focuses just on the storytelling & meaning aspect of the work, and not on the embarrassing gameplay realities that the War Assets is in fact a total joke, and such things. But let's face it. If Bioware was any good at anything BUT storytelling (which is now challenged) and basic gameplay, we would know. Every non-standard aspect of the franchise has been criticized and shot to hell. The Mako. The Space Probes. The War Effort. And I'm only going over the big ones here. The truth is, Bioware are good with stories, but bad with game design. Go back and try to replay ME1 and 2 now just for the gameplay, and tell me how that feels.

Anyways, I hope that very long post helps in any way.

Modifié par balmyrian, 10 mars 2012 - 11:48 .

[crimsontotem]

good post... still does not explain the secret ending, fully cinematic, N7 armor clearly showing gasping for air as if he had just woke up. I don't think he even wears armor in the ending sequence.

[Vasparian]

No offense, but after reading the subject of this thread.. I didn't even bother to read anything you typed. It was out of character for him, and no long winded what ever can change that.

[ScooterPie88]

Out of character part aside not one thing we did in the entire rest of the series made any noticable difference.

[balmyrian]

crimsontotem wrote...

good post... still does not explain the secret ending, fully cinematic, N7 armor clearly showing gasping for air as if he had just woke up. I don't think he even wears armor in the ending sequence.

Thank you, Crimsontotem!

I hated to take that route of the "red" ending, but I did not see any other choice as to me, it was the only way to react "against the sense of forced sacrifice for half-meaningless stuff". I was okay with my Shepard dying, but I backpedaled from "dying for something that doesn't seem right". I can see how it's entirely my ego going, there, hehe.

But, anyways. The Red ending is the path of undying ego. The whole Renegade path is "ME ME ME" perspective where YOUR claims to rightfulness in one sense or another are always prevalent. Not to say you can't be an egotistic paragon. But violence and bluntness are the ultimate projections of ego. They are a way to impose your views upon the world and say "this is right, this is how things should be". And violence and bluntness are definitely the main components of the Renegate path. Especially in ME3 where it is clearly expressed in some npc's reaction "You are a thug". Know that study where the worst sociopaths and criminals think so high of themselves?

So it makes full and complete sense that Shepard should survive the Red ending. Not on a "material" or "logistical" way. But precisely because the Red Ending is about refusing to let go. It is extremely clearly depicted in  the different cinematics you get when you go for either blue or red ending. In Red ending, you see Shepard pulling out the gun and shooting, gaining increasing assurance, resolve and vitality as he/she goes on. I was like "hell yeah, now THIS is my Shepard". And that "undying, invincible" stance is the main reason I chose the Red ending ultimately. Because I did not want to see my Shepard surrender, get broken up or go the way of the Blue Ending.

The Blue Ending is less egotistical, although Control of the reapers still give Shepard oversight as to how things are going and whether or not the slate should be wiped clean again ultimately. It is still very much an ego path, but an ego path that is less about self, and more about ascended personal perspective. The exact reason why the Illusive Man couldn't go the Control route is that because he was way too stuck in the "lower self", that is the Renegade path. Who can argue against that the Illusive Man was Full Renegade?
But anyways, what happens as of the Blue Ending? Shepard dissolves. Key thing here, and contrast it to the Red Ending where Shepard recovers the Shepardness. The bold aggressiveness, the undying resolve, and so on.

The Red Ending is just "You're just buying time". The Blue Ending is "You're giving yourself a veto option". And of course, the Green Ending is "You're changing the rules not on your own terms, but by upgrading the entire galactic game".

And those reasons I mentioned are precisely why Shepard survives the Red Ending. Because it's a way to GO BACK. Go back to the lower self, go back to the thuggish, bold, stubborn, undying renegade. Say the things you've said all along in face of the odds and challenges: "I will not be defeated". Only, so far, renegade options were put in service of the goal and the mission. Now, the "I will not be defeated" is done in service of the self. It's the refusal to ascend, the refusal to play along with the cosmic game and just affirm ego. Thus, survival hinted at.


Another problem is that the game offers you ambiguity in orientation (I ended up with 3/5th renegade and 2/5th paragon) but the ending options are clear-cut and generic. So by going Red and destroy the organics, my Shepard had to renege on her decision to emancipate EDI and make Quarian and Geth coexist just to affirm her refusal to play the cosmic game. I'm well aware that it's sort of evil, as it's a triumph of the lower self, exactly the same sort of decision that leds people to cowardly, selfish, treacherous, villainous and interested acts in other contexts. But had the argument for utter self-sacrifice sounded any better, I would have been happy to let go.

[balmyrian]

Vasparian wrote...

No offense, but after reading the subject of this thread.. I didn't even bother to read anything you typed. It was out of character for him, and no long winded what ever can change that.

None taken. I'm well aware that we are all different, that some of us function on emotion, some of us function on intellect, some of us function on shades of gray, some of us function on stark contrast, and so on. Some of us believe or feel or imagine they are right, some of us question whether they are, and so on and so forth. It's all perspectives and angles. I can but demonstrate the logic that's apparent from a certain angle.

So even if you had taken your time to read my entire post, maybe it would not have made sense to you specifically, and therefore you would have wasted your time. Which I would have felt to be something even more regretful than a polite and respectful disagreement.

[balmyrian]

ScooterPie88 wrote...

Out of character part aside not one thing we did in the entire rest of the series made any noticable difference.

It's another result of poor storytelling work. I can give you the long version for this or the short version, and I am pretty confident that it's exactly the best answer you would get from Bioware if ever they did provide.

[Zofiya]

You make an interesting point with which I disagree, but as you admit, it doesn't change the fact that the ending was badly written, poorly executed, and generally unsatisfactory.

Plus, in a series that put so much emphasis on choices, it makes no sense to negate all those choices in the end for the sake of... I'm not even sure what. I really don't know what point the writers were trying to make at the end, because they didn't bother to answer any of the questions they posed. If they were trying to make the point that our choices are ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of things, if they wanted to show us that sometimes we just don't have a good choice, only the choice of the lesser evil, then they should have done that in a stand-alone game, and not dragged us all through five years and three games worth of meaningful choices, only to throw it in our faces at the very end.

[balmyrian]

aristaea wrote...

You make an interesting point with which I disagree, but as you admit, it doesn't change the fact that the ending was badly written, poorly executed, and generally unsatisfactory.

Plus, in a series that put so much emphasis on choices, it makes no sense to negate all those choices in the end for the sake of... I'm not even sure what. I really don't know what point the writers were trying to make at the end, because they didn't bother to answer any of the questions they posed. If they were trying to make the point that our choices are ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of things, if they wanted to show us that sometimes we just don't have a good choice, only the choice of the lesser evil, then they should have done that in a stand-alone game, and not dragged us all through five years and three games worth of meaningful choices, only to throw it in our faces at the very end.

Thank you. We can but speculate as to what motivated them in that direction ultimately. Probably a lot of parameters internal to the company context and work process. The leak forced them to change stuff late? Someone came in and said "**** this, LETS MAKE ART"? at which everyone cheered? Business exec said "It's more powerful if it resonates with some pompous hollywoodism?". Whatever. I think we will never know. While we might get some sort of future content to alleviate the problem a bit, all we have right now and for quite a while is the tragedy we've been going through, and whatever ways and rationales we can use to understand it and process it.

I also don't think that they really negated everything (our prior choices and so on), because some of the choices we had to make over the previous games were powerful and meaningful enough in their own right, as moral or ethical or ontological stands. But it's true that in more "technical" and "gaming" terms, they were strongly lampshaded, if not outright shadowed by the way the ending is put together.

So in that as well we're definitely on the same boat of pain.

[balmyrian]

I would like to bump this just once, as I think that a bit of reformatting and re-titling might have made it more palatable to people.

[calvinocious]

This is actually a really interesting response, and I probably would accept that you are 100% correct about the ending if there were some sort of real confirmation about what happens at the end. You're right, its a narrative failure through and through. As a result, I have accepted that the end sequence is an attempt at Reaper indoctrination, because otherwise the events shown have very little meaning to me.

I believed it was out of character for Shepard to simply take the Catalyst at its word (but again, your explanation of Shepard simply being a soldier trying to complete the mission at all costs is compelling). I found it immensely difficult to swallow the Catalyst's explanation without any detail about what the Catalyst is, where it came from, what its purpose is, etc. Is it an AI? Is it a higher being? On what basis does it claim that synthetic life will destroy organic life? These questions are fairly critical to understanding the meaning behind this odd choice presented to us.

From our perspective as players and from Shepard's perspective in-universe, the chaos explanation is simply unfathomable. The geth made peace with organics. Nearly every conflict we've seen in the series dealt with the diversity of the organic races, and even the entirety of ME3 involved uniting them for a common purpose. In the end, the cycle devised by the Catalyst only comes off as self-fulfilling: the synthetic Reapers are indeed destroying organic life. How can this be a solution?

[Syntros]

Thanks alot for your input!

The indoctrination theory aside, this is the first post which gives me an idea why the hell they came up with such stuff - expecially compared to the rest of the game. As you pointed out, it's still bad writing, but at least i can swallow i little bit of the the felling of being smacked in the face, by contradicting not just the story, but also the core element of the ME games - choice.

In the very situation after the Catalyst stoped talking i literally said "**** it" and choosed the "red"/"ego" ending. It's by the way quite interesting that this was indeed my reaction to incapacitation i just expirenced. I think all the anger and depression in the forum right now is just coming from there. All the empowerment and emotional involvement created by this sometimes amazingly good writen scenes - leading to a final taken out of your hands.

Hell, i was so shocked after my failor to resolve the geth/quarian conflict peacefully and the suicide of my LI, i had to replay it because i felt guilty (just to see Legion die, asking . . . you know). I was sad but still in a good way. Giving the other endings a try had the totaly contrary effect.

When i think about, unbelivable what a powerfull experience this "game" enabled. . .

[Slappy Ya Face]

I agree.Though the whole indoctronation theory still hold merit. I know your goal here is to point out why we didn't like what happened, and not to argue lore, however.

Modifié par Slappy Ya Face, 13 mars 2012 - 11:19 .

[Qutayba]

Yes, the Red Ending is the only one that feels vaguely rebellious to me - and, why, according to the indoctrination theory, it's the one that snaps you out of it.

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

Context is the largest problem with the ending yeah. There was no build up to warn the player.