176 réponses à ce sujet

[Reptilian Rob]

humes spork wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

classic circular logic, most literature that deals with "malform of existence" is written in parellel to the character.

ME3 only has a singular use of that motif, so it spins in circles and goes nowhere. 

Well, his point is it was done on purpose reinforce the fact the Reapers are so damn powerful they can do whatever they want. The characterization of a deific figure that can only actualize itself as for-others opposed to in-itself gave him a philosophical hard-on you could see from orbit, on the other hand.

The Reapers are not powerful at all (IE Saren husk in ME1), they can be destroyed and they do have faulty logic which the starchild provides ample evidence for. The way they were written (Lovecraftian eldar gods) suggests the illusion of godhood, rather than fact. Hell, the fact that a giant deus ex machina device that can kill their entire race is proof of that (no matter how faulty the logic is behind said device.)

The themes you stated would work well, if that was the intention throughout the entire ME series. However, the main theme has always been "The unknowable threat" and "Unification under a veil of terror."

[humes spork]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

The Reapers are not powerful at all (IE Saren husk in ME1), they can be destroyed and they do have faulty logic which the starchild provides ample evidence for. The way they were written (Lovecraftian eldar gods) suggests the illusion of godhood, rather than fact. Hell, the fact that a giant deus ex machina device that can kill their entire race is proof of that (no matter how faulty the logic is behind said device.)

The themes you stated would work well, if that was the intention throughout the entire ME series. However, the main theme has always been "The unknowable threat" and "Unification under a veil of terror."

The problem is the Reapers' characterization has been somewhat bipolar and self-contradictory from the beginning. Sovereign was characterized as a Lovecraftian horror, yet it was a human trait (hubris) by which it was undone. Harbinger suffered the same. Hell, I'd even argue the fact engaging Reapers in active dialogue alone undermines that characterization. I completely agree it's a matter of illusion of godhood versus actual godhood, in light of all that.  You have to rule out unknowable and replace it with unknown in terms of what threat the Reapers pose.

Beyond that, the sheer disparity in power between Reapers and the organics is sufficient to maintain the theme of unification under a veil of terror. Remember, as was narrated in ME1 it wasn't Shepard or the Fifth Fleet who killed Sovereign alone -- Sovereign was hoisted by its own petard when it assumed control over Saren's corpse, and that was defeated which incapacitated Sovereign and allowed the fleet to destroy it. Even accounting for all the in-universe developments and writing which laid the Reaper threat low, they still pose a significant enough threat galactic unification is a necessity. Reapers' motivations alone have little impact on that, and I'd even argue the concept they're doing it for no greater purpose ultimately serves that veil of terror.

Modifié par humes spork, 28 mars 2012 - 09:49 .

[Reptilian Rob]

humes spork wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

The Reapers are not powerful at all (IE Saren husk in ME1), they can be destroyed and they do have faulty logic which the starchild provides ample evidence for. The way they were written (Lovecraftian eldar gods) suggests the illusion of godhood, rather than fact. Hell, the fact that a giant deus ex machina device that can kill their entire race is proof of that (no matter how faulty the logic is behind said device.)

The themes you stated would work well, if that was the intention throughout the entire ME series. However, the main theme has always been "The unknowable threat" and "Unification under a veil of terror."

The problem is the Reapers' characterization has been somewhat bipolar and self-contradictory from the beginning. Sovereign was characterized as a Lovecraftian horror, yet it was a human trait (hubris) by which it was undone. Harbinger suffered the same. Hell, I'd even argue the fact engaging Reapers in active dialogue alone undermines that characterization. I completely agree it's a matter of illusion of godhood versus actual godhood, in light of all that.  You have to rule out unknowable and replace it with unknown in terms of what threat the Reapers pose.

Beyond that, the sheer disparity in power between Reapers and the organics is sufficient to maintain the theme of unification under a veil of terror. Reapers' motivations alone have little impact on that, and I'd even argue the concept they're doing it for no greater purpose ultimately serves that veil of terror.

We could go back and forth with this, and come out with the same conclusion, sadly.

It's just a poor ending that shades everything else with uncertainty. It's one of the worst types of endings you can accomplish, one that taints the entire work. When all said and done, the Reapers are meanigless. They have no motive, no purpose and no form of advancement. They are tools and nothing more, to be used by an illogical mechanism of story.

[bahamutomega]

there's the literature major, and there's an editor. he's the first. my wife's an english major. you would think she could spell. well... she can't spell for crap. that's what editors are for.

brilliant article. thank you for sharing.

[humes spork]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

It's just a poor ending that shades everything else with uncertainty. It's one of the worst types of endings you can accomplish, one that taints the entire work. When all said and done, the Reapers are meanigless. They have no motive, no purpose and no form of advancement. They are tools and nothing more, to be used by an illogical mechanism of story.

Oh, I'm not disagreeing it's a very poorly-written and -executed ending. I'm just arguing the Catalyst, its motivations and by extension the Reapers', is not the source of that lack of narrative quality.

[Xandurpein]

Thanks for posting OP. Good read.

Edit: I think that it's worth noting that so far there has been no one trying to defend or explain the ending from the perspective of a literature student.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 28 mars 2012 - 10:15 .

[Bone3ater]

Very good read. Gonna save that with all the other articles and spam BioWare with them if april fails to deliver properly and reasonable.

Artistic integrity my arse. As if the ending made any sense.

Modifié par Bone3ater, 28 mars 2012 - 10:16 .

[bahamutomega]

reading Reptilian Rob's comment... reminded me of something else.

in the beginning of Mass Effect 3, Shepard says "they're smarter than us, more advanced than us. they don't fear us"

yet as Shepard is running out of the Collector base, Harbinger says "you have earned the attention of those infinitely your better."

doesn't the ME2 quote actually imply fear, hesitation and an attempt to intimidate? i say this thinking about an individual insect or some other insignificant pest. do we threaten to crush them before we actually crush them? no, of course not. you crush them without a second thought. if they prove to be more annoying, you get something stronger. for something that is "infinitely more powerful" than me, i would expect that they would never even bother speaking with me.

their attempts to intimidate me, to persuade me of my inevitable defeat seems more an act of desperation. Harbinger knows we are a threat: we defeated Sovereign, we thwarted its plot with the Collectors. Harbinger fears us because it knows that, despite our apparent inferiority, we have accomplished things no other individual, in all of the other cycles has ever accomplished (i'm not counting the derelict Reaper - that was a one-shot deal that took an entire planet).

yes, someone can argue that Harbinger is annoyed. if a pest proves to be annoying, i just find something bigger to smack it with. for a culture at least 37 million years old, they seem to be lacking in the "bigger stick" department.

[Klijpope]

"Then the endings hit me, so impersonalized and utterly devoid of what made Mass Effect enthralling and memorizing. In a mere ten minutes the foundation of the entire franchise was torn asunder and destroyed. The replay value was ruined, and the choices that I spent five years cultivating meant nothing. And I’m here to explain why; you never ever do what Bioware did to its fans."

This is telling. It certainly is overstating the issue - replay value being 'ruined' is totally subjective. In fact, some folk could do with replaying the game, as I am, as you would find that there is an awful lot of foreshadowing throughout the game that hints at the ending.

For example, after Udina's coup attempt, there is a long chat with Hackett and Anderson (the one where Anderson breathes: "Kaaaiiiiii Leeeennnnngggggg") which includes the discussion about the Crucible, that it has enough energy to destroy the Reapers, but they've no idea how to distribute it, and no idea how to channel that energy so it doesn't destroy everyone.

Your comparisons with Heinlein and Niven are not totally equivalent either. Heinlein and Niven decided to, off their own back, amend their works so that fans could get more out of it. This is quite a bit different from what has been going on here.

Angry fans did not camp on Heinlein's lawn with protests and placards, sometimes hurling abuse, demanding that he change his work to their satisfaction, or use a charity to get publicity for their protest. This is a totally different order of criticism.

I would also say that your document, while well argued and knowledgable, is not exactly a dispassionate literary critique - it is wholly subjective and coloured by all the other emotions engendered by the end of ME.

For the record, I was disappointed too (with the lack of clarity and closure). However, the end is not Deus Ex Machina, really, and there's been plenty of posts and articles demonstrating that. I would also say that the sense of grief that people are obviously feeling is not entirely about how 'bad' the endings were - it is also genuine grief that this story is over, for good. Even if the ending was fantastic, this grief would still exist.

Like I say, I was also disappointed and confused, but playing the game again, I am seeing the clues presented to me. However, while I would enjoy an expanded ending, I am not going to demand that CH and MW totally change their narrative based on my whims. That is increasingly the tone of much of the protest posts (not your doc), along with some rather nasty insinuations about the devs being routinely bandied about.

I think those genuinely upset with the ending but who are not stooping to abusive behaviour need to start calling the others out, as these fellow travellers are tainting your argument with unnecessary unpleasantness.

[Klijpope]

Bone3ater wrote...

Very good read. Gonna save that with all the other articles and spam BioWare with them if april fails to deliver properly and reasonable.

Artistic integrity my arse. As if the ending made any sense.

Please define "properly and reasonable". Unless you define your criteria for satisfaction, no one could possible attain it. 

[Resheph_606]

I enjoyed reading this.
The document has some formating issues but I approve of this paper.

[Bone3ater]

Klijpope wrote...

Bone3ater wrote...

Very good read. Gonna save that with all the other articles and spam BioWare with them if april fails to deliver properly and reasonable.

Artistic integrity my arse. As if the ending made any sense.

Please define "properly and reasonable". Unless you define your criteria for satisfaction, no one could possible attain it. 

In a way that makes sense of course, like every other choice, ending, explanation of technical advancement (i.e. weapons, ships, space travel, synthetics) and/or biotic powers and character in the ME universe regardless of still being science fiction, instead of having the luxury to not explain anything because of space magic. Because that's what it is. If I want magic, I'll play DA again.

You've been here the past 2 weeks I presume, so I think you know very well what people expected and exactly why a lot of us are dissatisfied, so I think I don't have to make this post unnecessarily longer and just refer you to the respective forum threads and the OP's article. Or other articles and videos, if you want, I can post them here.

If this is an attempt to provoke or discredit me despite knowing what people are upset about, I don't see the reason why (except trolling) and urge you to refrain from it.

[RiouHotaru]

Oh goodie, argument from authority.

Nice opinion piece though.

[Klijpope]

Bone3ater wrote...

Klijpope wrote...

Bone3ater wrote...

Very good read. Gonna save that with all the other articles and spam BioWare with them if april fails to deliver properly and reasonable.

Artistic integrity my arse. As if the ending made any sense.

Please define "properly and reasonable". Unless you define your criteria for satisfaction, no one could possible attain it. 

In a way that makes sense of course, like every other choice, ending, explanation of technical advancement (i.e. weapons, ships, space travel, synthetics) and/or biotic powers and character in the ME universe regardless of still being science fiction, instead of having the luxury to not explain anything because of space magic. Because that's what it is. If I want magic, I'll play DA again.

You've been here the past 2 weeks I presume, so I think you know very well what people expected and exactly why a lot of us are dissatisfied, so I think I don't have to make this post unnecessarily longer and just refer you to the respective forum threads and the OP's article. Or other articles and videos, if you want, I can post them here.

If this is an attempt to provoke or discredit me despite knowing what people are upset about, I don't see the reason why (except trolling) and urge you to refrain from it.

There are actually many and varied reasons why people might be dissatisfied with the ending. Yes, I have been here way more than the last 2 weeks, and from what I can see, whatever BioWare does it is only going to "satisfy" a minority of fans.

Some people want happy endings; some people don't. Some people want them to get rid of the Catalyst and rewrite half the game; some people just want a bit more clarity. Some people want the "indoctrination theory" to be true; some people really do not. There is no unified 'demand' - ergo, it is impossible for BioWare to 'please' more than a minority.

If you are not "satisfied", whatever that means, what will you "do" next?

[die-yng]

Good read and it's always nice to hear that even academics working in the field see that the ending doesn't work.

You can see where the ending fails so easily, that it still amazes me that the writers actually thought this was a good ending (same goes for the people defending the ending, while simply ignoring it's basic faults).

Well, I guess all we can do is wait until BW makes their announcement and take it from there.

[Reptilian Rob]

bahamutomega wrote...

there's the literature major, and there's an editor. he's the first. my wife's an english major. you would think she could spell. well... she can't spell for crap. that's what editors are for.

brilliant article. thank you for sharing.

Yep! I have people edit my stuff for me because it tends to be full of errors. haha

And sweet, English major FTW!

[Reptilian Rob]

humes spork wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

It's just a poor ending that shades everything else with uncertainty. It's one of the worst types of endings you can accomplish, one that taints the entire work. When all said and done, the Reapers are meanigless. They have no motive, no purpose and no form of advancement. They are tools and nothing more, to be used by an illogical mechanism of story.

Oh, I'm not disagreeing it's a very poorly-written and -executed ending. I'm just arguing the Catalyst, its motivations and by extension the Reapers', is not the source of that lack of narrative quality.

Oh, I know. 

But it's just a bad theme to throw in at the VERY LAST minute. 

[moater boat]

Very well put together. Thanks for sharing.

[humes spork]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Oh, I know. 

But it's just a bad theme to throw in at the VERY LAST minute. 

Indeed, but I honestly feel the core issue is the writers felt compelled to retain and reconcile the Lovecraftian themes with a traditional space opera throughout the trilogy. The Lovecraftian themes were an ingenious way to introduce the Reapers and establish their characterization, the threat they pose, and the trilogy's dramatic question, but keeping that in the forefront was dooming ME3 to narrative failure, at least in my opinion.

All of the logic and philosophical cogency in the known universe won't save an attempt to combine genres that are defined by and demand complete opposites in theme and plot resolution, without narrative compromise.

[rudenotginger]

Well done, thank you for sharing. I didn't know of the "torch and run" concept, and if that's what they did... Well, that makes me so very sad.

[Reptilian Rob]

humes spork wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Oh, I know. 

But it's just a bad theme to throw in at the VERY LAST minute. 

Indeed, but I honestly feel the core issue is the writers felt compelled to retain and reconcile the Lovecraftian themes with a traditional space opera throughout the trilogy. The Lovecraftian themes were an ingenious way to introduce the Reapers and establish their characterization, the threat they pose, and the trilogy's dramatic question, but keeping that in the forefront was dooming ME3 to narrative failure, at least in my opinion.

All of the logic and philosophical cogency in the known universe won't save an attempt to combine genres that are defined by and demand complete opposites in theme and plot resolution, without narrative compromise.

I think the Lovecraftian elements were lost in translation near the end of development. It had a lot of potential as a theme, and leaving the Reapers as the great unknown would have been a very high note. 

I wish they would have left it that way...

[Kushan101]

Always think Rob brings good things to a thread, this was no exception.

Was reassured by your tutor/professor's take on the ending too. Kudos to the guy/gal for spending three hours of his time to hear you out.

[Reptilian Rob]

Kushan101 wrote...

Always think Rob brings good things to a thread, this was no exception.

Was reassured by your tutor/professor's take on the ending too. Kudos to the guy/gal for spending three hours of his time to hear you out.

Oh yeah! He's a real awesome friend of mine, and he really liked the ME series as a whole up until I told him about the end. haha

[VigilancePress]

Putting my publisher's hat on for this one. I think what you need to do with this paper is re-write it as an essay designed to convince your audience of a point. Pick a thesis, introduce it in the first paragraph, and return to it in the final paragraph, and draw an arc through different arguments along the way.

1) Always clean up your grammar and spelling. It takes a little effort, but it makes your work sound more professional. It's nice that you're getting help from the forums, but be careful your work doesn't lose its "voice" by other editors stepping in.

2) Remove the comparisons to The Sopranos, Star Wars, and other properties. Your opinions on those franchises do not necessarily reflect an objective view on their quality. While I may agree with you on the one, I may not also agree on the other. By presenting these comparisons, you divide your readers (as seen earlier in this thread) as people begin to argue against your point. Instead, find factual things from within the source material to pick apart. Show why certain aspects of ME3 are objectively broken (several videos have done this), and then show the audience's reaction to them.

Another reason to avoid these comparisons is that even if I were to agree with them, they do not offer compelling evidence of "torching the franchise" because (with Star Wars at least) the franchise is very active still. There's a weekly animated series, an MMO (created by BioWare!), comic books, novels, and more constantly being published. It's a very weak example of something not to emulate.

3) On the other hand, your remarks about the Heinlein book are interesting and very relevant. Add a source (you may cite it in context) for that, and you can then compare it to your analysis of what you think is wrong with ME3, and what should be done. Personally, I think this is the most compelling part of your argument because it is territory I haven't seen explored before on this topic, and is therefore fresh and has the most potential to convince an audience.

4) Listing your professor as "My Professor" is not a very strong source. I know several professors, of different ages and different backgrounds. If you want to use your professor as a cited source, you need to give him some authority by showing why his opinion is to be trusted. It's a lot like when you bring a witness onto the witness stand in a trial. Before the witness can give testimony, the lawyer presenting the witness is going to explain to the court why that witness's testimony is relevant and trustworthy.

In this case, you need to explain what the professor's specialty is (is he a History professor? A literature professor?), and how long he has been teaching in the field. You should also give us a direct quotation from him, rather than interpret his response yourself. If you can't do these things, simply don't use him as a voice of authority.

Overall, a good start!

[Reptilian Rob]

VigilancePress wrote...

Putting my publisher's hat on for this one. I think what you need to do with this paper is re-write it as an essay designed to convince your audience of a point. Pick a thesis, introduce it in the first paragraph, and return to it in the final paragraph, and draw an arc through different arguments along the way.

1) Always clean up your grammar and spelling. It takes a little effort, but it makes your work sound more professional. It's nice that you're getting help from the forums, but be careful your work doesn't lose its "voice" by other editors stepping in.

2) Remove the comparisons to The Sopranos, Star Wars, and other properties. Your opinions on those franchises do not necessarily reflect an objective view on their quality. While I may agree with you on the one, I may not also agree on the other. By presenting these comparisons, you divide your readers (as seen earlier in this thread) as people begin to argue against your point. Instead, find factual things from within the source material to pick apart. Show why certain aspects of ME3 are objectively broken (several videos have done this), and then show the audience's reaction to them.

Another reason to avoid these comparisons is that even if I were to agree with them, they do not offer compelling evidence of "torching the franchise" because (with Star Wars at least) the franchise is very active still. There's a weekly animated series, an MMO (created by BioWare!), comic books, novels, and more constantly being published. It's a very weak example of something not to emulate.

3) On the other hand, your remarks about the Heinlein book are interesting and very relevant. Add a source (you may cite it in context) for that, and you can then compare it to your analysis of what you think is wrong with ME3, and what should be done. Personally, I think this is the most compelling part of your argument because it is territory I haven't seen explored before on this topic, and is therefore fresh and has the most potential to convince an audience.

4) Listing your professor as "My Professor" is not a very strong source. I know several professors, of different ages and different backgrounds. If you want to use your professor as a cited source, you need to give him some authority by showing why his opinion is to be trusted. It's a lot like when you bring a witness onto the witness stand in a trial. Before the witness can give testimony, the lawyer presenting the witness is going to explain to the court why that witness's testimony is relevant and trustworthy.

In this case, you need to explain what the professor's specialty is (is he a History professor? A literature professor?), and how long he has been teaching in the field. You should also give us a direct quotation from him, rather than interpret his response yourself. If you can't do these things, simply don't use him as a voice of authority.

Overall, a good start!

This wasn't meant to be a stright shot published work, nor was it supposed to be a sourced peice. I really just wanted to write a barebones breakdown, something that would translate well into the forum.

I think the professor source is very relevant, considering his work on several operatic peices and his editing work. The grammar and spelling are fubar, I will agree. But then again I usually have people edit my work for me (yeah I know, shame on me. haha,) plus I really didn't think it would be an issue on a forum.

But thanks a lot for the feedback! I really do appreciate it and I will start work on the suggestions as soon as I can!