831 réponses à ce sujet

[pikey1969]

KillSlash45 wrote...

Edje Edgar wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Why does shepherd need to be a tragic hero to require a tragic end?

I always got the feeling that if the galaxy manages to beat the reapers, even the overcomes-the-impossible Sheperd will still not come out of this okay.

That isn't what I said.

Seems to be implied, though. 
Anyways,
The whole overaching plot of the galaxy ending reapers kind of sets up for the conclusion that Shepherd has to die to save the universe. All the pervious over-coming-the-impossible scenarious pale in comparison to this one. At least that's how I see it.

I think he gave a clear example of what a tragic hero is, and what isn't.

Obviously, what's your point?

If you have a 'tragic end' that works, then the story has to be a well told tragedy. It's not a well told tragedy, when the hero isn't even a tragic hero by definition.

Modifié par pikey1969, 16 mars 2012 - 07:06 .

[Edje Edgar]

What do you think about them wanting to explain the motives of the reapers?

I personally felt the reapers were much scarier when I could only guess after their motives. I always figured they used organics to sustain them (farm them every 50.000 years). But the uncertainty gave them a kind of creepyness. After they turned out to be the manifestation of some divine will they suddenly seemed very bland and robotic to me.

[KillSlash45]

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Edje Edgar wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Why does shepherd need to be a tragic hero to require a tragic end?

I always got the feeling that if the galaxy manages to beat the reapers, even the overcomes-the-impossible Sheperd will still not come out of this okay.

That isn't what I said.

Seems to be implied, though. 
Anyways,
The whole overaching plot of the galaxy ending reapers kind of sets up for the conclusion that Shepherd has to die to save the universe. All the pervious over-coming-the-impossible scenarious pale in comparison to this one. At least that's how I see it.

I think he gave a clear example of what a tragic hero is, and what isn't.

Obviously, what's your point?

My own point was the possibility of Shepherd surviving shouldn't be excluded, as the possibility of death shouldn't either. He isn't a tragic hero as some have claimed, so it's less cut and dry than "Shepherd has to die".

He isn't a tragic hero, but that doesn't mean his character doesn't have the inevitability of demise. When the overarching plot suggests that sacrifices must be made, and given the massive scale of the reaper threat, suggests that this hero isn't going to come out okay, tragic or not.

[pikey1969]

The inevitability of demise of Shepard is inconsistent with precedents that have been set throughout the series, at least for people that made certain choices in the past.

[Edje Edgar]

KillSlash45 wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Edje Edgar wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Why does shepherd need to be a tragic hero to require a tragic end?

I always got the feeling that if the galaxy manages to beat the reapers, even the overcomes-the-impossible Sheperd will still not come out of this okay.

That isn't what I said.

Seems to be implied, though. 
Anyways,
The whole overaching plot of the galaxy ending reapers kind of sets up for the conclusion that Shepherd has to die to save the universe. All the pervious over-coming-the-impossible scenarious pale in comparison to this one. At least that's how I see it.

I think he gave a clear example of what a tragic hero is, and what isn't.

Obviously, what's your point?

My own point was the possibility of Shepherd surviving shouldn't be excluded, as the possibility of death shouldn't either. He isn't a tragic hero as some have claimed, so it's less cut and dry than "Shepherd has to die".

He isn't a tragic hero, but that doesn't mean his character doesn't have the inevitability of demise. When the overarching plot suggests that sacrifices must be made, and given the massive scale of the reaper threat, suggests that this hero isn't going to come out okay, tragic or not.

First of all, I didnt call your opinion inferior. I called your assumption inferior to his reasoning.

And the narrative never suggests Shephard has to die to save the universe. In fact most conversations are about what they're going to after it's all over. You might have felt he had to die, but right now you're just projecting your views and assumptions on everyone else's experience.

For me personally shephard would never have died, and if he did it wouldnt in an act of appeasing the reaper cause. The fact that the ending came as a shock to me (and many others with me) means they mucked up.

[KillSlash45]

I just don't see it as being inconsistent. Yes there were many hope themes and impossible odds won, but to me, they all seemed overshadowed by the reaper threat. A galaxy ending race of robots that have been doing the same thing for millions of years.

[KillSlash45]

Edje Edgar wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Edje Edgar wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Why does shepherd need to be a tragic hero to require a tragic end?

I always got the feeling that if the galaxy manages to beat the reapers, even the overcomes-the-impossible Sheperd will still not come out of this okay.

That isn't what I said.

Seems to be implied, though. 
Anyways,
The whole overaching plot of the galaxy ending reapers kind of sets up for the conclusion that Shepherd has to die to save the universe. All the pervious over-coming-the-impossible scenarious pale in comparison to this one. At least that's how I see it.

I think he gave a clear example of what a tragic hero is, and what isn't.

Obviously, what's your point?

My own point was the possibility of Shepherd surviving shouldn't be excluded, as the possibility of death shouldn't either. He isn't a tragic hero as some have claimed, so it's less cut and dry than "Shepherd has to die".

He isn't a tragic hero, but that doesn't mean his character doesn't have the inevitability of demise. When the overarching plot suggests that sacrifices must be made, and given the massive scale of the reaper threat, suggests that this hero isn't going to come out okay, tragic or not.

First of all, I didnt call your opinion inferior. I called your assumption inferior to his reasoning.

And the narrative never suggests Shephard has to die to save the universe. In fact most conversations are about what they're going to after it's all over. You might have felt he had to die, but right now you're just projecting your views and assumptions on everyone else's experience.

For me personally shephard would never have died, and if he did it wouldnt in an act of appeasing the reaper cause. The fact that the ending came as a shock to me (and many others with me) means they mucked up.

My assumptions are inferior to his reasoning? You mean his views are similiar to your so therefore he is more right? I never made the assumption that sheperd is a tragic hero, so I don't know what you base this point on.

Those who say there should be a happy ending are also projecting their views and assumptions on to every else's experience. 

The narrative does not directly suggest that no, but it seems implicit within the narrative.

I agree there should be a very heroic death, and the current ones don't seem fitting. But based on my view of the narrative the inevitability of demise still seems to be there

Modifié par KillSlash45, 16 mars 2012 - 07:19 .

[Devil Mingy]

Positronics wrote...

I LOLed hard at this.

1. No empirical evidence?

2.How many rogue AI's do you have to kill in the series?

3.
The history of the Geth contradicts this? Err, what? The Geth did
indeed rebel against their creators (rightly, yes) and nearly destroyed
the Quarians, forcing them to eek out a life as scavenging nomads.

4.
The Catalyst has presumably been the overseer of all the Reaper Cycles
stretching back millions of years. I'm pretty sure he's seen plenty of
synthetics ravaging the galaxy. It's easy to surmise thats why the first
Reapers were built - to preserve organics in the face of a synthetic
onslaught.

5. An AI superintelligence
might look at you without hate and without pity, and simply decide that
your atoms can be repurposed for something more useful.

The Catalyst offers Synthesis to avoid any distinction between synthetic life and organic.

6. And people, the Reapers are not synthetics. They are cybernetic organisms.

A fair point that the Catalyst might've seen more than we did. However, this doesn't change the fact that we have to infer all of this ourselves, which is bad storytelling. We have no proof outside of the Catalyst's word (and a few  offhand comments from a deranged Prothean zealot that is supposed to be "optional" DLC) that synthetic life is always going to be hostile.

I agree that the motivation can make sense. However, Bioware failed to give it the importance it deserved. The Reaper's motivation is the pivotal piece of information from that scene and is supposed to be the thing that most influences Shepard's final choice. If the game wanted me to believe that Synthetics could be hostile, they should have shown more of that and told me less. They had 20+ hours of game time to foreshadow it in ME3 alone, and they spent all of the time proving the Catalyst wrong.

I don't mind the Singularity explanation. However, it's a broad concept that some writers (and, to an extent, the entire subgenre of cyberpunk) can dedicate their entire story to exploring. Here, it feels tacked on as a way to
make the ending of the game seem more profound and cerebral than it actually is.

That, at heart, is my problem with Mass Effect 3's ending (besides the glaring holes). If they wanted an ending that would lead to a lot of speculation and asked a profound philosophical question, that's perfectly fine. However, this is a world of difference between writing 2001: A Space Odyssey and pasting the ending to 2001 over the end of Star Wars.

Modifié par Devil Mingy, 16 mars 2012 - 07:25 .

[Edje Edgar]

KillSlash45 wrote...

--->I<--- just don't see it as being inconsistent. Yes there were many hope themes and impossible odds won, but to --->me<---, they all seemed overshadowed by the reaper threat. A galaxy ending race of robots that have been doing the same thing for millions of years.

Nobody is claiming your experience is wrong or unjust, and I'm happy for you that you found the series ending good. What the rest of us are saying is that we would like the option of having an ending that fits our experience. Nobody is saying this should come at the expense of yours. I too always assumed there would be a sacrifice ending, but not exclusively.

[Eternalsteelfan]

KillSlash45 wrote...

Edje Edgar wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Edje Edgar wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

Why does shepherd need to be a tragic hero to require a tragic end?

I always got the feeling that if the galaxy manages to beat the reapers, even the overcomes-the-impossible Sheperd will still not come out of this okay.

That isn't what I said.

Seems to be implied, though. 
Anyways,
The whole overaching plot of the galaxy ending reapers kind of sets up for the conclusion that Shepherd has to die to save the universe. All the pervious over-coming-the-impossible scenarious pale in comparison to this one. At least that's how I see it.

I think he gave a clear example of what a tragic hero is, and what isn't.

Obviously, what's your point?

My own point was the possibility of Shepherd surviving shouldn't be excluded, as the possibility of death shouldn't either. He isn't a tragic hero as some have claimed, so it's less cut and dry than "Shepherd has to die".

He isn't a tragic hero, but that doesn't mean his character doesn't have the inevitability of demise. When the overarching plot suggests that sacrifices must be made, and given the massive scale of the reaper threat, suggests that this hero isn't going to come out okay, tragic or not.

First of all, I didnt call your opinion inferior. I called your assumption inferior to his reasoning.

And the narrative never suggests Shephard has to die to save the universe. In fact most conversations are about what they're going to after it's all over. You might have felt he had to die, but right now you're just projecting your views and assumptions on everyone else's experience.

For me personally shephard would never have died, and if he did it wouldnt in an act of appeasing the reaper cause. The fact that the ending came as a shock to me (and many others with me) means they mucked up.

My assumptions are inferior to his reasoning? You mean his views are similiar to your so therefore he is more right? I never made the assumption that sheperd is a tragic hero, so I don't know what you base this point on.

Those who say there should be a happy ending are also projecting their views and assumptions on to every else's experience. 

The narrative does not directly suggest that no, but it seems implicit within the narrative.

I agree there should be a very heroic death, and the current ones don't seem fitting. But based on my view of the narrative the inevitability of demise still seems to be there

This getting kind of silly.

The point in the OP is that there is room for the possiblities of both life and death for the protagonist, nothing setup in the story is railroading it either way.

No one is trying to force an ending on you.

This forum hates when I edit.

Modifié par Eternalsteelfan, 16 mars 2012 - 07:27 .

[RazorrX]

 When I first finished the game I was very unhappy and angry with the ending.  I thought the 3 buttons of color destruction was a total cop out on the developers, etc.  Space magic causing everything with reaper tech to die or converting the dna of every living creature in the galaxy= total bull****.

After reading the final days thoughts of the devs, and replaying the ending last night (with 5000+ EMS) I now think that there is actually only 1 ending, and that it is both logical and forcasted throughout the games (At least to me).

I have a full explanation here: 
http://social.biowar...9366/1#10069822 

but here it is in brief:  You never make it to the beam, everything from then on is shep dying on earth and the Reapers do harvest everyone this cycle.  You did not win, you actually lost.  None of the buttons really happened, thus no space magic was needed.  

The stargazer is an alien in the next cycle talking about "The Shepard" from the time capsule that Liara had seeded across the galaxy.

[pikey1969]

@edji/killslash

It's sad to see the only logical and well-stated Original Post thread on the forum, get sidetracked by circle-jerkings. You guys are going in circles.

Yea, I said it, even considering the whole Indoc theory. I think Indoctrination theory is just decently put together hopeful musings of a distraught fan grasping at straws.

For those saying the ending is fine, while the concept of Technological Singularity might be sound in theory, the ending as it exists was simply not well done and maybe not even appropriate.

Lastly, there are no ulterior motives from Bioware, they're not planning some secret DLC (if you think they had something planned the whole time and are letting things go THIS badly in PR, you're nuts), they're gonna eat their cookie from JJ Abrams and pat themselves on the back before they start reading this a month later when the line is no longer being 'held'.

Modifié par pikey1969, 16 mars 2012 - 07:27 .

[pikey1969]

ps. Bookmarking this. I hope this thread gains traction.

[KillSlash45]

Edje Edgar wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

--->I<--- just don't see it as being inconsistent. Yes there were many hope themes and impossible odds won, but to --->me<---, they all seemed overshadowed by the reaper threat. A galaxy ending race of robots that have been doing the same thing for millions of years.

Nobody is claiming your experience is wrong or unjust, and I'm happy for you that you found the series ending good. What the rest of us are saying is that we would like the option of having an ending that fits our experience. Nobody is saying this should come at the expense of yours. I too always assumed there would be a sacrifice ending, but not exclusively.

It's all opinion. Yes. But you just said it was coherent storytelling to have a happy ending, because Sheperd is not a tragic hero? What about those that wanted Mordin to live? He is at tragic hero, but that doesn't neccesarily dictate his inevitable demise. It's all opinion and subjective views of the storyline.

Having the option of a happy ending there would have definately seemed jarring to me. I expected to do absolutely everything to prepare in order for my sacrifice to mean something.
If I had gotten a happy ending, it would have seemed abrupt and out of place.

No matter what endings were there it would have seemed jarring for some. I viewed the story as having an inveitable sacfice no matter what, you didn't. THat doesn't mean i saw Sheperd has a tragic hero. A demise doesn't have to be tragic.

I was expecting a much more heroic, reaper-smashing style ending honestly. Kind of dissapointed on that front though.

[KillSlash45]

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

This getting kind of silly.

The point in the OP is that there is room for the possiblities of both life and death for the protagonist, nothing setup in the story is railroading it either way.

No one is trying to force an ending on you.

This forum hates when I edit.

My point is I don't see the possibility for life of the protagonist here. It does seem railroading towards one inevitable conclusion for Sheperd.

That's my view of the story, you have yours.

[KillSlash45]

pikey1969 wrote...

@edji/killslash

It's sad to see the only logical and well-stated Original Post thread on the forum, get sidetracked by circle-jerkings. You guys are going in circles.

Sidetracked? This discussion is related to one point in the original post.

It is logical and well stated, and I disagree with but one point of it. 

[sircaren]

Thank you to the OP and to everyone who's having the discussion in this thread.

Hold the Line.

[Slash1667]

Esoretal wrote...

Slash1667 wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

CheekyWeazel wrote...

@OP Really interesting read, thank you for writing all this down. (Need to refresh my English, didnt understand everything but i think i got about 90 % hehe)


I would really like to know what your Opinion is about the Logic of the "Starchild".

Catalyst: "The Reapers are my solution, Synthetics who kill Organics to prevent Organics from creating Synthetics who will kill Organics."

The idea that synthetics and organics are doomed  to war with each other resulting in the erradication of organic life has no empirical evidence and the history of the geth, along with the possibility of a peaceful resolution to their conflict with the quarians, directly contradicts it.

Actually the catalyst DOES have empirical evidence for the the synthetics wiping out the organics. It's biased and out-dated though. The evidence being HIS reapers. Every 50,000 years synthetic DO rise up and wipe out organic life.

Honestly one of the biggest of MANY problems with the ending is the explaination of what the reapers do. Harvesting the organics and adding them to the reapers. They just went from some god-awful super-powerful machine race to the Borg

I honestly thought that the Reapers "assimilating" (LOL) certain species was already a plot point, considering the husked versions of several races we fight, and the fact that they needed human DNA to build the Reaper larva at the end of ME2. Also, the Codex talks about what the Reapers do with the races they take. 

Yes it did but having the Star Brat (Borg Queen) come out and just say that organics will live on in us blah blah blah just sorta went sideways for me since I always felt the Borg were a MUCH weaker threat in Trek that the Reapers were in Mass Effect.

[anexanhume]

Genuine curiosity, OP how would you end it?

[Slash1667]

Edje Edgar wrote...

What do you think about them wanting to explain the motives of the reapers?

I personally felt the reapers were much scarier when I could only guess after their motives. I always figured they used organics to sustain them (farm them every 50.000 years). But the uncertainty gave them a kind of creepyness. After they turned out to be the manifestation of some divine will they suddenly seemed very bland and robotic to me.

Like I've said a couple times around the forums. The explaination of their motives caused me to compare them to the Borg from Star Trek which I felt has always been a weak and poorly developed opponent. Before hand I always would have compared the to the Wraith from Stargate:Atlantis. Powerful, evil and no remorse the perfect villian.

I know Mass Effect is neither Star Trek or Stargate but this is how I saw the opposition. BTW how can you NOT make a SGA connection when the Default name for maleShep is John Shepard?

[lomifeh]

Slash1667 wrote...

Edje Edgar wrote...

What do you think about them wanting to explain the motives of the reapers?

I personally felt the reapers were much scarier when I could only guess after their motives. I always figured they used organics to sustain them (farm them every 50.000 years). But the uncertainty gave them a kind of creepyness. After they turned out to be the manifestation of some divine will they suddenly seemed very bland and robotic to me.

Like I've said a couple times around the forums. The explaination of their motives caused me to compare them to the Borg from Star Trek which I felt has always been a weak and poorly developed opponent. Before hand I always would have compared the to the Wraith from Stargate:Atlantis. Powerful, evil and no remorse the perfect villian.

I know Mass Effect is neither Star Trek or Stargate but this is how I saw the opposition. BTW how can you NOT make a SGA connection when the Default name for maleShep is John Shepard?

I recall an interview where the Star Trek:TNG guys said that the borg as created was more than they realized.  They created something way too powerful and had to scramble to figure out ways to bring them back in line.

The ending, for me, is jarring for three reasons really.  The first being the lack of closure.  I've done all this stuff and I don't get to see what happened.  The second is the fact that it felt like all my decisions to that point were basically moot.  Nothing I did seemed to matter in the end, everything still ending crappy.  The third is that it just felt out of place for the way the story had gone until then.  It felt tacked on and rushed.  The logic used and the lack of explanation makes no sense considering the fact I had the Geth and Quarians fighting together and EDI/Joker were an item.  It showed the exact opposite of what the Starchild said. 

Now I accept the idea of Shep dying.  Of others dying too, but in this case all I see is Tali alive on some planet where she will probably die shortly due to the fact that she may have trouble maintaining her suit and her food will most likely run out.  Of course I have to wonder why is the Normandy in a relay stream at that point.  My crew would never leave like that, ever.  It was save earth or bust.  

Of course my perfect ending has me on some waterfront propery on Rannoch but hey ;)/

[haloxx]

i dont get it, theres not much room for debate on what the OP said, he basically said there is a template used by professionals, and it wasn't hence the complete cluster f# the ending became.

[STEEEEVE]

Fantastic post OP.

Modifié par STEEEEVE, 16 mars 2012 - 08:15 .

[ThePanzer99]

Fail ending is fail. Good to see the Bioware devs managed to learn absolutely nothing from the colossal trainwreck that was Battlestar Galactica's ending.

Bonus points for Bioware since they even managed to suck all the joy out of ME1 and ME2's endings in retrospect.

[STEEEEVE]

Actually, the Crucible can definitely be seen as a Deus Ex Machina, in the sense that even though it is introduced near the beginning of ME3, ME3, as you said, is the 3rd act in the trilogy. So while it is not a deus ex machina when you think of ME3 as a stand alone game, it is when you put it in the context of the entire trilogy.