649 réponses à ce sujet

[iamthedave3]

The Razman wrote...

Those aren't negative character flaws that Stark is displaying though, which is necessary for an Aristotelean vision of tragedy. Being noble and having morals isn't a character flaw. By those rules, I could just as easily say that Shepard's character flaw of not knowing when to back down and regroup and just stubbornly charging forever onwards is what got him killed.

You could say that... but you'd be wrong, because it's not what gets him killed. It's why Shepherd wins, in fact. This could have been shown to be a character flaw, but Bioware consistently shine a positive light on Shepherd's actions, paragon or renegade (no matter how questionable some of the renegade ones are). And don't get me wrong I wish they had, because some times the 'renegade' path looks suspiciously like 'the path of obvious douchebaggery', but Bioware didn't do that. The closest they came was with the Arrival DLC.

Though if you want to try and make the argument that you propose there, go ahead. But it needs to be a lot more complex than a single sentence.

If Shepherd had not charged stubbornly forever onwards the entire galaxy would have been harvested. If Ned Stark had been more flexible he not only could have kept his head but he could have unseated the Lannisters, protected the legacy of his friend Robert and prevented the fall of his entire House. Again, this is lampshaded by multiple characters in the ASOIF series. Martin all but steps out of the page and informs the reader that Ned Stark's inflexibility was his heroic flaw.

In a vacuum, being honourable and moral is a positive trait. But ASOIF operates partially as a study on those ideas. Jorah Mormont, for example, and later Jaime Lannister constantly explore the 'darker' side of that positive trait. So inside the scope of the series, Ned's honour is presented as both a virtue and a vice. His sense of morality - and most directly his refusal to compromise - is what destroys him and brings untold misery down on his family.

He does of course compromise after Varys' persuasion, but he was finished long before that, and his downfall was all his own doing.

Martin frequently does this with honourable characters. Inside the world of A Game of Thrones genuine honour is invariably presented (so far at least) as a weight around the neck that drags people down. Honestly I find it depressing and wish he would realize we all got the message three books ago.

Observe Brienne of Tarth for a parallel arc, or Robb Stark for an even closer parallel. There are multiple side characters and minor occasions where this theme continues, too.

And again, Martin consistently makes someone's postive qualities also the qualities which drag them down. Dany suffers this multiple times, it's just she happens to survive the fallout and usually come out stronger than before as opposed to being destroyed (which would have resulted in a genuine tragic end for her; the end of the original game of thrones is an obvious averted tragedy). Tyrion Lannister is the poster dwarf for it, in that he is punished for every spark of humanity he shows and rewarded only when he acts like the evil bastard the world insists he is.

The Razman wrote...Why, in your mind, are the concepts of "heroic sacrifice" and our modern sense of tragedy mutually exclusive? William Wallace's death in Braveheart is tragic, but also a heroic sacrifice. Your whole argument seems to be based on the two invalidating each other, which is a little bit strange considering there's plenty of stories where the two concepts overlap?

You don't need to know this in order to tell me what your definition of 'bittersweet' and 'heroic sacrifice' are, or to explain why you think Bioware were attempting to make a tragic ending despite their comments to the contrary and their explicit actions to the contrary. I see no need to answer your question until you answer mine. Your entire argument is invalidated unless you can demonstrate that the ending is at least intended to be a tragedy.

Or have you rolled back now to saying that only Shepherd and Anderson's deaths are tragic and the rest is not?

The Razman wrote...You must surely know it by reputation alone, though? It's one of the great modern tragedies of the modern cinematic era.

Knowing it by reputation doesn't qualify me to make any sort of comment on it though, does it? 

The Razman wrote...Really, from this and what came after it, you're arguing the case for classical tragedy being the only correct way of using the term "tragedy". And that's an ok case to make ... but even you admit that there are tragic elements in Mass Effect 3's ending, and it not being a classical version of a tragedy doesn't mean the original points regarding the effects on the player when there's an "off-switch" involved are invalidated by the argument you're making here.

I think it's more that I just don't believe that our concept of tragedy has changed as much as you say. I've seemingly studied very similar things to you from various 'education' oriented comments we've let slip during the last few pages, and I see identical narrative constructions to those in Shakespeare in literature, in theatre, in film, and in videogames (which are the 'new' artform of our generation, though I fear I'll be long dead before it's been mastered and truly explored).

I see the same narrative structures used consistently. I agree in part that there are new elements, but the narrative understructure of tragedy remains the same. Partly why I'm not convinced is that you frequently pick bad examples. The Ned Stark one may have been your worst yet. Braveheart I have not watched, same as Titanic, so I can't argue, refute, or agree with it. All I can say is that I've heard mixed things about the movie and at the time everyone I knew who watched it said it was awful, so I didn't. There's always something else to watch, and so I never got round to it, either. Braveheart, that is, not Titanic. I didn't watch big T for the entirely simplistic reason that I never had the motivation. Back then - if I remember correctly - I was watching a lot of samurai movies of the good, high brow artsy type... and a lot of badly dubbed wuxia.

I may be wrong, but I think I have more of a literary background and you more of a film one. If so that'd be rather appropriate given that Videogames are sort of the null zone where the two meet and become some mutated hybrid that everyone looks at queerly and don't know what to do with.

Note, I'm not saying that you're just wrong. I have a different take on modern definitions of tragedy than you seem to, drawn I suspect from similar sources and derived from the usual collection of essays, critics and studies that form the backbone of any education these days, and reinforced by experience with the art forms in question. To me, the word 'tragedy' is mis-used constantly by the papers, by the news, and so it ends up in common usage, even diluted, to where I see people refer to almost any death as 'tragic'.

So where's the stopping point in an artistic work? When is a death not tragic?

The term needs to have some sort of defined meaning, and it needs to be better than 'it made me sad'. I'm not saying that's you, by the way. But I would like to hear where you think the divide is.

Modifié par iamthedave3, 15 mai 2012 - 12:44 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Completely forgetting the concepts of Artistic Integrity or good storytelling, if they had made multiple endings and made it REQUIRED to have played all three games and done a FLAWLESS playthrough of all of them to get a "happy ending" then it would have been the smartest business move EA/Bioware could have done.

People who just played ME2 or ME3 would see how things in their ending weren't ideal, but still been satisfied with a somewhat cohesive ending (which we didn't get with ME3 - whether you liked the ending or not, it is open to interpretation of what happened to the nth degree, which may be artistic and satisfying for some, but cohesive to no one, no matter what your tastes are). But, if these same players hear about a perfect ending being possible with choices made throughout all three games, then BAM! You've got more sales of older products flying off the shelves.

Given all the work that EA/Bioware has put into the DA and ME stories having choices that carry over from game to game, they should realize the absolute potential of making these choices impact gameplay heavily, instead of nerfing it for new players. The resale of their old products would skyrocket every time a new sequel came out, creating not only more sales and success each installment like can be seen in TES games, but more actual sales of older games as well!

I doubt Oblivion sales had much of a spike when Skyrim came out. But if ME3 came out and required a perfect playthrough of ME1 and 2 to get a "happy" ending? They would have been flying off the shelves. They could even bundle the three games together into an Ultimate Edition pack with DLC episodes and charged $150 and raked in dough.

Instead, they gave everyone the same generic endings, regardless of their choices, time investment and understanding of lore. By bringing everyone in at the same level for the endings, they essentially made them as cheap and unfulfilling as humanly possible.

Strictly from a business standpoint, that is poor execution. And these games are very much a business, very LITTLE an artistic endeavor. Just look at Day One DLC, plugs at the ending pushing more DLC and requirements for DRM in every copy sold.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 15 mai 2012 - 01:31 .

[Christianswe]

It´s Mass Effect. You choose your destiny, what to do and how to act. So, there should be a couple of endings. Maybe even a Reapers win ending. And there could be a somewhat happy ending to, problem solved. : D

[JBONE27]

The Razman wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

Counter to your counter
1.  Shooting Wrex... it might seem like the "lol you dun fuked up option," but it is the only way to get both the salarians on your side.  Also, it is nigh impossible to get the best ending in ME3 as is because of how it was programed, so does not owning an Iphone or a gold membership seem like an lol option... not really considering neither was needed for the previous two games.

It's clearly highlighted as a "You don't wanna do this if you're not evil option". You ever have to jump through the equivilent of conversational "Are you sure?" checkboxes to do it. Following the Paragon path leads you to success pretty much all the time in Mass Effect. There's a very clear "this is right" and "this is wrong" pathway.

2.  I think we have to agree to disagree on that one, every time Leonardo DeCrappio dies in a movieI cheer my voice horse.

In which case the narrative didn't work for you, because you hate Leonardo DiCaprio. You're the equivilent of the people who kill Jacob in the suicide mission because they hate him.

3.  That doesn't counter my third point at all.  It's like a creationist talking about abiogensis during a discussion of evolution.  I can't argue against that because it's a completely unrelated topic.

Um ... how? You said "if they make the product unhappy when people want a happy product they'll lose sales", and I gave examples of narratives which are depressing which sold bucketloads.

1.  You're just wrong on that point, regardless of whether you choose the red or blue option in ME1, Wrex lives.  I'll give you another example.  Tali's trail in ME2.  If you were a lawyer and you had evidence that could completely exhonerate your cliante; then it's stupid not to use it.  Think about it, all of the other gambits you've tried are very risky (empassioned speeches, trying to start a rebellion) and will most likely not yeild a reward.  Evidence that proves your cliante isn't guilty holds none of the risks and is very likely to win your case.  Eventhough it is the smart answer, it will make Tali not loyal to you.

2.  Have you ever heard of the work schoudenfreude?  People enjoy watching people of a higher station than them suffer.  Shepard is the hero of the galaxy, so people would logically choose to have him/her suffer and die.

3.  Was that what you were trying to do?  Because it looked like you went on a self defeating non-sequitor tangent.  You said it cannot have a happy ending because people would always want a happy ending if they could chose for a character.  Then you turn it around and say that people enjoy watching tragedy.  Your argument is illogical because it is based off of two completely opposite points of view.

The main thrusts of my argument is.
1.  Not everyone wants the same thing, which you've completely ignored.
2.  In a game that tries so hard to cater to everyone, it's stupid to, with the last 10 minutes or so, alienate so many.
3.  Some people will choose tragedy because they are sadists.
4.  You are completely wrong about the in game content.

[The Razman]

iamthedave3 wrote...

You could say that... but you'd be wrong, because it's not what gets him killed. It's why Shepherd wins, in fact. This could have been shown to be a character flaw, but Bioware consistently shine a positive light on Shepherd's actions, paragon or renegade (no matter how questionable some of the renegade ones are). And don't get me wrong I wish they had, because some times the 'renegade' path looks suspiciously like 'the path of obvious douchebaggery', but Bioware didn't do that. The closest they came was with the Arrival DLC.

Though if you want to try and make the argument that you propose there, go ahead. But it needs to be a lot more complex than a single sentence.

If Shepherd had not charged stubbornly forever onwards the entire galaxy would have been harvested. If Ned Stark had been more flexible he not only could have kept his head but he could have unseated the Lannisters, protected the legacy of his friend Robert and prevented the fall of his entire House. Again, this is lampshaded by multiple characters in the ASOIF series. Martin all but steps out of the page and informs the reader that Ned Stark's inflexibility was his heroic flaw.

And like I said ... that's not a negative characteristic. Rigidly sticking to your good moral values is a positive character trait no matter how you look at it. It's only in the context of GOT that it brings his downfall, because the evil were prepared to exploit his good nature ... and that's tragic. If you're going to paint Ned Stark's unwillingness to become morally void to achieve goals as a negative character trait, then you can just as easily paint Shepard's unwillingness to accept logical defeat as the reason for his. It does end up allowing him to achieve his goal ... but his stubbornness ends up costing him his life in the process.

If Shepard wasn't so stubborn, he would've fallen back with the rest of the troops and regrouped for another assault. Instead he nonsensically crawled half-dead into the powerhouse of his enemy, alone, virtually unarmed, stubbornly refusing to give up a seemingly hopeless cause. It was pretty much pure luck from his view that he got up there and there wasn't a huge Reaper ground-force inside the Citadel, or any defence force whatsoever. The sensible thing to do would've been to retreat and have another go with reinforcements. If he'd done that, he may not have died.

The point is ... if you're going to count obviously positive traits such as unwillingness to give up the cause or give up your morality, then GOT and ME are in the same boat in this comparison. GOT was only one example of tragedy involving characters being brought down by circumstance instead of their negative character flaws though. I'm much more interested to hear your view on the non-Game of Thrones ones, seeing as they're more obvious (such as Titanic).

By the way, I've read none of the rest of your Game of Thrones stuff purely because I don't want spoilers for it.

You don't need to know this in order to tell me what your definition of 'bittersweet' and 'heroic sacrifice' are

No I don't, but you want me to write out what my definitions of bittersweet and heroic sacrifice are because you believe that these are mutually exclusive concepts; that a bittersweet ending can't be tragic, or a heroic sacrifice can't be tragic, or whatever it is that you're implying but haven't explicitly said yet. I'm saying this makes no sense straight off the bat, and I'm not going to write a treatise on random topics just because you ask me to. Give me some reason why those concepts are mutually exclusive, and then you have a point we can talk about.

Knowing it by reputation doesn't qualify me to make any sort of comment on it though, does it?

No, but I've never seen Romeo and Juliet and yet I know the story and feel free to comment on it.

To each their own, I've just never known anyone who didn't know the story of Titanic.

I think it's more that I just don't believe that our concept of tragedy has changed as much as you say. I've seemingly studied very similar things to you from various 'education' oriented comments we've let slip during the last few pages, and I see identical narrative constructions to those in Shakespeare in literature, in theatre, in film, and in videogames (which are the 'new' artform of our generation, though I fear I'll be long dead before it's been mastered and truly explored).

I see the same narrative structures used consistently. I agree in part that there are new elements, but the narrative understructure of tragedy remains the same. Partly why I'm not convinced is that you frequently pick bad examples. The Ned Stark one may have been your worst yet. Braveheart I have not watched, same as Titanic, so I can't argue, refute, or agree with it. All I can say is that I've heard mixed things about the movie and at the time everyone I knew who watched it said it was awful, so I didn't. There's always something else to watch, and so I never got round to it, either. Braveheart, that is, not Titanic. I didn't watch big T for the entirely simplistic reason that I never had the motivation. Back then - if I remember correctly - I was watching a lot of samurai movies of the good, high brow artsy type... and a lot of badly dubbed wuxia.

Well, it becomes difficult for me to make my point when the biggest and most well-known examples I can think of are things which you're unaware of. Game of Thrones was in no way a "bad example" ... I brought it up exactly to highlight the parallels between it and Shepard (although Shepard's situation is obviously much less complex), and in my view you're kind of digging yourself into a hole by saying one's valid and one isn't despite all the tragic similarity. Your argument is seeming very arbitary.

I may be wrong, but I think I have more of a literary background and you more of a film one. If so that'd be rather appropriate given that Videogames are sort of the null zone where the two meet and become some mutated hybrid that everyone looks at queerly and don't know what to do with.

Note, I'm not saying that you're just wrong. I have a different take on modern definitions of tragedy than you seem to, drawn I suspect from similar sources and derived from the usual collection of essays, critics and studies that form the backbone of any education these days, and reinforced by experience with the art forms in question. To me, the word 'tragedy' is mis-used constantly by the papers, by the news, and so it ends up in common usage, even diluted, to where I see people refer to almost any death as 'tragic'.

So where's the stopping point in an artistic work? When is a death not tragic?

I think you're right, that you're taking the view that tragedy in the classical Aristotelean view is the only correct usage of the term, where tragedy needs to be a result of character's being brought down from positions of power by their own negative character flaws ... whereas we don't use tragedy purely in that sense in referral to modern drama. We've broadened it to include situations where characters come a cropper as victims of cruel circumstance as well. Those things don't follow the classical convention of tragedy to the letter, but they include tragic elements and induce the cathartic effect which sets tragedy apart from "feeling sad".

I do have to ask the question though ... even if Mass Effect isn't classical tragedy (which I agree it isn't), why does that invalidate the point which this thread is based on regarding the negative ending losing power when faced with an off-switch for the negative feelings it induces?

[The Razman]

slyguy200 wrote...

[snip]

Do you realise quite how silly you look putting your posts next to iamdave?
 

[The Razman]

JBONE27 wrote...

1.  You're just wrong on that point, regardless of whether you choose the red or blue option in ME1, Wrex lives.

Um ... I'm not talking about the red or blue options. I'm talking about the renegade conversation path that leads to Wrex dying.

2.  Have you ever heard of the work schoudenfreude?

No, I haven't.

Schadenfreude on the other hand ...

People enjoy watching people of a higher station than them suffer.  Shepard is the hero of the galaxy, so people would logically choose to have him/her suffer and die.

I have no idea what you're talking about. How does people playing the game to experience schadenfreude have anything to do with the people who are playing the game normally, wanting the characters they like to live?

3.  Was that what you were trying to do?  Because it looked like you went on a self defeating non-sequitor tangent.  You said it cannot have a happy ending because people would always want a happy ending if they could chose for a character.  Then you turn it around and say that people enjoy watching tragedy.  Your argument is illogical because it is based off of two completely opposite points of view.

Um ... no? I said (and as I recall, this is the second time I've outlined this difference to you) that watching a tragedy and choosing for it to happen are two different things. Just because you go to watch Romeo and Juliet because you enjoy watching tragedies doesn't mean you're sitting in the audience egging them on to kill themselves. If you are, then you're not experiencing the emotions of tragedy, you're just ... well, a sadist.

If you can't see the difference between watching tragedy and wanting it to happen ... then I don't know how I can help you.

[The Razman]

slyguy200 wrote...

Anyway, that is quite evasive of you.

And you call me a troll...<_<

Ignoring you posting dumb pictures is trolling?

Awww ... did I hurt your feelings?

[tobynator89]

I pretty much saw that the game wasn't going to have a non-bittersweet ending from the moment I started cuising around the galaxy. And I wasn't disapointed. I think thats the reason I was happy with the entire game. There was this feel of partial resignation throughout the whole game and I found it rather beautiful.

[Lisa_H]

I don't see why there can't be a happy endiing(even if it means you have to struggle hard to get it) The other two games left you with a feeling of satisfaction and hope. The ME games have always had an underlying theme of optimism even when things have looked dark, it has even been a bit cliche, why change that in the last few moments

[Aumata]

Uh Stark honor was his character flaw, he knew that king landing was a viper pit, and everyone suffers from back stabbing syndrome, so one having a clear advantage that would save him and his family a heap of trouble he choose's the honorable path of not taking Cersei out and now his family is suffering from it, the same can be said about his wife.

Now back to the ending, yes it was stupid. People wanted an ending that made ****ing sense and see all the work that transpire from 3 games. Really the ending should have been reapers destroyed, people are relieved that the nightmare is over, but with the weight that the power structure changed drastically leading to a dark era. You put a slideshow of all the results of the decisions that took place with a consequences of said decisions.

Some will think that the ending I gave is dark, but lets be honest here, the galactic economy is gone, the major political players are weakened, countless lives are loss, you are looking at a change of power. Pirating and raiding of colonies, little resources, and that with me not even including the decisions. That is a happy ending, you saved the galaxy, and now is a time of rebuilding the galaxy that was ravage by total war.

[The Razman]

Aumata wrote...

Uh Stark honor was his character flaw, he knew that king landing was a viper pit, and everyone suffers from back stabbing syndrome, so one having a clear advantage that would save him and his family a heap of trouble he choose's the honorable path of not taking Cersei out and now his family is suffering from it, the same can be said about his wife.

You can't describe being honourable, loyal and not being willing to murder innocent pregnant girls as a character flaw. By that logic, anything is a character flaw as soon as somebody takes advantage of it for their own gain.

[Aumata]

The Razman wrote...
You can't describe being honourable, loyal and not being willing to murder innocent pregnant girls as a character flaw. By that logic, anything is a character flaw as soon as somebody takes advantage of it for their own gain.

Taking the honourable route sounds good, even feels good, but if the consequnces is a complete utter disaster, where you make things WORSE then it is just dumb decision to make.  Logic would say that trading a one pregnant girl for the life of millions is better.  But that wasn't what screwed Stark, it was when he choose not to take out Cersei and claim the damn throne or hold it for Stannis.  He knew that if he waited it was going to bite him in the ass,  Renly warn him, Petyr Balish warned him.  He choose not to do it be cause it wasn't honourable

Everyone knew that king landing suffered from back stabbing syndrome including Ned. But he still choose to go the honourable route even though it was going to hurt him, it took Vary's to tell him that even though you are willing to die, your daughters should be your main concern, as they are going to take the blow back.  

So yes that is a character flaw, yes being manipulated for a trait you have makes it a flaw, and yes any characteristic trait can be used as a flaw, any habit can be used as flaw.  Just because it is considered a positive trait doesn't mean it can't be a flaw.  Plenty of stories have used positive traits to make it a character flaw.

So lets end this debate (on Ned Stark Flaw) and focus on the you can't have a happy ending, or what most tend to believe a everything turns out great ending that is completely wrong.  A ending that saves the galaxy but realize that a new era has started and with the destruction of damn near the entire council government, colonies, and the economy you are looking at a violent era, that might have shift in power depending on the decision you made.  

This could have been shown with a slide show showing the consequnces of said action.  Instead we got this bull**** ending that reaks laziness, and what I pointed out would have litterally been the same **** that other rpg's do like say New Vegas, or one of their own IP's Dragon Age: Origins.  Bioware could have did the blow up reapers decision, show celebration, have the talk about rebuilding, but acknowlegding that times are going to be rough going in. Cue slideshows of all your decision action, leaving the player's mostly happy and bioware with little headache, and hey might be a new set up for another Mass Effect game, or continuing the Mass Effect Universe in books and other media.

Modifié par Aumata, 18 mai 2012 - 03:41 .

[The Razman]

Aumata wrote...

The Razman wrote...
You can't describe being honourable, loyal and not being willing to murder innocent pregnant girls as a character flaw. By that logic, anything is a character flaw as soon as somebody takes advantage of it for their own gain.

Taking the honourable route sounds good, even feels good, but if the consequnces is a complete utter disaster, where you make things WORSE then it is just dumb decision to make.  Logic would say that trading a one pregnant girl for the life of millions is better.  But that wasn't what screwed Stark, it was when he choose not to take out Cersei and claim the damn throne or hold it for Stannis.  He knew that if he waited it was going to bite him in the ass,  Renly warn him, Petyr Balish warned him.  He choose not to do it be cause it wasn't honourable

Everyone knew that king landing suffered from back stabbing syndrome including Ned. But he still choose to go the honourable route even though it was going to hurt him, it took Vary's to tell him that even though you are willing to die, your daughters should be your main concern, as they are going to take the blow back.  

So yes that is a character flaw, yes being manipulated for a trait you have makes it a flaw, and yes any characteristic trait can be used as a flaw, any habit can be used as flaw.  Just because it is considered a positive trait doesn't mean it can't be a flaw.  Plenty of stories have used positive traits to make it a character flaw.

A character flaw has to be inherent, not something which is only a flaw when in a certain situation. You're describing Ned Stark's inability to deal with a situation of backstabbing and betrayal. That doesn't make his character negatively flawed. That just makes him a paragon who fell to the situation.

So lets end this debate (on Ned Stark Flaw) and focus on the you can't have a happy ending, or what most tend to believe a everything turns out great ending that is completely wrong.  A ending that saves the galaxy but realize that a new era has started and with the destruction of damn near the entire council government, colonies, and the economy you are looking at a violent era, that might have shift in power depending on the decision you made.  

This could have been shown with a slide show showing the consequnces of said action.  Instead we got this bull**** ending that reaks laziness, and what I pointed out would have litterally been the same **** that other rpg's do like say New Vegas, or one of their own IP's Dragon Age: Origins.  Bioware could have did the blow up reapers decision, show celebration, have the talk about rebuilding, but acknowlegding that times are going to be rough going in. Cue slideshows of all your decision action, leaving the player's mostly happy and bioware with little headache, and hey might be a new set up for another Mass Effect game, or continuing the Mass Effect Universe in books and other media.

A slideshow ending doesn't reek of laziness? That breaks the first rule of everything cinematic ... show, don't tell.

I don't really see what point you're trying to make, other than your own opinion of what a "better ending" would be. This thread is about how you can't have a happy ending and a tragic ending in the same narrative.

[AlanC9]

The Razman wrote...

A slideshow ending doesn't reek of laziness? That breaks the first rule of everything cinematic ... show, don't tell.

Well, "laziness" is always relative. A slideshow would have taken a bit more time than what we actually did get.

How come people didn't hammer Bio when KotOR didn't have a slideshow? I can excuse BG2 since the technique wasn't well-known then.

[Eterna]

Mr.House wrote...

This is a game about choices, not to mention the original perfect ending, the hardest to get was indeed a happy ending. So yes there is no reason why there can be no "happy" ending,

Unfortunately for you, a happy ending is not one of the choices presented :>

Modifié par Eterna5, 18 mai 2012 - 06:16 .

[jimjamalam22]

An ending that just followed suit would have been nice

[iamthedave3]

The Razman wrote...

And like I said ... that's not a negative characteristic. Rigidly sticking to your good moral values is a positive character trait no matter how you look at it. It's only in the context of GOT that it brings his downfall, because the evil were prepared to exploit his good nature ... and that's tragic. If you're going to paint Ned Stark's unwillingness to become morally void to achieve goals as a negative character trait, then you can just as easily paint Shepard's unwillingness to accept logical defeat as the reason for his. It does end up allowing him to achieve his goal ... but his stubbornness ends up costing him his life in the process.

The problem that you're creating here, though, is that tragedy is always contextual. Hamlet - classic tragedy - is possessed of tragic flaws only in context. Actually Hamlet's a tough one because you can debate what exactly his tragic flaw is.

Macbeth. His flaw is ambition. But in another context it would be a positive trait. It is a negative because of the exact circumstances in which he finds himself. In fact his ambition is a positive trait, it's what makes him a great man in the first place, so that his eventual fall is a tragic event.

Furthermore, the comparison to Shepherd fails because the ending is set up in such a way that nobody with any combination of traits could survive it. The only way to defeat the reapers was to activate the crucible and the only way to activate the crucible was to sacrifice yourself. So Shepherd could have been a tree-hugging, people-loving, baby-kissing mega hero and it would have made no difference at all. The exact same situation would have played out irrespective of Shepherd's qualities.

You're quite right that it was pure luck that things worked out the way they did, but again, Bioware choose not to portray Shepherd's stubbornness as a negative trait. They have dozens of chances to do it and instead always shine a positive light on that quality.

Which is why GOT is not the same. George R. R. Martin specifically and deliberately shows us this trait in a negative light on multiple characters, and specifically punishes them for displaying it. I'm not sure if you've read the books or are watching the series. From your 'spoilers' comment, I suspect you must be watching the HBO series due to timing. I've read the books but not watched the series, so it could be that they portray him and his situation a little differently. I know that the way he gets his leg done in is handled differently from a clip I saw on youtube.

The Razman wrote...I'm much more interested to hear your view on the non-Game of Thrones ones, seeing as they're more obvious (such as Titanic).

I know, but coincidence is a pain on this particular issue. I just don't happen to know your favourite examples. Titanic is a tragedy by reputation, but without seeing it there's really not much I can say. I won't contest it, but I can't say anything about it either.

The Razman wrote...No I don't, but you want me to write out what my definitions of bittersweet and heroic sacrifice are because you believe that these are mutually exclusive concepts; that a bittersweet ending can't be tragic, or a heroic sacrifice can't be tragic, or whatever it is that you're implying but haven't explicitly said yet. I'm saying this makes no sense straight off the bat, and I'm not going to write a treatise on random topics just because you ask me to. Give me some reason why those concepts are mutually exclusive, and then you have a point we can talk about.

If you say something is 'tragic' then you're saying that 'tragedy' is the most prominent aspect of the situation.

Hamlet's ending has elements of heroism to it. But it is overall a tragedy because the tragic elements greatly outweigh the heroic ones. Mutual exclusivity isn't the issue, it's that you're claiming this is a 'tragic' ending, when it really isn't. There are small numbers of tragic elements vastly outweighed by a poor effort at a heroic sacrifice.

That doesn't make it a tragedy, nor tragic, unless you want to boil the ending down to just those tragic elements, but even then it's arguable.

The Razman wrote...To each their own, I've just never known anyone who didn't know the story of Titanic.

I know the story thereabouts. It sounds like a modern Romeo and Juliet tale with class differences being the dramatic drive rather than house conflict. But if so I'd assume it follows a traditional tragic structure, and I get the impression it mustn't otherwise you wouldn't be using it as an example.

The Razman wrote...I do have to ask the question though ... even if Mass Effect isn't classical tragedy (which I agree it isn't), why does that invalidate the point which this thread is based on regarding the negative ending losing power when faced with an off-switch for the negative feelings it induces?

Glad you asked!

Well, the first issue is that the ending wasn't meant to be negative anyway. I think you've in part misunderstood what's going on here. It wasn't meant to be negative, it was meant to be bittersweet, which is partly negative but not overwhelmingly so. Most people are not responding with the emotions to be expected from a successful ending. They're enraged at Bioware, and hate the endings for dozens of reasons. A lot of the anger stems from people expecting better from a company who has proven they can do better, and frustration that this is the ending of their epic.

The argument you're attempting to make is possibly valid, but this game is a poor poster child because people's responses to the ending are so diverse and often have very little to do with its dramatic elements. It'd be better to discuss related to Heavy Rain, which runs the gamut of endings, Corpse Party, Silent Hill 1 or 2, and quite a few games from the indies. Deus Ex Human Revolution or the original game could also be used, but I'm not sure you can characterize any of the endings of those games as happy or tragic. Too philosophical.

The whole classical tragedy tangent is really about trying to show you that Bioware were not attempting to make this a tragic ending in the first place, and that is part of the reason why your argument is finding no traction with most people who read. They're angry more than upset, and their reasons are too varied to be easily encapsulated.

Furthermore, as mentioned, there are games which pull off those disparate endings successfully and are lauded. So you're saying that it can't be done when it already has been done, multiple times. Not all of the games where it's been done are well known, but they are out there.

So picking out Mass Effect 3's ending as a battleground for this theory of yours is a bad starting place, mostly because the ending is not intended to be negative in the first place and - as I've said earlier - Bioware have repeatedly acted to remove elements of sadness and tragedy from the ending. Everything they've done and everything they've said and everything I've seen shows that Bioware intended this to be a bittersweet, heroic sacrifice ending (those often go together) and that they're genuinely shocked that people are so angry with what they created. Though it appears that over time they're getting clued in.

Guess we'll find out what they drew from these months of nerd rage when the EC comes out.

Edit: As a corollary to the above, I'd like to emphasize that - now that Bioware have confirmed your squad is not stuck on that world and that nobody starves to death and that the mass relays are buildable - the 'happy ending' that people want is already achievable. The 'Shepherd lives' breath ending provides that happy ending.

But people still aren't happy with that because they angry for other reasons that have very little to do with the emotional slant of the ending.

Not to say that some aren't depressed, but - as it turns out - they shouldn't have been, because they were depressed due to making inferences from the ending Bioware made. Inferences that Bioware have quashed and explicitly stated they didn't intend and we can assume they will attend to in the EC.

Modifié par iamthedave3, 18 mai 2012 - 10:14 .

[iamthedave3]

AlanC9 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

A slideshow ending doesn't reek of laziness? That breaks the first rule of everything cinematic ... show, don't tell.

Well, "laziness" is always relative. A slideshow would have taken a bit more time than what we actually did get.

How come people didn't hammer Bio when KotOR didn't have a slideshow? I can excuse BG2 since the technique wasn't well-known then.

I haven't played KotOR for a long time, but from what I remember of the story it was far more about the main character than it was about the party and other things. In Mass Effect the sub-characters are often more interesting than the main character, and the story is very much about the universe, far more than it is about Shepherd and his/her goings on.

I will not defend this valiantly because like i said I don't remember KotOR that well, but from what I remember a slideshow wasn't necessary.

Fallout, for example, is another series where the story is far more about the world than it is about the main character (specifically their effect on the world), so the slideshow is appropriate.

Of course, something more involved would be ideal, but gamers are willing to let a lot go in an RPG. RPG's have never been that graphic-obsessed, after all. A picture and some text works fine, because a lot of the most important activity happens in the player's head.