345 réponses à ce sujet

[EmEr77]

B3ckett wrote...


Or if you'd like a more eloquent way of me saying that, hm...
You can't build a pyramid and put a giant three-colored umbrella on top of it. You just can't expect people to say: Yeah, that's art!

Maybe it's because it's 1:30 in the morning, but... awesome. 

[Tocquevillain]

Ariq wrote...


2) Entropy. Yeah, sure, sort of. But none of that explains why suddenly I'm taking the main and primary villain's word for it all. Shepard spits in Sovereign's eye, blows the heck out of Harbinger's Collector puppets, and (in my game at least) shoots the Illusive Man. These three guys have been feeding me the same rhetoric since ME1. I didn't buy it when Saren tried to talk me into synthesis, and I don't buy it here. Or at least, I wouldn't have bought it if I had been given any option not to do so.

And forget the thematic breakdown for a minute, does this guy really believe the pseudo-philosophical ramblings of the kid actually worked to sell the theme of entropy? Wait, here, in the last 5 minutes of the game, we'll introduce an unknown, untrustworthy and unlikable character, who will feed you information that makes no sense whatsoever, employs circular logic, and can't be argued with. And then surrender to the ideals of the Illusive Man, Saren the Indoctrinated, or else blow up the noble Geth because some kid told me I ought to.

In ME1, you had no choice but to say BS to Saren, and in ME3 you have no choice but to say "ok, I'll choose" to Starchild, but you're making it sound as if you had some real choice in confronting Saren in ME1 to distinguish it from ME3. That's a bad argument, in my mind. You can disagree on whether Shepard would do something like that, but since the game is ultimately a narrative with minor variations, I don't think your point holds water.

[HenchxNarf]

EmEr77 wrote...

B3ckett wrote...


Or if you'd like a more eloquent way of me saying that, hm...
You can't build a pyramid and put a giant three-colored umbrella on top of it. You just can't expect people to say: Yeah, that's art!

Maybe it's because it's 1:30 in the morning, but... awesome. 

Umbrella Corp could do it...

Wait..that's two colors. But, I still would love that.

[Myskal1981]

While the idea of solving the technological singularity may be fascinating and as such a worthy ending, this idea was never part of Shepard's journey. Nothing in the main story line of all three games helped my Shepard get any closer in solving this problem.
- Did destroying Sovereign in ME1 "help" you decide?
- Did destroying or keeping the Collector Base "help" you decide?
- What has curing the genophage to do with solving the technological singularity?
Shepard's concern was to stop the Reapers, save the "known" galaxy from extinction. Being presented with the technological singularity in the last five minutes was just confusing.
Leaving aside plot holes or the loss of character focus, the introduction of a new main character and a new idea in the last five minutes is just bad. And I don't really care whether the idea itself is good or great, it just leaves me disconnected from the rest of the game. The entire series feels like a giant side quest for me.

[Althekiller]

I Prefer the indoctrination theory. This anonymous source missed key points in their analysis, like the entire ending of the game. We all understand the sacrafice and the main themes of the narrative over all. Pretty sure we all played it. Its the fact that the ending, regardless on how you spin it, was completely lack luster, inconclusive, and boring. No boss battle. No epic conclusion no final shot from my rifle. Just a lot of talk and a sixth sense twist at the end. Hopefully EA is just being greedy and holding back. Its hard to believe the same team that brought us so many amazing moments left us alone in the dark.

[Megachaz]

HenchxNarf wrote...

Megachaz wrote...

There are douchenozzles on both sides.  For evey person calling a "pro-ender" stupid, there's another saying that an "anti-ender" just "doesn't get it."  Case in point: Luzarius.  

Luz has good intentions but he goes about it soooo wrong.

Good intentions?  Not that I know him personally, but every single post I've ever seen him make is flaming, belittling, and antagonizing.  Come to think of it, I can't even decipher what his intentions are, other than to proclaim his supposed intellectual superiority. 

[MrGone]

Yeah, more of these are popping up.

Like this one:

http://www.ogeeku.co...ctric-shepards/

I'll say it again: I think the Retake Movement has been so fast and effective that amongst the 2nd tier journalists (perhaps 3rd as its been a month) they think the Retake ME opinion is the concensus, and now we're getting people who are "going against the grain" and saying the ending is good for obscure reasons that requre a lot of reaching.

Which says two different things:

A) If true, that the MAJORITY opinion is that the ending is terrible. Then Retake is not actually a movement of a vocal minority, but a vocal minority that accurately represents the MAJORITY.

or

If the Retake movement is of a minority group, these commentators are . . . what's the word? Uninformed wankers. They seriously think they're being different by rejecting a minority opinion and espousing the majority one.

Modifié par MrGone, 05 avril 2012 - 08:30 .

[Eulalia Danae]

Tocquevillain wrote...

Noatz wrote...

1. His ENTIRE argument hinges on a subjective interpretation of what the themes are. He says they are Sacrifice, "Entropy" (wat) and Forgiveness and expects everyone to just accept that while conveniently ignoring themes such as Unity and Determination which are left at the door by the ending.

2. Two of his supposed themes are poorly argued/don't apply. Why does he call the second theme Entropy? This is a bad use of the term, he should of called it Cycles or History Repeating. He also doesn't address that much of ME is about breaking these cycles and yet some endings present a paradox where you break the cycle by submitting to it. The Forgiveness theme is used to develop characters, not the overall universe. It doesn't apply as a theme of the series in the same way as revenge doesn't apply as a theme (many characters have revenge stories as well, but this is ignored in his post).

Oh and also if Sacrifice is such an important theme - how come Shepard can live?


.

Did you read it? It's an essay, it seeks to persuade, that's how essays work. Evidence: the theme was said by ME team to be "victory through sacrifice". In favour of history repeating, Soveriegn stating the cycle repeats 50k years...that's a proof in favour of the author's point. Unity and Determination are not the larger narrative themes of the game, much the same way you argue Foregivness is not a series theme.

Sacrifice is an important theme because Shepard was "willing" to die, and fully believed they were going to die, because the Catalyst told Shepard she'd die from all the options. That is the definition of Sacrifice; Shepard didn't think she'd live after being told she'd die after making the decision, she went ahead and did it.

I have to disagree on the idea that unity and determination were not larger narrative themes. When Shepard was asked how to deal with the reapers, there was a choice of two answers, "Stand together" or "survival at any cost." The game at that point set the themes at which Victory was intended to be gained. It was through Unity, or it was through sacrifice. Unity was just as much prevelant as the idea of sacrifice (and not strictly self-sacrifice), it was in the crew, in the collection of assets, in the uniting  of all the races. It was a major major theme.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Okay, so we got a guy who interpreted the themes of the game in a vastly different way to everyone else. Fair enough.

But he still doesn't account for the plot holes and logical contradictions.

[Sisterofshane]

Eulalia Danae wrote...

Tocquevillain wrote...

Noatz wrote...

1. His ENTIRE argument hinges on a subjective interpretation of what the themes are. He says they are Sacrifice, "Entropy" (wat) and Forgiveness and expects everyone to just accept that while conveniently ignoring themes such as Unity and Determination which are left at the door by the ending.

2. Two of his supposed themes are poorly argued/don't apply. Why does he call the second theme Entropy? This is a bad use of the term, he should of called it Cycles or History Repeating. He also doesn't address that much of ME is about breaking these cycles and yet some endings present a paradox where you break the cycle by submitting to it. The Forgiveness theme is used to develop characters, not the overall universe. It doesn't apply as a theme of the series in the same way as revenge doesn't apply as a theme (many characters have revenge stories as well, but this is ignored in his post).

Oh and also if Sacrifice is such an important theme - how come Shepard can live?


.

Did you read it? It's an essay, it seeks to persuade, that's how essays work. Evidence: the theme was said by ME team to be "victory through sacrifice". In favour of history repeating, Soveriegn stating the cycle repeats 50k years...that's a proof in favour of the author's point. Unity and Determination are not the larger narrative themes of the game, much the same way you argue Foregivness is not a series theme.

Sacrifice is an important theme because Shepard was "willing" to die, and fully believed they were going to die, because the Catalyst told Shepard she'd die from all the options. That is the definition of Sacrifice; Shepard didn't think she'd live after being told she'd die after making the decision, she went ahead and did it.

I have to disagree on the idea that unity and determination were not larger narrative themes. When Shepard was asked how to deal with the reapers, there was a choice of two answers, "Stand together" or "survival at any cost." The game at that point set the themes at which Victory was intended to be gained. It was through Unity, or it was through sacrifice. Unity was just as much prevelant as the idea of sacrifice (and not strictly self-sacrifice), it was in the crew, in the collection of assets, in the uniting  of all the races. It was a major major theme.

The very ideas were central to the paragon/renegade system, which is a majot part of the game and of determining Shepards' character.  So I agree with you, that they were part of, if not the main themes of the entire game up until the last few minutes.

[Tocquevillain]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Okay, so we got a guy who interpreted the themes of the game in a vastly different way to everyone else. Fair enough.

But he still doesn't account for the plot holes and logical contradictions.

That's because the Normandy flying/crashing is indefensible. It's not actually worth defending, so he wisely chose not to try, cause he'd have failed. What he is arguing for is that the Citadel/Starchild part is in keeping with the themes.

I have to disagree on the idea that unity and
determination were not larger narrative themes. When Shepard was asked
how to deal with the reapers, there was a choice of two answers, "Stand
together" or "survival at any cost." The game at that point set the
themes at which Victory was intended to be gained. It was through Unity,
or it was through sacrifice. Unity was just as much prevelant as the
idea of sacrifice (and not strictly self-sacrifice), it was in the crew,
in the collection of assets, in the uniting  of all the races. It was a
major major theme.

I believe what Eulalia Danae and Sister Shane are referencing is player choice, which I don't believe is a narrative theme. You can't say that both paragon and renegade options were actual narrative themes because if I choose one and you choose the other, we can both say to each other "you're wrong!". Narrative themes transcend the choice system; they are the "bigger ideas". Also, survival at any cost and "stand together" are not mutually exclusive, I basically saw that as one of the more superficial choices in the conversation, it's not really important, it just sets the tone for you as a player by priming you on the paragon/renegade system.

[Rabid Rooster]

Velocithon wrote...

Disclaimer: I have a degree in literature and I minored in film studies.

I stopped right there.

So did I, all that flashed in my head was Micheal Moore and his neak beard......

[MeatShieldGriff]

"So that's pretty much it. I find it impossible to comprehend how anyone can say the ending was in any way a tonal shift or somehow disconnected from the narrative."

Yeah, that's pretty much it after 27,534 characters of 4,970 words forming around 40 paragraphs.  I'm sure you worked around a nice thoughtfull argument why the ending was great.  But for those of us that saw that article and said TL;DR don't need analysis to convince us of any other conclusion than that the game ending felt rushed, violated writing principles, and didn't stay true to the core of the game.  Usualy our analysis is simple: IT SUCKED!

[DamonD7]

He's using them long words, he must be a smart guy!

[DraCZeQQ]

Disclaimer: I have a degree in literature and I minored in film studies.

oh look, another ... people are too stupid to understand the awesome ending ... kind of analysis
not like the game was meant for these stupid people without fancy literature degrees to understand it or anything

[Jawsomebob]

www.youtube.com/watch <-- great video on why the ending is poor

[Sisterofshane]

Tocquevillain wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Okay, so we got a guy who interpreted the themes of the game in a vastly different way to everyone else. Fair enough.

But he still doesn't account for the plot holes and logical contradictions.

That's because the Normandy flying/crashing is indefensible. It's not actually worth defending, so he wisely chose not to try, cause he'd have failed. What he is arguing for is that the Citadel/Starchild part is in keeping with the themes.

I have to disagree on the idea that unity and
determination were not larger narrative themes. When Shepard was asked
how to deal with the reapers, there was a choice of two answers, "Stand
together" or "survival at any cost." The game at that point set the
themes at which Victory was intended to be gained. It was through Unity,
or it was through sacrifice. Unity was just as much prevelant as the
idea of sacrifice (and not strictly self-sacrifice), it was in the crew,
in the collection of assets, in the uniting  of all the races. It was a
major major theme.

I believe what Eulalia Danae and Sister Shane are referencing is player choice, which I don't believe is a narrative theme. You can't say that both paragon and renegade options were actual narrative themes because if I choose one and you choose the other, we can both say to each other "you're wrong!". Narrative themes transcend the choice system; they are the "bigger ideas". Also, survival at any cost and "stand together" are not mutually exclusive, I basically saw that as one of the more superficial choices in the conversation, it's not really important, it just sets the tone for you as a player by priming you on the paragon/renegade system.

The theme is not that they stand by themselves, but rather there is one versus the other.  Sort of a spin of ruthless pragmatism versus naive idealism.  You see it time and again within the game itself not only through your choices, but within other characters within the narrative.  For example, Kaidan Alenko being the idealist, while TIM is the pragmatist.  It is also webbed into the story of Mass Effect as well - for example, the Salarians as a species favor pragmatism, while the Asari favor idealism.  I don't think the ideas need to be mutually exclusive in order for them to be right.

[Kilshrek]

So it's basically I can appreciate this, therefore I am right, and you are wrong because you don't appreciate it.

A very long winded way of putting it, I must say.

The themes presented are.... correct, in a sense, but also wrong. Sacrifice yes, but triumph in the face of adversity, and the hero coming back, doesn't seem to register with the author. Just because the author wants it to fit thematically doesn't mean it must. Especially when the game WAS meant to be about choice and consequence.

Moving right along.

[Tocquevillain]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Tocquevillain wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Okay, so we got a guy who interpreted the themes of the game in a vastly different way to everyone else. Fair enough.

But he still doesn't account for the plot holes and logical contradictions.

That's because the Normandy flying/crashing is indefensible. It's not actually worth defending, so he wisely chose not to try, cause he'd have failed. What he is arguing for is that the Citadel/Starchild part is in keeping with the themes.

I have to disagree on the idea that unity and
determination were not larger narrative themes. When Shepard was asked
how to deal with the reapers, there was a choice of two answers, "Stand
together" or "survival at any cost." The game at that point set the
themes at which Victory was intended to be gained. It was through Unity,
or it was through sacrifice. Unity was just as much prevelant as the
idea of sacrifice (and not strictly self-sacrifice), it was in the crew,
in the collection of assets, in the uniting  of all the races. It was a
major major theme.

I believe what Eulalia Danae and Sister Shane are referencing is player choice, which I don't believe is a narrative theme. You can't say that both paragon and renegade options were actual narrative themes because if I choose one and you choose the other, we can both say to each other "you're wrong!". Narrative themes transcend the choice system; they are the "bigger ideas". Also, survival at any cost and "stand together" are not mutually exclusive, I basically saw that as one of the more superficial choices in the conversation, it's not really important, it just sets the tone for you as a player by priming you on the paragon/renegade system.

The theme is not that they stand by themselves, but rather there is one versus the other.  Sort of a spin of ruthless pragmatism versus naive idealism.  You see it time and again within the game itself not only through your choices, but within other characters within the narrative.  For example, Kaidan Alenko being the idealist, while TIM is the pragmatist.  It is also webbed into the story of Mass Effect as well - for example, the Salarians as a species favor pragmatism, while the Asari favor idealism.  I don't think the ideas need to be mutually exclusive in order for them to be right.

That's interesting, I had not considered that. I can't comment on Kaidan, cause I never, ever let him get off Virmire alive, so I never saw him in ME2/3. I agree with you that idealism/pragmatism can be seen in the species of the universe, the codex explained that early on in ME3, but I still don't see how that relates to the specific narrative of Shepard fighting the Reapers. I see very clearly how "entropy" and "sacrifice" are narrative themes: Shepard keeps fighting against one and doing the other (have not made up my mind on foregiveness), but Shepard can employ either pragmatism or idealism and still achieve the same goals of the narrative, so I don't really see that as a narrative theme.

[Valdimier]

I don`t get it? Why all debate over this?? It is his opinion but when somebody tells me this...

"If you are so caught up in the fact that the final cutscene randomly shows the Normandy fleeing, or the fact the mass relays are exploding, then you really need to stop it. "

Then I can tell him only, that I have to disagree and the end is still poorly written.

[lillitheris]

Tocquevillain wrote...
In ME1, you had no choice but to say BS to Saren, and in ME3 you have no choice but to say "ok, I'll choose" to Starchild, but you're making it sound as if you had some real choice in confronting Saren in ME1 to distinguish it from ME3. That's a bad argument, in my mind. You can disagree on whether Shepard would do something like that, but since the game is ultimately a narrative with minor variations, I don't think your point holds water.

This is a somewhat valid criticism, but only on form, not substance (that is, one must consider the actual character).

Even so, I think it falls flat on its face because the last lack of choice is inconsistent with the previous ones. Inconsistency is a big ‘theme’ in the ending.

[lillitheris]

As to the linked article; well written, well argued, but completely and utterly beside the point. A very eloquent – and probably well-meaning – strawman, if you will.

– Touches upon the problems with the actual ending (cinematics, closure) by just waving them away as unimportant;

– Sets up a ‘happy’ ending as the only possible alternative;

– Uses a single (tenuous) point from Hero's Journey while completely ignoring the various conflicts with same;

– Player choice is most certainly a narrative theme;

– Related to above, author only seems to consider the Paragon perspective.  ‘Forgiveness’ really isn't a theme for pure Renegades;

– Entropy has nothing to do with cycles of events and is included either from profound ignorance or the desire to scare people with big words. It's especially funny because the Catalyst purports to represent ‘order’;

– The true gem of arguing that if you picked Destroy, you're proving the Catalyst correct. Yeah, one of those asinine ‘choices’ they gave you.

But, yeah, overall the author makes a very good case for their tenuously reality-based subjective interpretation of the ending. I don't begrudge those ‘themes’ if that's what they see (even if I don't really agree).

The problem is, of course, that they also completely bypass the actual issues with the ending that everyone's been bringing up…

Modifié par lillitheris, 05 avril 2012 - 10:06 .

[Keltikone]

Disclaimer: I have a degree in medicine and another in clinical psychology. My following analysis of The Escapist's article could of course be wrong, as works of poop are always open to interpretation. It's poop, with Lots of Speculation From Everyone.

Modifié par Keltikone, 05 avril 2012 - 10:05 .

[Beti88]

Holy stew, three pages of "I want to work for BioWare"