345 réponses à ce sujet

[Total Biscuit]

My, but that was a long rambling rant that completely missed the point, and was only a good argument for the ending if you ignore most of the rest of the series, (much like the ending itself really) and seemed to make a far better case for how far up his own rear end the author was than anything.

[dallicant]

Kyrick wrote...

scrapmetals wrote...

"I have a degree..." aka "Because I have a piece of paper, I know better than any of you, and my opinion is right. My **** doesn't stink and my ****** smells like perfume and you should all bow before my intelligence and hope you are all one day as great as I am."

Eh.  Not exactly accurate.  People with degrees DO, in fact, tend to know a bit more about the subject matter they have degrees in than the lay person.  It's reality, choose to accept it or not.  However, I do agree with you that this guy seems somewhat hoighty-toighty.

A couple of things.  First, he should learn to spell 'spectre' properly if he wants to play the whole "I'm smarter than you" angle.  Second, he should probably recognize that other people have degrees as well, and actually do things with them!  For instance, I teach literature studies at a college/university level and, if I were so inclined, could write a long article detailing the flaws of the narrative structure alone in the game.  Third (though there could be a lot more), does anybody notice how people who defend the endings as 'good' always try to make it a subjective issue?  That it's 'art', or that 'everybody has an opinion on whether or not they 'like' the ending?'(because if they choose to focus on narrative structure they will get smoked by the all too obvious flaws).

The 'art' issue alone is a ridiculously flawed response in terms of logic.  This game is not a piece of 'art' any more than somebody barfing in a toilet and displaying it is a piece of art.  It's a narrative, yes, but just because it's a narrative doesn't make it 'art'.  A final point to note is that the people who call it 'art' can't actually define what contitutes 'art' in the slightest.  Bottom line?  The article is from somebody who is, at best, a faux intellectual.  Somebody who has enough background to try holding their ground, but once they're faced with somebody who has actual understanding and knowledge and can back it up then magically they vanish or start qualifying.  The article is a joke made by a man who doesn't know half of what he claims to know.

It's perfectly valid for him or her to state credentials like that.  Having a degree does presumably make one better informed on a subject (I say presumably, because this is not always the case; however, though I disagree with the writer, s/he argues the points relatively well, so I'll give him or her the benefit of the doubt).

However, there are also those with degrees in equivalent fields who disagree, and have already done so on this forum and elsewhere.

[moater boat]

Entropy is the theme of Mass Effect?

Fail.

That article is crap, plain and simple.

[HenchxNarf]

I agree with the article on some things. I don't know about the entropy thing.. but self-sacrifice, yes. It's what heroes do, really.

However, I find it amusing that no matter what a pro-ender says in a thread, whether good or bad (in this case good) the same handful of people pop out of the woodwork to try and start something with them...and then they bring up people who aren't even here and try to start stuff with them as well. Unbeknownst to them, they're acting worse than the people who they're trying to flame.

But, that's neither here nor there.

I'm glad you finally came to enjoy the endings, OP. They were great.

Oh, and PS. Jennifer Hale enjoyed the endings.

Modifié par HenchxNarf, 05 avril 2012 - 07:20 .

[Gruzmog]

Problem with that article is that if focusus on the sacrifice theme, which is there, and then concludes we are unreasonably upset that Shepard died. Shepard dying is an issue for a percentage of the people who dislike the ending but not the main point of concern at al....

as has been pointed out a gazillion times by now.


I always considered choise and consequences to be a major theme of the series and the leading plot element. I did not want a final all deciding choise at the end that negated everything I did beforehand, I expected my earlier made choises to determine my ending with a few compensation options depending on how well you do in the final mission.

Ofcourse that would involve choise, but choises like the council decision in ME1: "I think Sovereign is such a big threat that I can't take the risk of saving the council." with an impact ON the ending. Not deciding the ending by and ABC choise based on a solution to a philsofical question that I had interpreted as a sideline to the entire story. (The organics versus synthetics thing)

I was fully aware that Shep migth die, would probably die unless I did everything right in three games.... turns out it did not matter at all.

[sistersafetypin]

Trentgamer wrote...

Hmm I don't agree. The very fact that I would need to read some analysis to enjoy or understand the ending (which I still think is so full of holes it's not funny) just makes it all the more apparent how poorly done it was.

[Militarized]

There are 3-10 other threads from literature majors, one even specifying in sci-fi literature.. Reptilian Rob I believe, who've taken the ending to task for why it's bad. One lit major who doesn't list credentials isn't going to sway my opinion... I can decide for myself.

[ogj835]

http://social.biowar.../index/10951718


These links are the best analysis, I've seen.

Modifié par ogj835, 05 avril 2012 - 07:39 .

[AtreiyaN7]

Velocithon wrote...

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

I stopped right there.

Gee, people seem to love it when people trash the endings and cite their credentials.

[oksbad]

 

Dridengx wrote...

Heavvy Metall wrote...
I love how your signature says "Shepard deserves better fans" even though jenifer hale is dissapointed in the endings. 

Glad you love my sig. Jennifer Hale is just a voice actress nothing more. She isn't Shepard. You are. I am. Everyone is... if you roleplay

HenchxNarf wrote...

I agree with the article on some things. I don't know about the entropy thing.. but self-sacrifice, yes. It's what heroes do, really. 

However, I find it amusing that no matter what a pro-ender says in a thread, whether good or bad (in this case good) the same handful of people pop out of the woodwork to try and start something with them...and then they bring up people who aren't even here and try to start stuff with them as well. Unbeknownst to them, they're acting worse than the people who they're trying to flame. 

But, that's neither here nor there.

I'm glad you finally came to enjoy the endings, OP. They were great.

Oh, and PS. Jennifer Hale enjoyed the endings.

 


I said this to someone with the same signature and I'll say it to both of you.

Insulting people who disagree with the ending by having a signature that states that Shepard needs better fans, lowers people's opinions of pro-ending people.
You will notice that the vast majority of anti-enders' signatures, who can admittedly be less than tactful in forum debates, run along the lines of "X deserves a better ending!" or "X fleet: Demand a better ending!". In other words they attack the ending, not the developers, nor the people who like them.
If you want to be taken as a person with rational points as opposed to a name caller, find a different signature. I am sure that you can find a signature that supports the ending or bioware without insulting dissenters. Compare your signatures to AtreiyaN7's. I completely disagree with him or her,his or her signature puts forward her case without name calling and I can understand where he or she coming from.

Modifié par oksbad, 05 avril 2012 - 07:56 .

[wright1978]

Gruzmog wrote...

Problem with that article is that if focusus on the sacrifice theme, which is there, and then concludes we are unreasonably upset that Shepard died. Shepard dying is an issue for a percentage of the people who dislike the ending but not the main point of concern at al....

as has been pointed out a gazillion times by now.


I always considered choise and consequences to be a major theme of the series and the leading plot element. I did not want a final all deciding choise at the end that negated everything I did beforehand, I expected my earlier made choises to determine my ending with a few compensation options depending on how well you do in the final mission.

Ofcourse that would involve choise, but choises like the council decision in ME1: "I think Sovereign is such a big threat that I can't take the risk of saving the council." with an impact ON the ending. Not deciding the ending by and ABC choise based on a solution to a philsofical question that I had interpreted as a sideline to the entire story. (The organics versus synthetics thing)

I was fully aware that Shep migth die, would probably die unless I did everything right in three games.... turns out it did not matter at all.

Yeah the issue is restoring choice and consequence(reward and sacrifice) in place of the railroaded nonsensical plothole ridden mess that leads to singular bleak version of the future. I don't think Shep's death should be railroaded anymore than any other element.

[Billabong2011]

Wes Finley wrote...

The problem lays with the presentation, not the theme of the ending.

HALLELUJAH, someone with a brain!! 
While there were thematic issues with the ending, the idea of 'sacrifice' was never one of them. But plot holes, narrative cohesion, and character assassination cannot just be tossed aside for thematic significance.

[HenchxNarf]

oksbad wrote...
I said this to someone with the same signature and I'll say it to you.

Insulting people who disagree with the ending by having a signature that states that Shepard needs better fans, lowers people's opinions of pro-ending people.
You will notice that the vast majority of anti-enders' signatures, who can admittedly be less than tactful in forum debates, run along the lines of "X deserves a better ending!" or "X fleet: Demand a better ending!". In other words they attack the ending, not the developers, nor the people who like them.
If you want to be taken as a person with rational points as opposed to a name caller, find a different signature. I am sure that you can find a signature that supports the ending or bioware without insulting dissenters.

And again, I'll explain what the sig means.

Actually, if you take a step back  and see those who are acting very very badly on the RTE/Anti-Ending side, you would see that it is those people that my sig is pointed towards. Not the civil ones that don't troll every single comment people who don't agree with them makes (which, honestly, makes them worse than the person they're trying to flame)

I have absolutley no problems with people who don't like the endings, and can be civil about it. What I do have a problem with is people who act like douchenozzles about it and shove it in every pro-enders face about how wrong and stupid they are for liking the endings. And how they're not fans of the ME universe (or must have just played ME3), or are just FPS people who don't play for story. Or make asenine comments in pro-ending threads that consist of "Hold the line" "Marauder Shields" or "SPACE MAGIC OMG!"

Those (among others, I'm sure) are the ones I have a problem with.

And really, basing a judgment on someone according to their sig is silly.

Modifié par HenchxNarf, 05 avril 2012 - 07:56 .

[Aurvant]

BELOW IS AN EXAMPLE OF INTERNET DISCUSSION.

Disclaimer: I have a degree in literature and I'm a well published writer.
Disclaimer: The above statement is false. I am a business major with a specialization in finance.
Disclaimer: The above statement is false. I am an accountant in the employment of an established hedge fund.
Disclaimer: The above statement is false. I actually work in the film industry, and I'm in the employment of a reputable studio.
Disclaimer: The above statement is false. I'm actually a game developer and I've worked on numerous blockbuster titles.
Disclaimer: The above statement is also false.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, only the second statement is true, but look at all of the potential credentials I could have just by typing it out. This is why, if you're ever going to write out an explanation for why your opinion should have merits, you should probably refrain from beginning it with "here's my esteemed credentials that make me so much smarter than you."

[EmEr77]

Sup Hench!

Now Hench knows I have no beef with "pro-enders." If there are people who took from the endings what they took, and as Hench described it, the ending fit for her Shepard, I cannot argue with that, nor will I try. All I can do is clearly and concisely state my own point of view.


The issue with the article I had, and I will admit that while I did read a large chunk of it, I skimmed the rest because it began repeating itself a bit, is that it doesn't directly address technical issues with the ending--or even technical triumphs, if this individual truly believes that the ending works. The writer says that the ending had no real narrative or tonal shift, which I can agree with. We're pretty much in Shepard's head most of the time, and the final cut scene with Joker and the Normandy is akin to the final cut scene with Harbinger relinquishing control of what seemed to be the head Collector dude. It's just illustrative of what's concurrently going on. It kept to true to the dark tone as well, that I won't debate on. Thematically, is where it gets a bit gray: 

Self-sacrifice is yes, definitely Shepard-esque, even for Renegades. Although a Renegade Shepard may be more willing to sacrifice others for his/her cause instead of themselves. As the writer of the article pointed out, self-sacrifice is exhibited through many of the individuals we've encountered over the course of the story. There is no doubt that self-sacrifice is an important theme.

Entropy gets somewhat tricky. I'm not entirely sure it can be applied to the situation of organics creating synthetics that will eventually kill all organics. Entropy does mean a gradual movement towards complete and utter chaos--provided there is no intervening force. Why the Entropy argument falls apart, is because the organics, are the intervening force. We learn from the Star Child that its race became Reapers to stop the synthetics. The organics intervened, thus reintroducing order. The Star Child's explanation that ultimately organics will destroy themselves through the creation of sentient, synthetic life is not founded on one, but three logical fallacies. The "sweeping generalization fallacy," which is the making of a blanketed statement based on one specific incident, "circular reasoning" which means the conclusion to an argument is founded based on one of the premises of the argument. Further elaborating on that: the conclusion is supported by part of the argument itself. Lastly there is the "subjectivist fallacy" in which the Star Child dismisses the uniting of the geth and the quarians, saying it doesn't matter, organics will fall prey to synthetics anyway because of its own personal experience--and no amount of valid counter-argument can change its mind. This is why the entropy explanation is shaky at best.

Forgiveness. As my Paragon Shepard traipsed throughout the universe, I was patching up galactic issues right and left, bringing peace to races that were hostile to one another for thousands of years, all on the basis of forgiveness for past sins. That, I get. That, to me is understandable. But for a Renegade Shepard, this theme does not necessarily carry much weight. Throughout the overall story? Perhaps. The writer of the article mentions that Shepard sacrificing him/herself is a way of atoning and gaining forgiveness for past sins, by saving the galaxy. That's... nice--for perhaps a Renegade Shepard. Learning to forgive others, and forgive one's self is a theme yes, but a strong one? I'm not convinced. 


What the article seemed to focus mainly on, was negligible issues brought up by the "anti-ending" side. One such issue was the idea that it's not "happy" enough. The ratio of individuals who dislike the ending because it's not "happily-ever-after" enough is small, compared to the ratio of individuals who are unhappy with the ending for its severe, technical flaws. The article failed to address, from a technical standpoint, why the ending worked. Considering this individual claimed to have a degree in English Literature, I'm a little shocked. In a month I'll have my very own shining degree in English with a double focus on Literature and Creative Writing, and I'm wondering if he and I even looked at the same thing. He seems to be confused as to why people aren't "understanding" the ending, and I'm confused as to how he missed such massive plot-holes.

Not only do we face massive temporal issues with the ending of the game (the sudden appearance of your squad mates on the Normandy, and then the Normandy fleeing from the scene; which is also character inconsistency) but there are, as I said three logical fallacies to be found in the meat of the ending, not just the meat of the ending, the HEART of the ending--and that's the Star Child's little speech. This is the reason we've been waiting for, for two games and 9/10 of a third one; and the reason we get, is so brittle and illogical a small breeze could break right through it. Those are just a couple of the technical issues, which fail to be addressed, and solved by the article. Consistent narrative theme, and consistent tone, does not explain away the hasty, and underdeveloped ending. And as an aside concerning the Mass Relays, the writer seemed to fail to address the entire issue of The Arrival DLC, and instead jumps to "Clearly BioWare is saying there is a way to destroy the relays, without destroying the entire galaxy." WHERE? Because in The Arrival DLC, which is visual, solid evidence, it clearly says otherwise.

The ending is not so layered and complex it "goes over my head." No, I understand it perfectly. I'd appreciate it better, if it wasn't so inconsistent at its foundation. The article was long, well-written, not entirely devoid of its good points, but it missed the mark. The reason I'm saying it missed the mark, and that the writer is not due their own point of view, is because of this little caveat here:

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

Setting us up for what should be an objective, technical analysis of the game, but it really isn't. Restating themes that may or may not exist, has little to do with an in-depth analysis of the ending itself.

Modifié par EmEr77, 05 avril 2012 - 08:07 .

[BobbyDylan]

No, sorry.

http://www.shamusyou...edtale/?p=15395

[Doc Trisera]

Ira Deorum wrote...

[HenchxNarf]

EmEr77 wrote...

Sup Hench!

Now Hench knows I have
no beef with "pro-enders." If there are people who took from the endings
what they took, and as Hench described it, the ending fit for her
Shepard, I cannot argue with that, nor will I try. All I can do is
clearly and concisely state my own point of view.

Hello, friend! 

And you did that quite well. And you are one of the good ones, your point of view was really well thought out and I agree with much of what you said. Entropy is tricky, and I would have chosen another term, but that guys article was pretty amazeballs.

[Tocquevillain]

Nobrandminda wrote...

 Good analysis, certainly better than the usual "You all are a bunch of whiners for complaining about the ending" approach, but there's a troubling word that pops up a lot: if.  As in, the ending is good if...

this narrative theme is only uncovered if you have Javik. 
If you end up agreeing with me that these are the main themes of the series I feel you have to then agree the ending is actually very appropriate and hence great. 
if you do forgive them you are sorry but you can't cure them now 

In fact, for the first third or so of the post, he's trying to convince people that "sacrific for the greater good" is a primary theme of the series.  But half of his examples are prefaced by "If the player does..."  He completely glosses over the fact that in many of his examples (most notably the Suicide Mission of ME2) it is completely possible to avoid a pointless sacrifice.  

That's the problem with his whole analysis.  It's based on a certain interpretation of a certain kind of playthrough.  Maybe he played through the game in such a way that Sacrifice for the Greater good, entropy (meaning unavoidable cycles) and forgivness were the primary themes driving his story.

I didn't.

In my game, the primary themes would probably be things like overcoming impossible odds (surviving the suicide mission and bringing peace to the geth and quarians), getting a diverse group of people to work towards a common goal (geth/quarians again, the crew of the Normandy) and maintaining my honor in the face of extinction (destroying the collector base, this conversation with Javik at 3:40)  One of his primary themes, entropy, is based on the idea that there are certain unavoidable cycles, but my Shepard was determined to break those cycles.  He cured the Genophage under Wrex's and Bakura's leadership in order to restore the Krogan without reliving the Krogan Rebellion.  He ended the 300 year old conflict between the Quarians and the Geth.  His primary goal in the series was to stop the reapers, thereby ending the cycle that has gone on since time immamorial.

Mass Effect 3 is a game about choice.  The ending did not reflect my choices.  It is a bad ending.

I liked reading this. But I would say that "overcoming impossible odds" and your point at the end about choice is mistaking what the game's "about" and what the themes are. The theme of Mass Effect 2 is, you're a hero going on a suicide mission, which it is constantly referred to as. Just because everyone survived doesn't make it any less of a suicide mission, or made it any less dangerous -- Joe Citadel hearing about it and seeing you talking to Barla Von doesn't puff up his chest and say "I could have done that". The Suicide Mission is the "sacrifice" part, being willing to throw your life down. Calling it "overcoming impossible odds" is, in my opinion, a valid perspective, but isn't the specific narrative theme the writers were highlighting.

The idea of endless cycles is a play on "historic recurrence", which is basicaly saying history repeats, but in Mass Effect, it's used to craft a narrative about breaking control, like you say. And that's certainly true from human history. The difference between human history (which is unguided, so far as we know ), and Mass Effect is that the Reapers are the ones ensuring history actually repeats, and ensuring that historic recurrences (scientific discoveries) also happen, in the exact same way. I think that's a very good point by the author, but I'm not sure why you're arguing against him, you're both saying Shepard's job to is to break the cycle.

I don't think "maintaining honor in the face of extinction" qualifies as a narrative theme, but I could be wrong. And I'm not sure what your point at the end was about, your Shepard's goal was to stop the Reapers and that's what you do at the end in ME3, stop them.

[rev1976]

I'll see his degree and his minor in media and raise him 2 degrees and working for 15 years in film and tv studios (which frankly means bugger all in this context) - and i say the "ending" is ****, and if he has to write a short novel online to both try and convince himself it's actually good and massage his own ego at the same time then he knows it too.

Modifié par rev1976, 05 avril 2012 - 08:20 .

[Megachaz]

HenchxNarf wrote...

oksbad wrote...
I said this to someone with the same signature and I'll say it to you.

Insulting people who disagree with the ending by having a signature that states that Shepard needs better fans, lowers people's opinions of pro-ending people.
You will notice that the vast majority of anti-enders' signatures, who can admittedly be less than tactful in forum debates, run along the lines of "X deserves a better ending!" or "X fleet: Demand a better ending!". In other words they attack the ending, not the developers, nor the people who like them.
If you want to be taken as a person with rational points as opposed to a name caller, find a different signature. I am sure that you can find a signature that supports the ending or bioware without insulting dissenters.

And again, I'll explain what the sig means.

Actually, if you take a step back  and see those who are acting very very badly on the RTE/Anti-Ending side, you would see that it is those people that my sig is pointed towards. Not the civil ones that don't troll every single comment people who don't agree with them makes (which, honestly, makes them worse than the person they're trying to flame)

I have absolutley no problems with people who don't like the endings, and can be civil about it. What I do have a problem with is people who act like douchenozzles about it and shove it in every pro-enders face about how wrong and stupid they are for liking the endings. And how they're not fans of the ME universe (or must have just played ME3), or are just FPS people who don't play for story. Or make asenine comments in pro-ending threads that consist of "Hold the line" "Marauder Shields" or "SPACE MAGIC OMG!"

Those (among others, I'm sure) are the ones I have a problem with.

And really, basing a judgment on someone according to their sig is silly.

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.  

[EmEr77]

HenchxNarf wrote...

EmEr77 wrote...

Sup Hench!

Now Hench knows I have
no beef with "pro-enders." If there are people who took from the endings
what they took, and as Hench described it, the ending fit for her
Shepard, I cannot argue with that, nor will I try. All I can do is
clearly and concisely state my own point of view.

Hello, friend! 

And you did that quite well. And you are one of the good ones, your point of view was really well thought out and I agree with much of what you said. Entropy is tricky, and I would have chosen another term, but that guys article was pretty amazeballs.

If there was a thumb's-up emote right now, you'd have it. See everyone! Look! Pro-ender, and anti-ender being kind, and friendly to one another! It can happen! And yeah, I want to sit and thoroughly read through it when it's not almost 1AM. I read most of it, but quick-skimmed a little bit through the end. He had some great points, and it's by far the most well-thought out argument for why the ending was good. Personally, I adored the concepts BioWare attempted to convey. I was just a little saddened they weren't as fleshed out as much as they should have been, felt a little hasty... but the concepts in and of themselves kicked ass. 

I would love the chance to see BioWare work with the indoc theory or, hypothesis as I'm seeing it called, too. THAT... would be amazeballs.

Edit: My sense of time is horrendously off. It's apparently well AFTER 1 AM. I'm not going crazy, I swear!

Modifié par EmEr77, 05 avril 2012 - 08:22 .

[Tocquevillain]

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.

[HenchxNarf]

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.

[B3ckett]

Loads and loads of bull crap.

There is nothing trully defendable in the ending. I am sorry for the example, but in novadays it's just like meeting a girl in a club. Everything goes smooth and then you land in your apartment. And it turns out, she's a MAN.

That's how the ending sticks to the rest of this brilliant trilogy IMHO.

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!