239 réponses à ce sujet

[The Charnel Expanse]

It's pretty clear that in crafting the ending, the two men ostensibly responsible for it completely lost track of what has been the established central theme of the Mass Effect trilogy - the struggle of one wo/man to unite a galaxy against an overwhelming existential threat and the difficult choices s/he is forced to make in the process. It's a simple theme and one that should not have been difficult to stick with. Instead, when it came time to conclude the series, they took what had been an existing but ultimately ancillary theme in the game universe - the conflict between man and machine [or organics and synthetics, as it were] and decided to wedge that in as the main focus of the series at the very last moment, thus completely upsetting the narrative flow of all three games. 

Now, to be fair, organics versus synthetics WAS a present conflict and not to an insignificant degree. Listening to Saren talk during the first game, you'd think that was the focus of the story from his perspective. But in the second game, it was relegated to a very minor plot element; magnified slightly in the third [specifically during the Rannoch arc] but it was never the main focus of the Mass Effect series, and that should've been abundantly clear to two men who were there for the entire creative process. Saren was never the protagonist of Mass Effect, and for the writers to adopt his warped view of the universe is just baffling.

Why they lost sight of things, I could only speculate. But this thematic disconnect is why any attempt to salvage the existing ending will almost surely fall short of satisfying any serious fans. The Catalyst is not completely irredeemable as an exposition fairy character, but damn close to it, because he represents such a disconnect from what the story is actually about, and in order to fit him into the narrative his entire character would have to be rewritten meticulously, to reflect Shepard's view of the universe. Very difficult to do, given how little precedent there is for his appearance in the first place.

Modifié par The Charnel Expanse, 07 avril 2012 - 09:14 .

[pistolols]

Personally i think ME2 messed everyone up made everyone think it was all about the characters which was never my take at all and in fact i found ME2 to be rather tedious dealing with all these characters personal problems that i didn't even care about.

I always knew the heart of this was a conflict of man vs machine. And i loved the way the end tied everything together in the form of an AI behind it all... it was pretty mind blowing to behonest.

[The Charnel Expanse]

pistolols wrote...

Personally i think ME2 messed everyone up made everyone think it was all about the characters which was never my take at all and in fact i found ME2 to be rather tedious dealing with all these characters personal problems that i didn't even care about.

I always knew the heart of this was a conflict of man vs machine. And i loved the way the end tied everything together in the form of an AI behind it all... it was pretty mind blowing to behonest.

You represent a tiny minority.

[Spectre-00N7]

pistolols wrote...
I always knew the heart of this was a conflict of man vs machine. And i loved the way the end tied everything together in the form of an AI behind it all... it was pretty mind blowing to behonest.

I'm glad you feel that way.  I sadly do not see it as you do.

[pistolols]

The Charnel Expanse wrote...

pistolols wrote...

Personally i think ME2 messed everyone up made everyone think it was all about the characters which was never my take at all and in fact i found ME2 to be rather tedious dealing with all these characters personal problems that i didn't even care about.

I always knew the heart of this was a conflict of man vs machine. And i loved the way the end tied everything together in the form of an AI behind it all... it was pretty mind blowing to behonest.

You represent a tiny minority.

Yeah because most people don't pay attention.  The final choice of the game, for example, to control or destory synthetic lifeforms is a conflict brought up NUMEROUS times throughout the series.  It is absolutely a major theme.

[CronoDragoon]

pistolols wrote...

Personally i think ME2 messed everyone up made everyone think it was all about the characters which was never my take at all and in fact i found ME2 to be rather tedious dealing with all these characters personal problems that i didn't even care about.

I always knew the heart of this was a conflict of man vs machine. And i loved the way the end tied everything together in the form of an AI behind it all... it was pretty mind blowing to behonest.

Bioware games ARE about the characters. They always have been.

[2484Stryker]

The theme wasn't wrong, they just twisted it beyond acceptance. Those three ending choices made no sense.

[pistolols]

2484Stryker wrote...

The theme wasn't wrong, they just twisted it beyond acceptance. Those three ending choices made no sense.

Sorry, but you are wrong.  Replay Tali's loyalty mission in ME2 and then come back to talk to me.  You will see those 3 choices pop out at you in a very surprising way.

See this is the problem.  Nobody was paying attention.

Modifié par pistolols, 07 avril 2012 - 06:36 .

[I am KROGAN]

pistolols wrote...

Personally i think ME2 messed everyone up made everyone think it was all about the characters which was never my take at all and in fact i found ME2 to be rather tedious dealing with all these characters personal problems that i didn't even care about.

I always knew the heart of this was a conflict of man vs machine. And i loved the way the end tied everything together in the form of an AI behind it all... it was pretty mind blowing to behonest.

I never once even thought of man vs. machine as a main thematic point.  As the OP says, it was background at best (magnified at sections).  I got out of the majority of the xx amount of time I put in:  Quit infighting in the galaxy, drop your meaningless centuries old conflicts, be buddies and kick some reaper ass, otherwise we are all dead.

It will forever be a mystery why, in the last 10 minutes, the narrative switched from a simple to follow theme to a much less important (in my view) theme that has been running the length of the narrative.  Is changing themes at the end artsy/brooding/deep, I sure as hell don't think so.  Then again, I'm not a "writer".

[The Charnel Expanse]

pistolols wrote...

The Charnel Expanse wrote...

pistolols wrote...

Personally i think ME2 messed everyone up made everyone think it was all about the characters which was never my take at all and in fact i found ME2 to be rather tedious dealing with all these characters personal problems that i didn't even care about.

I always knew the heart of this was a conflict of man vs machine. And i loved the way the end tied everything together in the form of an AI behind it all... it was pretty mind blowing to behonest.

You represent a tiny minority.

Yeah because most people don't pay attention.  The final choice of the game, for example, to control or destory synthetic lifeforms is a conflict brought up NUMEROUS times throughout the series.  It is absolutely a major theme.

You can't justify man v. machine as the central conflict of the series because for the majority of the series it's not the central conflict. In the second and third games, it's abundantly clear that the primary focus is on unification of the galaxy and cooperation for the purpose of defeating an existential threat that was introduced in the first game [and is thus consistent]. Everything from the tone of the primary story arcs to the collection of war assets to the way multiplayer is presented is consistent with that fact. Everything but the last five minutes of the game.

If they'd jumped straight from the first game to the third, you might have a point, but it doesn't work that way. You have to work within the framework you've established.

Modifié par The Charnel Expanse, 07 avril 2012 - 06:39 .

[bpzrn]

Hudson and Walters don't know what the game is about

[sistersafetypin]

pistolols wrote...

2484Stryker wrote...

The theme wasn't wrong, they just twisted it beyond acceptance. Those three ending choices made no sense.

Sorry, but you are wrong.  Replay Tali's loyalty mission in ME2 and then come back to talk to me.  You will see those 3 choices pop out at you in a very surprising way.

See this is the problem.  Nobody was paying attention.

So Tali's single loyalty is all the proof we need? I'm sorry but the one consistent theme from ME1 has always been beating the odds through unity. The end of ME3 is about destroying diversity

[Venturisection]

Seeing as Drew was leader on ME1 and ME2 and wrote most of the novels, it would be astute to make sure you were on his line of thought when writing a sequel rather than "Making it your own" which is exactly what it seems like with this convoluted rubbish.

[pistolols]

The Charnel Expanse wrote...

pistolols wrote...

The Charnel Expanse wrote...

pistolols wrote...

Personally i think ME2 messed everyone up made everyone think it was all about the characters which was never my take at all and in fact i found ME2 to be rather tedious dealing with all these characters personal problems that i didn't even care about.

I always knew the heart of this was a conflict of man vs machine. And i loved the way the end tied everything together in the form of an AI behind it all... it was pretty mind blowing to behonest.

You represent a tiny minority.

Yeah because most people don't pay attention.  The final choice of the game, for example, to control or destory synthetic lifeforms is a conflict brought up NUMEROUS times throughout the series.  It is absolutely a major theme.

You can't justify man v. machine as the central conflict of the series because for the majority of the series it's not the central conflict. In the second and third games, it's abundantly clear that the primary focus is on unification of the galaxy and cooperation for the purpose of defeating an existential threat that was introduced in the first game [and is thus consistent]. Everything from the tone of the primary story arcs to the collection of war assets to the way multiplayer is presented is consistent with that fact. Everything but the last five minutes of the game.

I disagree in fact hackett makes it very clear toward thew beginning of ME3 that the only reason for uniting everyone is to give the crucible a chance.  He never says "DERP WE GONNA ALL UNITE AND TAKE IT TO DEM REAPAHS!" or something stupid.

[ericjdev]

I won't buy anything either of them touch again. Their egos and lack of vision killed something that should have been beautiful now they hide behind artistic integrity when the abomination they are responsible for contains not a smidge of artistry.

[veramis]

It's possible to turn any ridiculous event into literary gold, it just takes skill and effort. It reminds me of MGS4, how illogical it was that a supersoldier could stop a giant ship running through a layer of ice, while standing on that ice, for about 20 seconds. No matter how illogical the vehicle was for getting across the point, the sentiment was palatable enough that not many people complained about the technical ridiculousness.

The problem with starkid wasn't starkid, it was the fact that he was so poorly done, and if bioware wanted to make the catalyst a human kid with a human voice they have to explain how it came to be otherwise they are being incompetent. Likewise, the problem with technological singularity wasn't itself, but because it was so poorly explained. And I don't have faith bioware knows how to make a convincing story for either technological singularity or dark energy so they might as well try improving tech singularity explanation with their clarification dlc.

[Joeyv]

Man. The arrogance of thinking you know the game better than members of the team who developed the damn game series..

[Bob3terd]

Man vs machine to me at least was only a sub plot under the larger umbrella of racial tolerance

[The Charnel Expanse]

Venturisection wrote...

Seeing as Drew was leader on ME1 and ME2 and wrote most of the novels, it would be astute to make sure you were on his line of thought when writing a sequel rather than "Making it your own" which is exactly what it seems like with this convoluted rubbish.

Drew only resigned from BW this past February. Do we know why he wasn't involved with ME3?

[sorry, I never really kept track of this kind of stuff]

[I am KROGAN]

pistolols wrote...

The Charnel Expanse wrote...

pistolols wrote...

The Charnel Expanse wrote...

pistolols wrote...

Personally i think ME2 messed everyone up made everyone think it was all about the characters which was never my take at all and in fact i found ME2 to be rather tedious dealing with all these characters personal problems that i didn't even care about.

I always knew the heart of this was a conflict of man vs machine. And i loved the way the end tied everything together in the form of an AI behind it all... it was pretty mind blowing to behonest.

You represent a tiny minority.

Yeah because most people don't pay attention.  The final choice of the game, for example, to control or destory synthetic lifeforms is a conflict brought up NUMEROUS times throughout the series.  It is absolutely a major theme.

You can't justify man v. machine as the central conflict of the series because for the majority of the series it's not the central conflict. In the second and third games, it's abundantly clear that the primary focus is on unification of the galaxy and cooperation for the purpose of defeating an existential threat that was introduced in the first game [and is thus consistent]. Everything from the tone of the primary story arcs to the collection of war assets to the way multiplayer is presented is consistent with that fact. Everything but the last five minutes of the game.

I disagree in fact hackett makes it very clear toward thew beginning of ME3 that the only reason for uniting everyone is to give the crucible a chance.  He never says "DERP WE GONNA ALL UNITE AND TAKE IT TO DEM REAPAHS!" or something stupid.

And yet they have no idea what the crucible does, they all assume it kabooms the reapers somehow.  How does that, in any way, prove your point.  He's saying we need to UNITE to face a COMMON ENEMY so that maybe a device that can kill THE REAPERS will kill them.  The only way it even has a chance is by UNITING THE GALAXY.

[Dartack]

sistersafetypin wrote...
So Tali's single loyalty is all the proof we need? I'm sorry but the one consistent theme from ME1 has always been beating the odds through unity. The end of ME3 is about destroying diversity

this

[blacqout]

I think that it's the other way around, and that a majority of the fanbase has been misinterprating things since ME1.

[pistolols]

sistersafetypin wrote...

pistolols wrote...

2484Stryker wrote...

The theme wasn't wrong, they just twisted it beyond acceptance. Those three ending choices made no sense.

Sorry, but you are wrong.  Replay Tali's loyalty mission in ME2 and then come back to talk to me.  You will see those 3 choices pop out at you in a very surprising way.

See this is the problem.  Nobody was paying attention.

So Tali's single loyalty is all the proof we need? I'm sorry but the one consistent theme from ME1 has always been beating the odds through unity. The end of ME3 is about destroying diversity

No.. there is more.  Legion's loyalty mission... do we rewrite or destory the geth?  Go back even further to ME1 with the credit syphoning AI terminal on the citadel... where the conflict is probably first introduced.  The AI tells us that he knows organics will always control or destroy synthetic lifeforms.  Then just in general all the paranoia over AI's thorughout all 3 games... the end so fits.  The end was an amazing conclusion to these conflicts.

Modifié par pistolols, 07 avril 2012 - 06:44 .

[MaximusRex]

pistolols wrote...

The Charnel Expanse wrote...

pistolols wrote...

Personally i think ME2 messed everyone up made everyone think it was all about the characters which was never my take at all and in fact i found ME2 to be rather tedious dealing with all these characters personal problems that i didn't even care about.

I always knew the heart of this was a conflict of man vs machine. And i loved the way the end tied everything together in the form of an AI behind it all... it was pretty mind blowing to behonest.

You represent a tiny minority.

Yeah because most people don't pay attention.  The final choice of the game, for example, to control or destory synthetic lifeforms is a conflict brought up NUMEROUS times throughout the series.  It is absolutely a major theme.

I would say you were the one not paying attention if you thought that ME2 was such a departure form ME1.  

[The_Crazy_Hand]

pistolols wrote...

Personally i think ME2 messed everyone up made everyone think it was all about the characters which was never my take at all and in fact i found ME2 to be rather tedious dealing with all these characters personal problems that i didn't even care about.

I always knew the heart of this was a conflict of man vs machine. And i loved the way the end tied everything together in the form of an AI behind it all... it was pretty mind blowing to behonest.

The heart of the conflict is that fear of free will, is more dangerous than the free will itself, which the reapers are shown to be a part of.

Even still, the way it was wrapped up isn't nearly satisfying.