395 réponses à ce sujet

[JBONE27]

Wittand25 wrote...

mmm buddah23 wrote...

Amioran wrote...

mmm buddah23 wrote...
No sheeple are people who follow the trend without questioning, in this case, that would be the people who say the ending is good without question. Good job.

Never thought that it is the same thing with the exact contrary statement, i.e. "in this case that would be people who say the ending is bad without question"? Do you see more of the former or of the latter?

So have you actually buried your case without comprehending it?

No the people that say the ending is good, just say it is good, and thats final. People like me bring up the options and choices that were completely ignored in the pevious games, and hell, even in ME 3. People like me want more choices, hell the choices we were promised, we want more variety, which is what ME is all about, but sheeple like you just accept everything EA forces their game maker pawns to do, and will defend it to the death. And will stay online until their word is final. Wich i bet is what you will do.

So that the Krogan can end up anywhere from a rather positive future, to a place even worse then what they had at the start of ME1 does not matter ? That the Quarians die out is not a choice the player can make ?

I don´t consider the ending to be good, and wrote that as soon as I saw the first relaiable spoilers before launch, but some people here really go to unreasonable lenghts to find issues with the game.
Frankly al that needs to happen to have the ending fixed and to make it a worthy final chapter to the trilogy is adding DA:O style epilogue cards explaining what happens to the crew and th races of the universe and to give some explanation for some of the inconsitencies of the end.

Well, since the Mass Relays were destroyed in every ending with the krogan and quarians on earth, then yes, the krogan are at a worse place (males and females seperated, so there's no chance of repopulation even with the genophage cure), and the quarians die out (no new food sources) regardless of what you choose.

[DannyGloverfromPredator2_]

@Amioran,

Forgive my misinterpretation of what you were trying to communicate - as you didn't mention order vs. chaos specifically until the tail end of your discussion, and the "free will vs. higher power" piece showed up much earlier, I mistook your intent.

However, if you are correct in that Starchild and the "free will vs. higher power" narrative construction exists to highlight this Order vs. Chaos theme, I find that to be an even more convoluted and absurd way to deliver the message. If that's the case, a new omnipotent (to an extent) power is introduced at the end of the game and forces you into one of three significant choices, but said power is not to be taken literally as a god-like being, but figuratively as a representative of Order vs. Shepard's chaos?

Aside from that being a ridiculous narrative construction, the Order vs. Chaos theme has not been a major player in the series. Yes, it comes to the table in the context of the motives of the Reapers, but as gamers play Shepard, the principle antagonist of the villainous Reapers, it seems absurd that their Order vs. Chaos logic should be adopted as what the writers really want to communicate.

Putting someone in the driver's seat of a 100+ hour adventure only to tell them that the enemy's logic has been correct all along is, well, a dick move.

[Amioran]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...
Then the story has failed. Mass Effect 3 is the conclusion of a trilogy. Anything else that is necessary in order to understand the narrative beyond the works themselves is a failure on the part of the writers. I shouldn't need Mass Effect 4 to understand a trilogy. [/quote]

They never stated that the trilogy was referred to the full saga. If the trilogy is referred to the story arc of Shepard it makes perfect sense everything they have done.

[quote]
Actually, it does if you're going for story consistency. And if your entire point is to subvert the narrative at the end, then you have to make that clear. [/quote]

No, because, as I've said, that's the point of the philosophical theme behind. Refer, again, to the Paradise Lost of Milton. The conflict is built upon the change of "options" in the end and the fact that the freedom you thought you have is in fact inexistent.

[quote]
There is no opportunity by Shepard to express sorrow that he wasn't able to preserve the galaxy, there is no effort to fight his destiny. [/quote]

Because in fact this is the thematic key. There's no effort you can make to change the things. You can think otherwise before but at the end you understand that you were wrong (and the villains, in this case of the game, were right).

As for the opportunity to express sorrow there's no time at that point.

[quote]
There is nothing beyond a magic blue child appearing to say "this is how the story ends" without explanation or justification. He doesn't offer evidence to support his goals, he doesn't mock you. [/quote]

The evidence to support his goals are underlined in the philosophical theme. You cannot pretend an author to hand grab you at every turn. Some things must be understood by the reader or to write something as a book that underlies different themes you would need 5000 pages.

The Ulysses of Joyce is full of philosophical themes. If he explained in full all of them to make the reader that doesn't know their background instead of the 500 or so pages it would have been long 100000. Same as for the Divine Comedy of Dante that would have become an encyclopedia and even more.

Now if you want to talk about opinions then it's neither needed this. Not knowing those you can also not enjoy the book and dislike it, but if you then want to talk about JUDGING the book you cannot do so without experience in them or elsewhere the fault is yours, not of the author.

[quote]
The Catalyst says "here are your options" and Shepard says "Yes, master", with minimal exposition. [/quote]

I've already explained (for as much as I can here) why this happens. It is all tied to the theme.

[quote]
Again, if you are attempting to deconstruct the choices the player has made up until this point in the series, then you need to make that clear. Not imaginary religious themes. Themes do not arise at the expense of the coherency of the work. To do so is to fail in your job. [/quote]

There's nothing of religious here. They were just examples (refer to my other post concerning this). The theme is about order vs. chaos. God vs. man in the occidental religion is a perfect example of this for this I used it to try to make you understand.

As for themes, again, I understood it from beginning from whence Bioware introduced the concept of the synthetics as they did. If you couldn't make the connection that, again, it's your fault, not theirs.

[quote]
It was badly written. The same way that Matrix Revolutions is badly written, by ignoring consistency and good writing in favor of weak attempts at religious themes. [/quote]

Apart that also in Matrix the theme is not religious it is just how it is exposed so the mass can understand (but it backfires because it becomes mediocre in this way; you see what it happens when you try to explain too much? you have mediocrity because for those who know it already a lot of time is lost and for those who don't anyway they will never get the real complexities behind the theme behind because you cannot in the short span of a movie/book explain it anyway, so in the end you just lose precious time much better spent elsewhere and it becomes just a mediocrity) in that case it is another thing.

Then I repeat, there's nothing "religious" per se about it. It was just my example.

[quote]
There is nothing philosophically complex about Mass Effect 3 because the work never bothers to actually raise a philosophical question, at least the ones you continually think. Certainly not enough to be considered the overarching theme of the work.  [/quote]

This is only because you don't know the theme. If you did know it then you would.
If I didn't say what I said before you would not know that neither. Now at last you have a minimal background to understand a little the motivations behind the story. It is just that's not enough, there is much more.

Lacking the background it's obvious that you cannot get properly the complexity behind the narrative. You cannot get properly the thematic order vs. chaos and all its dynamic, you cannot understand why momentum is built at the end, you cannot get why the SC is even there and what it represents.

It seems all a mess. But again, I can understand this, but when you talk about "bad writing" I'm sorry but that's not so. If you don't know these things it's just your fault, and you cannot judge the work properly without.

[quote]
The Matrix asks us "What is reality?" Watchmen asks us "Does Society really need heroes?" Knights of the Old Republic 2 asks us "What does it mean to believe in something?" These themes are made explicit and explored throughout the entire works through various characters, dialogue, and plot threads.[/quote]
 
And do you really think you understand what those means? If I told you that all Matrix is based on the esoteric tradition, especially on the work of Aleister Crowley would you understand what I'm saying and the themes behind? What it is "explained" is really nothing at all if you don't know the theme behind. You will never be able to comprehend the thing fully, just as you cannot comprehend a painting of Delacroix fully until you don't know the struggle of him vs. David.

[quote]
Repeating philosophical theme five or ten times will not make your argument any more valid. If your theme is inconsistent with the story you have told up until this point, then you have failed as a writer. [/quote]

I repeat it because you seem to don't understand that you cannot separate the two. You talk as if the theme is something aside from the writing itself, but that's not so at all. Maybe continuing to repeating it you will understand why judging how much I bring it along (and so tie this with the weight it has on the story).

The fact that you don't know a thematic theme behind a narrative and you cannot understand for this the book it doesn't mean at all that the book is "badly written" but just that you cannot understand it.

As I've said you cannot expect an author to explain everything (especially things so complex) everytime, that would be complete nonsense. Do you imagine if I to make a certain reference to surrealism would have to explain in the specific what it means in a book? It would take me the same book just to try to explain it.

[quote]
Shepard has been established as a character who doesn't simply lay down and die because someone else tells him to. [/quote]

Shepard is just a man as everyone else (in fact, again thematic, he continues to repeat it over and over in this last title, do you ever wondered why? this is the motive) and so as such there are some things s/he cannot avoid. There are some things that are just as they are and you cannot do otherwise. This is the struggle the character come to face in the end and it's a struggle that you cannot well understand without understanding the theme. 

The fact is that there's no way I cannot enter in the specific in all this points without writing pages of material. I can only refer you to the theme and then if you want you can research a bit more about it and try to understand what's meant by it.

[quote]
If the ending theme the writers are going for is a nihilistic approach where the protagonist is confronted with the reality that he can't win, that must be made explicit. [/quote]

??????

Not at all. But from where you people get these "rules"? Which books do you read?
An author must do nothing at all of the sort. He just writes about something. It is the job of the reader to join the points, not of the author.

[quote]
There is no dialogue on this theme you continually bring up. Shepard isn't confronted with some earth-shattering truth. [/quote]

Because it is all ineherent in the theme. There's no need to explain it because it is already done in the theme itself.

[quote]
The narrative treats Shepard as if he was always this submissive character who had never bothered to defy any kind of authority figure in the past. [/quote]

This figure is different. He tries to fight against him but then he understands (all at once, again, thematic) that there's no way out of it.

Without the map you have no direction to go, I can get this, but, again, it's not the fault of the author, at all. 

[quote]
Or if you don't understand the issue. I've had an extensive philosophical background, and I still think the ending was trash. [/quote]

You've had "extensive philosophical background" and you don't know perfectly this theme (so as to recognize it perfectly and understanding it immediately and all the ties in the story with it) that has been talked by all major philosophers in every possible way from the start of the world?

It seems very strange to me.

[quote]
The audience can understand concepts which are explained clearly. The Catalyst is not explained clearly.
[/quote]

You don't need to explain clearly a thing that has been debated for centuries and that's probably one of the major themes of the occidental literature (hell the major religion is based on it).

If you don't know it that's only your fault. As I said you cannot expect an author everytime he talks about a thing that has some philosophical/whatever tie in it to explain fully what is meant by it. It would be impossible to do and you could not end a book (and also if you could it would become so dispersive as to be unreadable).

[quote]
Then that should be explored through the conflict with the catalyst. [/quote]

Again not, because it is a conflict too complex to be resolved in the span of a book, let alone the span of a game.
If you know the theme on where all the confilict is based then you know perfectly all the facets of it and what it implies.

Modifié par Amioran, 09 avril 2012 - 07:51 .

[JBONE27]

someone else wrote...

pay no attention to razman...his baiting on this topic is well known...and he certainly knows that problems with the ending are not trivial - whether you like it or hate it.

Yeah, I got that when he said "Baulder's Gate" was a terrible game.

[Vaktathi]

translationninja wrote...

You guys are really trying to "interpret" profound philosophical themes into an entertainment product?

Uhm, ya.....

bad writing is bad writing is bad writing.

Of course there will always be a few people claiming Blairwitch was the scariest movie ever and Matrix Revolutions is just so full of twists and insights.

All I have to think of reading "justifications" like this is two hipsters standing in front of a canvas with one red and one green square smeared on it discussing on and on why that is sooooo edgy and sooooooo artsy....

Kinda my feelings here. People are having to go into far too much depth to explain an ending that is so far removed from the rest of the content of the trilogy that it appears to most people as nonsensical. You can invent whatever deepness you want in just about anything, but most of the stuff put forward in response to the ending is essentially "well, if you look at it this way..." or "this is what I think is happening", fundamentally they are excuses for bad writing and poor execution, attempting to portray poor storytelling as something "deep".

We end up getting huge diatribes and explanations on *why* the endings aren't what they appear to be, either from Indoctrination conspiracies, Plothole Excuse threads, etc, *ANYTHING* to take the ending as anything but what it really is presented as being, which reall means that it fails in any real literary or artistic sense. Bioware has consistently done great writing and endings before, they've proven they're capable of it. Something failed here.

Much the same thing happened with the Evangelion series ending. A group of people went "wow, that's deep!" at the ending, most people went "um...what am I watching?" while the producers basically went with an irrelevant and literarily non-sequitor psychological deconstruction of the main characters for the ending because it was cheap and they could do a lot of mono/uncolored shots and watercolor stills when they ran out of money and time for animated gigantic robot fight sequences.

That's kinda what the ending to ME3 feels like. Something that really is inappropriate to the narrative paradigm is hamfisted in for any number of reasons where they just have to go with *something* to put into the product, but if enough people watch anything you'll find some that like it and some that declare it "artistic and deep" precisely because it wasn't what was being built up to, despite that it was really a half-assed work.

People are confusing bad writing with "deep".

Modifié par Vaktathi, 09 avril 2012 - 06:37 .

[Psychlonus]

lx_theo wrote...


So, the ending was good. All this hate for it is absolutely ridiculous.

...

ri·dic·u·lous   /rɪˈdɪkyələs/ ridicule  or derision; absurd; preposterous; laughable



ab·so·lute·ly   /ˌæbsəˈlutli, ˈæbsəˌlut-/ Show Spelled[ab-suh-loot-lee, ab-suh-loot-] without exception; completely; wholly; entirely: You are absolutely right. 2. positively; certainly. 3. (of a transitive verb) without an object
interjection 4. (used emphatically to express complete agreement or unqualified assent)



You've given yourself an impossible case to make.


im·pos·si·ble   /ɪmˈpɒsəbəl/ Show Spelled[im-pos-uh-buhl] adjective 1. not possible; unable to be, exist, happen, etc. 2. unable to be done, performed, effected, etc.: an impossible assignment. 3. incapable of being true, as a rumor. 4. not to be done, endured, etc., with any degree of reason or propriety 5. utterly impracticable

Modifié par Psychlonus, 09 avril 2012 - 06:31 .

[JBONE27]

translationninja wrote...

You guys are really trying to "interpret" profound philosophical themes into an entertainment product?

Uhm, ya.....

bad writing is bad writing is bad writing.

Of course there will always be a few people claiming Blairwitch was the scariest movie ever and Matrix Revolutions is just so full of twists and insights.

All I have to think of reading "justifications" like this is two hipsters standing in front of a canvas with one red and one green square smeared on it discussing on and on why that is sooooo edgy and sooooooo artsy....

Actually, this game's ending reminded me of the second Matrix movie.  The first one barely touched on the philosophy, and it was an awesome movie.  The second one was litterally half this esoteric philosophical discussion, and it sucked (other than the fight scenes).  Honestly, if you want to make something philosophical, do so from the offset, like "The Waking Life," "My Dinner With Andre," or "Monty Python's the Meaning of Life."  Don't throw these obscure, half-explained concepts into a character driven space opera/sci-fi war game.

And that's another thing, the entire series was character driven, but in the end, it's just Shepard and the kid, and Shepard's just a freaking puppet at this point.  By which I mean, (s)he is unquesionting, and abidding by the rules this kid set up.  The kid is unfathomably rediculous, and unleashed on us at the last possible minute.  Yet another reason why the ending to this game failed.

[TuringPoint]

lx_theo wrote...

 *Readies Omni-Shield of Invulnerability*

Yes, I said it. The ending was good. It wasn't great. It wasn't amazing. It wasn't the quality the series deserved to end on after such a great run. But it was good.


EDIT: Here is me addressing the issue of "plotholes"
http://social.biowar...3404/4#11197542

Totally agreed!

[vallore]

Amioran wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
However, it wasn't explained at all. Exposition from the writers should never be necessary for the audience to understand the plot, outside of the work itself. The explanation never came, either before or after.

But the "after" it is yet to come in this case if this is, indeed, a lapse.

Regardless of its existence as a philosophical theme, it was a bad one to choose in a series which up until this point has revolved around the protagonist defying Gods and Demons alike.

The fact that until a point you can do this it doesn't mean that you can do it till the end. Also in this case, in fact, this is perfectly in conformity with the philosophical theme behind. In the philosophical theme in question man can oppose to the "will of God" or anyway act on "free will" up until the point where there's a resolve to be made and where there is no other way around. All the choices made in the past return and there is no escape from resolving the conflict in a already prescribed way.

This "last conflict" is explained actually very well by the choices in the end that are perfectly consistent with the philosophy behind the theme.

Destruction: Rebellion, this is the opposition path (to be clear the path chosen by Lucifer in the theme's use in the christian mythology). The two points of view cannot no more coexist. For this, in fact, the choice have the destruction of all synthetics as a consequence. It methaphorically explain this lack of coexistence between the two points of view. There are no more ways to come to an agreement, there are no more middle grounds. Where you exist I cannot, and the contrary.

Control: This is the path that simulates the pow of the esoteric occidental tradition (that arise from this theme). While you not necessarily agree with one or the other point of view (or you agree with both at the same time) you put yourself as a master of both, and try to control the power behind to do your will. The consequence is that you become yourself a sort of God, a thing you probably opposed with all your will until then (this path in the narrative is usually brought to momentum having the protagonist opposed to the role of the leader with all his might, as an example).

Synthesis: This is the path of union with God, the mystical one. It is probably the most moderate path because you try to assimilate the two point of views and make them coexist. However also if at first sight it may seem the path with the "best for all" consequences it is not properly so because in doing so you give up your individuality and in a certain sense you admit that "it is not your will to be done, but that of God". 

And up until this point you think "there's always another way" and you pity those that think otherwise. This is explained perfectly by having villains in the saga having made already the choice (having thread the path before and coming to the same point) that you oppose one way or another, until finally you come to the same end and understand that "they were right all along" (do you remember it, don't you?) in the sense that indeed there's no other way around (this same thing is contained also in the Paradise Lost of Milton that use the same theme).

Tell me now that you know all of this that the story is badly written. It has a lot of complexity and inner meaning and it talks of a very complex philosophical theme that constitutes (amongst other things) our occidental major religion.

You seem to consider the three choices natural and logical. I consider them neither.

The entire ending construction feels very artificial; grafted into Mass Effect, not actually part of it. The dilemma is not a natural result of the story, it is an artificial imposition that requires a god-like figure to impose it, for the simple reason that such dilemma has no place in it, (or was indeed even originally planned for it).

Up until the ending, the story provides no reason for the change of attitude of Shepard - quite the contrary - there is no natural or logical reason that flow from the story development, for Shepard to accept the stargod logic as truth, or to give up and accept “fate” as it is presented. In fact, the story that far seems to contradict the argument used by the stargod at every turn, and requires that we forget about EDI, the Quarian-Geth conflict, (and other stories to a lesser degree), to give any credence to it.

The choices of the past you allude do not justify the shape of the choices take “now” and they do not close any other doors and certainly do not invalidate defiance or the will to search for another way.

None of the previous events you seem to mention force or require such the solution proposed or impose acceptance of the situation by Shepard. Her compliance is entirely artificial, forced by the author, using a god-like figure to impose it, and removing the player out of the equation by assuming complete control of her character in the arguably most important moment of the story. ME3 is full of moments of good storytelling. Unfortunately, the ending wasn’t one of them.

[Someone With Mass]

I'd gladly post why the endings blow ass in great detail, but this is the non-spoiler section, so I'll just say this: They didn't intend to make it look like that.

They also failed to deliver on pretty much every promise they made.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 09 avril 2012 - 06:55 .

[xsdob]

Well isn't this just great. So much of that civility and respect that the retakers talk about so much as they swarm this post with negativity and pessimism. And the wonderful message of "your wrong because I say so" echos so well with the fact that your so called objective proof is for something that by it's very nature is subjective, and thus can be seen as either good or bad without anyway to disprove that other than to yourself, is a wonderful example of the fair and non-bias that everyone claims they have here.

Good job.

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

Yes, while I would have liked more endings, the ending we did get was simply... good.

No more devious cultural and genetic conquest by the asari. The galaxy will never succumb to the blue menace.

No more salarians lifting species up and casting the down as they see fit, like gods.

No more Krogan problem, or Yagh for that matter.

No more humans expanding everywhere on planets nobody else would touch, unleashing cosmic horrors like the Thorian by accident.

The Mass Relays had to go. It was the only effective, final way to preserve the galaxy. I'm glad we didn't get a happy sappy ''We're all saved let's throw a party on the Citadel'' ending.

Modifié par Spaghetti_Ninja, 09 avril 2012 - 07:08 .

[Vaktathi]

xsdob wrote...

Well isn't this just great. So much of that civility and respect that the retakers talk about so much as they swarm this post with negativity and pessimism. And the wonderful message of "your wrong because I say so" echos so well with the fact that your so called objective proof is for something that by it's very nature is subjective, and thus can be seen as either good or bad without anyway to disprove that other than to yourself, is a wonderful example of the fair and non-bias that everyone claims they have here.

Good job.

Pot meet kettle. Anyone can go into a thread and vaguely proclaim what terrible people the other side is, the nature of your own post seems to echo exactly what you seem to be complaining about.

There's been plenty of examples of exactly what is wrong with the ending from a literary standpoint in this thread, and the negativity and pessamism hasn't exactly been one way, you'll notice within the first few posts there are already people going "oh wait until 'dem Retakers get here...you'll be sorry!"

Because, you know, that helps promote constructive discussion.

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

Yes, while I would have liked more endings, the ending we did get was simply... good.

No more devious cultural and genetic conquest by the asari. The galaxy will never succumb to the blue menace.

No more salarians lifting species up and casting the down as they see fit, like gods.

No more Krogan problem, or Yagh for that matter.

No more humans expanding everywhere on planets nobody else would touch, unleashing cosmic horrors like the Thorian by accident.

The
Mass Relays had to go. It was the only effective, final way to preserve
the galaxy. I'm glad we didn't get a happy sappy ''We're all saved
let's throw a party on the Citadel'' ending.

So, everything that made the ME universe what it was being destroyed was a good thing...? >_>

And either way, in just about any conceivable ending, even the poorly-derided "Disney" ending where Shepard and all his/her pals live, we end up with Earth as a ruined cinder of a world, hundreds of planets in flames or destroyed, untold billions dead, trillions wounded or displaced, several species exterminated or on the brink, the vultures of the galaxy unleashed, galactic civilization in tatters, and plenty of room for new threats to emerge.

It is difficult to see where a small group of soldiers surviving a galactic holocaust is really such a happy-go-lucky ending

Modifié par Vaktathi, 09 avril 2012 - 07:16 .

[HighFlyingDwarf]

No...it really isn't.

[Amioran]

vallore wrote...
The entire ending construction feels very artificial; grafted into Mass Effect, not actually part of it. The dilemma is not a natural result of the story, it is an artificial imposition that requires a god-like figure to impose it, for the simple reason that such dilemma has no place in it, (or was indeed even originally planned for it).

Refer to my previous message.

If you don't see the place for the dilemma it is only because you don't know the theme behind.
The dilemma IS a natural part of the story, it was introduced almost immediately, in fact. It is only that, again, if you lack the proper connections you cannot understand what's happening in the background and why a thing is happening that way.

This can happen for every book and every movie and every other medium if the user lacks the proper background and it's not the fault of the author and it's not "bad writing" at all.

vallore wrote...
Up until the ending, the story provides no reason for the change of attitude of Shepard - quite the contrary - there is no natural or logical reason that flow from the story development, for Shepard to accept the stargod logic as truth, or to give up and accept “fate” as it is presented.

It is inherent in the theme. As I explained an author cannot explain all these things that are so complex in the short span of a book or movie or game. The best s/he can do is to formulate the story hoping the readers will have enough background to do the proper connections.

If you try to explain these complex things in that short of a span the attempt simply backfires as I've already explained in the Matrix Revolution's example.

vallore wrote...
In fact, the story that far seems to contradict the argument used by the stargod at every turn, and requires that we forget about EDI, the Quarian-Geth conflict, (and other stories to a lesser degree), to give any credence to it.

What? The quarian-geth conflict introduces the cardinal theme from beginning, that's then carried along by the reapers remaining in the background all the time and brought to the climax by the SC . How can you forget about it?

vallore wrote...
The choices of the past you allude do not justify the shape of the choices take “now” and they do not close any other doors and certainly do not invalidate defiance or the will to search for another way.

They do. If you would know the philosophical theme you would understand that there's no other choice. You can read the Paradise Lost of Milton where these concepts are elaborated for example (I keep repeating the example of the Paradise Lost because it is probably the most concise and less complex one - yes, it may seem hilarious but that's so - , to understand and it is so because it is explained in religious form that everybody is probably acquainted with) so you can comprehend the motive fully of why this happens and what's the inside struggle that brings to that conclusion.

vallore wrote...
None of the previous events you seem to mention force or require such the solution proposed or impose acceptance of the situation by Shepard.

Because I cannot elaborate all those complexities here. If you study the theme they are there and you can make the proper connections with the situation of Shepard. I just made some brief references and explained some short things to try to make understand people that there's something more about it. The rest is up to you.

vallore wrote...
Her compliance is entirely artificial, forced by the author, using a god-like figure to impose it, and removing the player out of the equation by assuming complete control of her character in the arguably most important moment of the story. ME3 is full of moments of good storytelling. Unfortunately, the ending wasn’t one of them.

1) It's not artificial and not imposed, it's part of the theme. People say I repeat myself but they continue to ignore purposedly what I say.
2) To judge a thing you need to know the full picture or you cannot do it.

Modifié par Amioran, 09 avril 2012 - 07:32 .

[Vaktathi]

Amioran wrote...

It is inherent in the theme. As I explained an author cannot explain all these things that are so complex in the short span of a book or movie or game. The best s/he can do is to formulate the story hoping the readers will have enough background to do the proper connections.

If they can't do an adequate job in 30+ hours of story, especially to where you've got a huge chunk of the playerbase sitting there going "where the hell did this come from all of a sudden?" then either something went really wrong, or it just wasn't done properly. They managed just fine in ME1 and ME2 with their literary intents, buildup and transitions.

There's a reason many people have stated that the ending felt like it was written by a different team for a different game. If that is the feeling evoked by a large group of the reader/player base, then something was bungled.

[Amioran]

Vaktathi wrote...
If they can't do an adequate job in 30+ hours of story, especially to where you've got a huge chunk of the playerbase sitting there going "where the hell did this come from all of a sudden?" then either something went really wrong, or it just wasn't done properly. They managed just fine in ME1 and ME2 with their literary intents, buildup and transitions.

Again, no. We are not talking here about a thing that you can comprehend with just a simple dialogue or explanation and/or in 5 mins of time . It requires study and knowledge assimilated in a moderate-long amount of time. You can only provide the references (and there are A LOT, I've already highlighted some) and have people make the connections if they can.

Same as what it happens with "easter-eggs". Do you imagine if everytime they had to explain to what they refer to and what they mean specifically (and those are much less complex than this)? If the reader doesn't comprehend them then too bad.

The only difference is that "easter-eggs" are not required to understand a story, instead this other thing is, but the methodology is the same.

Vaktathi wrote...
There's a reason many people have stated that the ending felt like it was written by a different team for a different game. If that is the feeling evoked by a large group of the reader/player base, then something was bungled.

And all those people know nothing about the philosophical theme in the background.

As I repeat you can think the authors at fault for expecting too much from the audience but that's really a fault? Who likes to be treated as an idiot?

Modifié par Amioran, 09 avril 2012 - 07:40 .

[Someone With Mass]

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

Yes, while I would have liked more endings, the ending we did get was simply... good.

No more devious cultural and genetic conquest by the asari. The galaxy will never succumb to the blue menace.

No more salarians lifting species up and casting the down as they see fit, like gods.

No more Krogan problem, or Yagh for that matter.

No more humans expanding everywhere on planets nobody else would touch, unleashing cosmic horrors like the Thorian by accident.

The Mass Relays had to go. It was the only effective, final way to preserve the galaxy. I'm glad we didn't get a happy sappy ''We're all saved let's throw a party on the Citadel'' ending.

But an ending where Shepard is forcing every living being in the galaxy to go through some kind of change is okay?

Nice.

And what's so wrong with a sappy ending? I'd rather take another bottle shooting scene than having someone force his "artistic vision" on me, when it can be outdone in quality in less than fifteen minutes by anyone who knows how to use a pen.

Better than the overused tone of the "it must come at a cost" dilemma that people apparently think is art just because it's "gritty" and "edgy". Which totally didn't get old five years ago.

[Brakensiek]

The ending seemed rather rushed. The entire level after taking the beam up to the Citadel is confusing and inconsistent. The structure of the Citadel had changed dramatically from the point you enter it that it was no longer the same Citadel that you seen and walked around in the entire game. I am led to believe that the area you enter where Anderson is to open the Citadel arms simply does not exist. The part on top of the Presidium tower where you meet the Catalyst just does not exist.

There is no conspiracy that Shepard is really indoctrinated or some intended deep philosophical meaning. The entire ending is just botched and nothing more.

[Fixers0]

lx_theo wrote...
EDIT: Here is me addressing the issue of "plotholes"
http://social.biowar...3404/4#11197542

You really think you can debunk a well thought out analysis with one-liners don't you?

Here's a hint: supposition

[xsdob]

Vaktathi wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Well isn't this just great. So much of that civility and respect that the retakers talk about so much as they swarm this post with negativity and pessimism. And the wonderful message of "your wrong because I say so" echos so well with the fact that your so called objective proof is for something that by it's very nature is subjective, and thus can be seen as either good or bad without anyway to disprove that other than to yourself, is a wonderful example of the fair and non-bias that everyone claims they have here.

Good job.

Pot meet kettle. Anyone can go into a thread and vaguely proclaim what terrible people the other side is, the nature of your own post seems to echo exactly what you seem to be complaining about.

There's been plenty of examples of exactly what is wrong with the ending from a literary standpoint in this thread, and the negativity and pessamism hasn't exactly been one way, you'll notice within the first few posts there are already people going "oh wait until 'dem Retakers get here...you'll be sorry!"

Because, you know, that helps promote constructive discussion.

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

Yes, while I would have liked more endings, the ending we did get was simply... good.

No more devious cultural and genetic conquest by the asari. The galaxy will never succumb to the blue menace.

No more salarians lifting species up and casting the down as they see fit, like gods.

No more Krogan problem, or Yagh for that matter.

No more humans expanding everywhere on planets nobody else would touch, unleashing cosmic horrors like the Thorian by accident.

The
Mass Relays had to go. It was the only effective, final way to preserve
the galaxy. I'm glad we didn't get a happy sappy ''We're all saved
let's throw a party on the Citadel'' ending.

So, everything that made the ME universe what it was being destroyed was a good thing...? >_>

And either way, in just about any conceivable ending, even the poorly-derided "Disney" ending where Shepard and all his/her pals live, we end up with Earth as a ruined cinder of a world, hundreds of planets in flames or destroyed, untold billions dead, trillions wounded or displaced, several species exterminated or on the brink, the vultures of the galaxy unleashed, galactic civilization in tatters, and plenty of room for new threats to emerge.

It is difficult to see where a small group of soldiers surviving a galactic holocaust is really such a happy-go-lucky ending

So what's your point, that your subjective view trumps my subjective view because yours is about the lore and mine just states how bad your side acts at times?

News flash, Everyside is riddled with criticims leveled at both groups, so don't just act liek your holier than thou, cause the use of the term "your really have no understanding of what's going on" already makes any attempt to pretend to be civil obsolete with the conotation that the other persons argument is invalid and that the person in question lacks the intellegence and critical thinking skills you possess.

Oh, and the relays aren't waht make mass effect aspecial, technology that effects mass is the corner stone, the relays are just the most strongest example of this.

So, that means that mass effects uniquness came from the concept of the mass effect feild, that reduces the mass of an object and the force that object can inact. Everything is based on this technology, from the guns, to biotics, to armor, to the ships and everything that relies on technology outside of the omnitool, and that's an iffy disticntion at the most.

In fact, the relays are the biggest sore thumb of all the mass feild type technology, for while all of these things have innovated and changes with time and advancements, travel technology has stagnated thanks to how effecient relays are. Going from point A to point B in such sort time makes innovating highly outdated FTL travel a waste of time, even making more efficient ezero cores doesn't seem to be on anyone's agenda, nor is exploring outside regions using none conventinal means I.E mining vessels with automated systems that look for deserted planets and asteroids. All the races who have ever been discovered, bar 2 who were near the relays in their solar system, have been discovered by accident by just randomly going through a dormant relay, wow, everyone not rear that relay has to literally stumble through it into a populated area in order to actually be discovered, like the elcor, volus, humans, turians, and raoli.

So basically, the relays the the most stagnating force in the entire galaxy, probably by design. And if they were as important to all of the mass effect feild technology used by this galaxy, they would have called the game mass relay instaed of mass effect.

But that's my own subjective view which I have backed up with evidence that I interpret as being a positive force for my argument. Just like how your arguements are all backed up by subjective information, as is almost all of literature, because outside of having proper grammer, nothing else can really objectively be used to judge a work for artistic value or legitimacy. You will most likley disagree, and you are free and encouraged to do so, just remeber that your opinion, and my opinion, and op's opinion, and everyone elses opinion are all just subject to our own validity and regard, and cannot truley be used as a standard to judge other people's opinons, even by consensus.

Modifié par xsdob, 09 avril 2012 - 07:50 .

[Someone With Mass]

Shelmusk wrote...

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and people have different demands and expectation, so good for you.

I think that not only the ending sucks Krogan quads in terms of both writing and execution, but the whole main story was just disappoingly lame with that other deus ex machina called "crucible".

And I'm not even starting with the ending plotholes...

The Crucible is more of a McGuffin than a Deus Ex Machina, since it's established very early in the game and the protagonist has to fight for it to become operational. Which I personally don't have much of a problem with, since everyone knows that the chance of winning against the Reapers in a fair fight is slim at best.

It's the Catalyst that's the DEM, since the character pops out of nowhere with no buildup and just shows up to set everything straight and then go away again.

Now, that's bad writing. No matter how you twist it.

[Il Divo]

[quote]Amioran wrote...

They never stated that the trilogy was referred to the full saga. If the trilogy is referred to the story arc of Shepard it makes perfect sense everything they have done. [/quote]

 If Bioware cannot conclude the narrative in the confines of the trilogy, then it failed. We do not pin our hopes on the off-chance that they might address the concerns later on.

[quote]

No, because, as I've said, that's the point of the philosophical theme behind. Refer, again, to the Paradise Lost of Milton. The conflict is built upon the change of "options" in the end and the fact that the freedom you thought you have is in fact inexistent. [/quote]

And the theme is unexplored. You're attempting to connect the dots where the story does not bother to, akin to the chimp painting example earlier. If Shepard has no freedom, the narrative must express that in a coherent fashion, especially after establishing the full parameters of his freedom.
[quote]

Because in fact this is the thematic key. There's no effort you can make to change the things. You can think otherwise before but at the end you understand that you were wrong (and the villains, in this case of the game, were right).

As for the opportunity to express sorrow there's no time at that point. [/quote]

Then they better make time, given that this is the 5000k page+ theme you imagine them putting together. We had enough time for Vigil to outline the Protheans' role in stopping the Reapers, the Starchild can outline an extra ten minutes' worth of exposition on this theme you consider so critical. I suspect the reality is you imagining themes where none exist.

[quote]
The evidence to support his goals are underlined in the philosophical theme. You cannot pretend an author to hand grab you at every turn. Some things must be understood by the reader or to write something as a book that underlies different themes you would need 5000 pages.

The Ulysses of Joyce is full of philosophical themes. If he explained in full all of them to make the reader that doesn't know their background instead of the 500 or so pages it would have been long 100000. Same as for the Divine Comedy of Dante that would have become an encyclopedia and even more.

Now if you want to talk about opinions then it's neither needed this. Not knowing those you can also not enjoy the book and dislike it, but if you then want to talk about JUDGING the book you cannot do so without experience in them or elsewhere the fault is yours, not of the author. [/quote]

I judge the ending on one criteria: its lack of coherency in the face of previous established aspects of the narrative. That is all the criteria needed. Event B must follow from Event A, always in a clear manner.

[quote]
I've already explained (for as much as I can here) why this happens. It is all tied to the theme. [/quote]

As above, the theme failed.

[quote]

There's nothing of religious here. They were just examples (refer to my other post concerning this). The theme is about order vs. chaos. God vs. man in the occidental religion is a perfect example of this for this I used it to try to make you understand.

As for themes, again, I understood it from beginning from whence Bioware introduced the concept of the synthetics as they did. If you couldn't make the connection that, again, it's your fault, not theirs. [/quote]

Yet again, see above. Themes do not justify the incoherence of the narrative. Telling me "it's about order vs. chaos" does not mean the author succeeded in his goal.

[quote]

This is only because you don't know the theme. If you did know it then you would.
If I didn't say what I said before you would not know that neither. Now at last you have a minimal background to understand a little the motivations behind the story. It is just that's not enough, there is much more.

Lacking the background it's obvious that you cannot get properly the complexity behind the narrative. You cannot get properly the thematic order vs. chaos and all its dynamic, you cannot understand why momentum is built at the end, you cannot get why the SC is even there and what it represents. [/quote]

The SC represents the failure of the writers to tell a coherent story. Here's the theme of my argument: themes don't save unclear story-telling.

[quote]
It seems all a mess. But again, I can understand this, but when you talk about "bad writing" I'm sorry but that's not so. If you don't know these things it's just your fault, and you cannot judge the work properly without. [/quote]

If the writers are incapable of providing a justifiable reason for Shepard's lack of action, it is their failing. Your feeble shield of "themes" does not save you. Themes do not protect the writers from plotholes and handwaving.

[quote]

And do you really think you understand what those means? If I told you that all Matrix is based on the esoteric tradition, especially on the work of Aleister Crowley would you understand what I'm saying and the themes behind? What it is "explained" is really nothing at all if you don't know the theme behind. You will never be able to comprehend the thing fully, just as you cannot comprehend a painting of Delacroix fully until you don't know the struggle of him vs. David. [/quote]

And you just hit on the failings of the ending. I already said you are imagining all these non-existent themes. So let's get the full problem out in the open: the Matrix as a work is understandable in itself. The narrative is coherent. Mass Effect 3's ending is not.

[quote]
I repeat it because you don't know it, so it's the only way to make you see when it's there and when it's not.
The fact that you don't know a thematic theme behind a narrative and you cannot understand for this the book it doesn't mean at all that the book is "badly written" but just that you canont understand it.

As I've said you cannot expect an author to explain everything (especially things so complex) everytime, that would be complete nonsense. Do you imagine if I to make a certain reference to surrealism would have to explain in the specific what it means in a book? It would take me the same book just to try to explain it. [/quote]

So the "It's beyond your understanding" defense? You've thought about this more than Bioware has, with  the same lack of results.

If you cannot explain it, your argument fails harder than the ending of Mass Effect 3. Any issue can be broken down into basic concepts. These are your failings and limitations, no one else's

[quote]

Shepard is just a man as everyone else (in fact, again thematic, he continues to repeat it over and over in this last title, do you ever wondered why? this is the motive) and so as such there are some things s/he cannot avoid. There are some things that are just as they are and you cannot do otherwise. This is the struggle the character come to face in the end and it's a struggle that you cannot well understand without understanding the theme.  [/quote]

Shepard is a man who has had no problem fighting through adversity. I recommend you spend more time understanding the narrative as written than thinking about themes.

Proper character development requires that we see the transition. If a character starts off as angry and bitter, do not magically turn him bright and happy without a clear flow of ideas.

[quote]
The fact is that there's no way I cannot enter in the specific in all this points without writing pages of material. I can only refer you to the theme and then if you want you can research a bit more about it and try to understand what's meant by it. [/quote]

Don't refer me to your inability to explain yourself. That much is already apparent. Read up on the argument from authority.

[quote]

Not at all. But from where you people get these "rules"? Which books do you read?
An author must do nothing at all of the sort. He just writes about something. It is the job of the reader to join the points, not of the author. [/quote]

An author must be able to write a coherent set of events in telling a story. This goes for any theme. If I suddenly wanted to explore the role of feminism in galactic society, the way to do that would not be to (magically) turn Shepard into a woman. You find a method to explain the theme within the parameters of the story you have established.

Your theme must never interrupt the logical flow of ideas, otherwise the plot collapses upon itself. Event A must clearly follow from Event B in a consistent manner.

[quote]

This figure is different. He tries to fight against him but then he understands (all at once, again, thematic) that there's no way out of it.

Without the map you have no direction to go, I can get this, but, again, it's not the fault of the author, at all. [/quote]

He's no different than Sovereign proved to be. The Catalyst spews out incoherent ramblings which the player can easily counter. The story failed, as a result because it could not justify the Catalyst's ramblings in any logical capacity.

[quote]

You've had "extensive philosophical background" and you don't know perfectly this theme (so as to recognize it perfectly and understanding it immediately and all the ties in the story with it) that has been talked by all major philosophers in every possible way from the start of the world?

It seems very strange to me. [/quote]

I recommend taking more classes then, given your limited understanding. Philosophy is more about critical reasoning, probably more, than any single subject matter. We spend less time discussing bad story-telling and more time dissecting every line of text to extrapolate every last bit of meaning we can from it. Often times we even do so in a manner which the writer did not intend, which you might want to consider for the future.  

[quote]

You don't need to explain clearly a thing that has been debated for centuries and that's probably one of the major themes of the occidental literature (hell the major religion is based on it).

If you don't know it that's only your fault. As I said you cannot expect an author everytime he talks about a thing that has some philosophical/whatever tie in it to explain fully what is meant by it. It would be impossible to do and you could not end a book (and also if you could it would become so dispersive as to be unreadable). [/quote]

I don't accept it when an author decides to wave his magic wand to change the nature of the universe. All the while claiming it's his "theme". A theme is not a justification for an incoherent narrative.

[quote]

Again not, because it is a conflict too complex to be resolved in the span of a book, let alone the span of a game.
If you know the theme on where all the confilict is based then you know perfectly all the facets of it and what it implies.
[/quote]

It sounds more like the No True Scotsman fallacy. Only true philosophers are those who have explored this imaginary theme of yours and (magically) will happen to see all the arguments you're making, since you are incapable of presenting them yourself. It can't possibly be that Bioware had no idea what they were doing in the last five minutes of their story.

Modifié par Il Divo, 09 avril 2012 - 08:30 .

[MegaSovereign]

I agree.

The ending itself wasn't bad, it was just executed poorly. There was so much stuff they could have shown to tie up the loose ends.