395 réponses à ce sujet

[The Razman]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

The ending was great.

Concur.

snip*

This is such a bigger thing than "haters gonna hate".

If you can't see that you're clearly uneducated on the situation.

Exhibit #1 in the "haters gonna hate" case.

[Lyrebon]

lx_theo wrote...

acidic-ph0 wrote...

Anyone who believes that deus ex machina is a good way to end a story like Mass Effect doesn't know what good writing is.

In fact deus ex machina is practically synonymous with bad writing.

You have a better way to defeat the Reapers in one fell stroke? Unless you were expecting the beginning of a scavenger hunt be on the Crucible, there wasn't much other way the story could have ended.

SteamieHotPlayer wrote...

good? then you are the minority.

A minority on the internet. And we all know that the vocal part of the internet is the absolute voice of all who played it.

Kanner wrote...

What was good about it?

It fit the theme tof the game.
It really wrapped me up in the moment when the time came.
It wasn't a happy ending. That would have seem more like pandering than anything.

Overall it was satisfying enough to not make me mad, but it wasn't amazing enough for me to incredibly happy about it either.

The Crucible targets all lifeforms in the galaxy, wiping them out. Except organics are spared at the expense of Shepard sacrificing herself as the catalyst. In effect, her organic DNA excludes all organics as targets to the Crucible. This leaves synthetics as the only targets, destroying both the Reapers and the geth.

As for the themes: 
http://jmstevenson.w...-mass-effect-3/ 

Scroll down to section 2. Those established themes are essentially spat on in the last moments of the game. The Reapers come across as a joke, instead of the seemingly unstoppable menace that drives the self-determination vs. fate debate.

I don't believe the Reapers to be gods spawned from nothing. No. Infact the best theory I've heard on their origin is that they were created by an advanced race millions of years ago. A race that was embroiled in a war with synthetics and their solution was to create a different synthetic, one that wouldn't begin to question its existence and rebel against its makers, to fight their war for them.

Only, this organic race hadn't factored in their own hubris over their pride at their technological prowess that these new synthetics did begin to question. In the end, these new synthetics, the Reapers, postulated in the analysis of their root programming that to save organics they would have to reset the galaxy periodically at the height of technological evolution - before synthetic life completely eradicated *all* organic life.

What we view as cruel and evil is believed by the Reapers to be the act of justice and order. We are the chaos their order must intervene. It's what makes them so frightening, believing as one what they're doing is right.

[ReshyShira]

'The ending was good.'

Translating from 'Trollfan' to 'Rational Human Being'...

'I have Histrionic personality disorder and I need attention.'

Modifié par James_Raynor, 09 avril 2012 - 02:30 .

[someone else]

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.

[Ericus]

Lyrebon wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

acidic-ph0 wrote...

Anyone who believes that deus ex machina is a good way to end a story like Mass Effect doesn't know what good writing is.

In fact deus ex machina is practically synonymous with bad writing.

You have a better way to defeat the Reapers in one fell stroke? Unless you were expecting the beginning of a scavenger hunt be on the Crucible, there wasn't much other way the story could have ended.

SteamieHotPlayer wrote...

good? then you are the minority.

A minority on the internet. And we all know that the vocal part of the internet is the absolute voice of all who played it.

Kanner wrote...

What was good about it?

It fit the theme tof the game.
It really wrapped me up in the moment when the time came.
It wasn't a happy ending. That would have seem more like pandering than anything.

Overall it was satisfying enough to not make me mad, but it wasn't amazing enough for me to incredibly happy about it either.

The Crucible targets all lifeforms in the galaxy, wiping them out. Except organics are spared at the expense of Shepard sacrificing herself as the catalyst. In effect, her organic DNA excludes all organics as targets to the Crucible. This leaves synthetics as the only targets, destroying both the Reapers and the geth.

As for the themes: 
http://jmstevenson.w...-mass-effect-3/ 

Scroll down to section 2. Those established themes are essentially spat on in the last moments of the game. The Reapers come across as a joke, instead of the seemingly unstoppable menace that drives the self-determination vs. fate debate.

I don't believe the Reapers to be gods spawned from nothing. No. Infact the best theory I've heard on their origin is that they were created by an advanced race millions of years ago. A race that was embroiled in a war with synthetics and their solution was to create a different synthetic, one that wouldn't begin to question its existence and rebel against its makers, to fight their war for them.

Only, this organic race hadn't factored in their own hubris over their pride at their technological prowess that these new synthetics did begin to question. In the end, these new synthetics, the Reapers, postulated in the analysis of their root programming that to save organics they would have to reset the galaxy periodically at the height of technological evolution - before synthetic life completely eradicated *all* organic life.

What we view as cruel and evil is believed by the Reapers to be the act of justice and order. We are the chaos their order must intervene. It's what makes them so frightening, believing as one what they're doing is right.

I like this take on the background for the Reapers.  It also makes an important distinction.  We can fully accept at the end of ME3 that the Reapers may believe that the 'organics vs synthetics' conflict is inevitable.  But that doesn't explain why Shepard (or we the audience) would agree - especially if we've successfully dealt with the Geth/Quarian conflict.  This to me is one of the key issues with the ending (along with the starchild).  It comes across as though the writers also believe this is an inevitable conflict when the rest of the ME story can completely disprove this premise.  Not sure if that's what the writers intended, just saying that's how it feels in the current ending.

Modifié par Ericus, 09 avril 2012 - 02:46 .

[Amioran]

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.

And in Mass Effect 3, Shepard consistently defies claims that conflict X can't be resolved, in addition to potentially convincing TIM to take his own life. That's the resume` of a man (or woman) who does not simply accept what others claim without proper backing.

But in the philosophical theme you have to arrive to a point where the thing cannot be resolved without consequences. It comes a point where you have to accept the consequences of an action no matter what, and those consequences are already written. Why that's so? It would be too long to explain and a discussion like this will be off-topic, but there's a motivation why this happens and no matter what's your mileage you come to the same conclusions because those are the only way around. 

Again, this is all contained within the philosophical theme that is behind the saga from beginning. You have free will until a point, after you have to decide what it matter most: this "free will" or "peace" or "power" (not the exact words, but bear with me).

He's Vigil, without the explanation, and exists only to handwave solutions (and problems) into being. Writers avoid contrivances by providing enough explanation that element X does not feel out of place in the story.

But as I've explained the SC is not out of place in this story at all. It may seem only in the case you lack the philosophical background.

We can debate on the fact that this is a game, so given the audience it was maybe an inopportune move expecting people to understand something as that and expecting something as that, however this doesn't the change the fact that his presence is not out of place.

If the ultimate theme was meant to be helplessness, the narrative should have allowed the player/Shepard to express that in some way, such as the realization that there's nothing we can do at this point.

This again is ineherent in the philosophical them. Order and chaos are too much divergent point of views. It will come a point where the two have to collide and when this happens no "best" choice can exist.

Do you remember the book's name?

"The Informers". 

Modifié par Amioran, 09 avril 2012 - 02:56 .

[alienatedflea]

The_Shootist wrote...

1) destroy civilization, or 2) become your enemy, or 3) make all sentient beings cybernetic against their will.

Yep, right up there with Plan 9 from Outer Space and Attack of the Killer Tomatoes.

Not true at all...and you really can not say that synthesis is what Saren wanted.  He preferred submission rather than extinction not blending the organics and synthetics into one. 
OP, Trolls be trolling these days mainly the retake crowd.

[abaris]

Ericus wrote...

But that doesn't explain why Shepard (or we the audience) would agree - especially if we've successfully dealt with the Geth/Quarian conflict.  This to me is one of the key issues with the ending (along with the starchild).  It comes across as though the writers also believe this is an inevitable conflict when the rest of the ME story can completely disprove this premise.

Even everything else aside, the ending makes everything the series stood for redundant.

Tolerance, making alliances at impossible odds and lastly Shepards defiance of not gobbling up whatever is thrown their way. It was all for naught. And I think that's the real problem.

[The Razman]

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.

Yep ... the "everyone who doesn't agree with me is a troll" defence.

Time to look in a mirror maybe and ask yourself why you're so personally offended by people liking something you don't, hm? 

[Ericus]

Amioran wrote...

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". 

Just wanted to say that this is the most coherent explanation of the ME3 endings that I've seen posted - thanks!  

I do still feel that the addition of the starchild at the last minute was not an appropriate way to express these choices to the audience however.  If the dream sequences throughout the game had dropped more explicit hints about the starchild (or whatever he really is), then I could accept it.  But, given what Shepard has experienced through the rest of the ME trilogy, it would currently make far more sense for Harbinger to fulfill this role on the screen.  It would maintain the high levels of threat and mystery that the Reapers should embody, while providing some closure to Shepard's conflict with the Reapers.

[Dominator24]

kbct wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

OutlawTorn6806 wrote...

Get ready for Kbct and his crew. And his poll. lol

So true.

Okay, fair enough. No polls for now. How about this? This is the best gif I've seen for ME3:

Ahahahahahahaha thank you sir you made my day.

This is truly ME3 in a nutshell.

[Lyrebon]

Ericus wrote...

I like this take on the background for the Reapers.  It also makes an important distinction.  We can fully accept at the end of ME3 that the Reapers may believe that the 'organics vs synthetics' conflict is inevitable.  But that doesn't explain why Shepard (or we the audience) would agree - especially if we've successfully dealt with the Geth/Quarian conflict.  This to me is one of the key issues with the ending (along with the starchild).  It comes across as though the writers also believe this is an inevitable conflict when the rest of the ME story can completely disprove this premise.  Not sure if that's what the writers intended, just saying that's how it feels in the current ending.

Precisely. The very fact that the Starchild (being a super-AI) hasn't killed off all organic lifeforms yet is contradictory to its own claims. And if it's using the Reapers for this purpose isn't it just instigating what it's directly trying to prevent? If it wanted to preserve organic life there are many more agreeable ways to do this that a hyper-intelligent artificial form should have calculated.

I like to think that the Reapers developed sentience, as Legion and the geth did, and there was some internal disagreement. Harbinger is obviously enjoying the eradication of humanity, and Sovereign called organics inferior. If they were assigned the task the Starchild set, why the sadistic hostility? To me that suggests the Reapers have moved from their original goal of preserving organic life for that fact, into harvesting organics to preserve themselves.

Shepard would not agree with anything the Starchild is saying. Not when she's been through so much crap and at every turn has refused to give into the "inevitable." Characters like Shepard do not bow down to half-baked rationalism. Everything the Starchild says, to me, is lies and is something Bioware could have expanded on by giving Shepard the opportunity to call its bull.

[Amioran]

Ericus wrote...
But, given what Shepard has experienced through the rest of the ME trilogy, it would currently make far more sense for Harbinger to fulfill this role on the screen.

This could be true, but probably they thought that it was a too predictable subject to adhere to that role, even because it is more difficult (after what happened) that you can consider Harbringer as a "God". Using a new character that you don't know instead has not this drawback.

I think the problem here is always the same: if they had an audience that surely had the knowledge to understand the philosophical theme behind they could make Harbringer play the role because they would understand the motivations behind, as it is however it would have been even more of a gamble than it is now, given his precendent role in the saga.

[Tazzmission]

Zany Jedi wrote...

In that case, could you please explain the plotholes? Also I would be hard pressed to call an ending with a deus ex machina good, lazy and poorly written is more like it in my opinion.

so because you dont like it your gona demand people explain it to you?


ill explain it


its unifinished plain and simple


and what i am saying is the normandy crash is the unfinished thing


star child is fine

the relays blowing up is fine

the normandy crashing imo was left on a cliff hanger

[Izhalezan]

ME1 got me to make 12 different Shepards.
ME2 got me to play all of them again.
ME3.... I played twice... and am now playing my other games till a ending that makes sense shows up. I've tried to like it, but I can't, even after hours on Youtube watching videos on it.

[Arsenic Touch]

someone else wrote...

No, OP - the ending was bad.

Bad because it is dramatically disconnected from everything that preceded it.

Bad because the writing was clumsy, forced, and unnuanced.

Bad because the writing itself is drastically inferior to that in the rest of the game

Bad, because the information on the reapers, however interesting, is irrelevant to the choices offered Shepard.

Bad, because the "choices" turn the protagonist into a mere foil for SpaceBrat.

Bad because the choices invalidate the fundamental theme of player choice.

Bad, because even Bioware has been forced to admitted it is deficient and needs "clarification."

An
ending need not provide "closure" or cut off controversy or even lead
to a happily ever after to be great (The Sopranos is a perfect
example.)  Like it or not, no one ever argued that was crappy writing or
a creative dodge.

Bioware' dlc needs to fix the ending -
clarification will not cut it.   They have made it clear, however, that
defending Casey and Walter's egos are the paramount values.

and
finally, Bad, because it encourages the kind of intellectual dishonesty
that allows mere opinion to pass as critical thinking, and shoddy
workmanship, defective execution and bad writing to claim immunity as
"art."

Nailed it.

[Jadebaby]

Tazzmission wrote...

Zany Jedi wrote...

In that case, could you please explain the plotholes? Also I would be hard pressed to call an ending with a deus ex machina good, lazy and poorly written is more like it in my opinion.

so because you dont like it your gona demand people explain it to you?

I think it was a question.... Far from a demand, relax

Tazzmission wrote...

and what i am saying is the normandy crash is the unfinished thing

star child is fine

the relays blowing up is fine

the normandy crashing imo was left on a cliff hanger

The other 2 were also your opinion...... 

Modifié par Jade8aby88, 09 avril 2012 - 03:12 .

[Jadebaby]

Izhalezan wrote...

ME1 got me to make 12 different Shepards.
ME2 got me to play all of them again.
ME3.... I played twice... and am now playing my other games till a ending that makes sense shows up. I've tried to like it, but I can't, even after hours on Youtube watching videos on it.

This +1.

[78stonewobble]

Ericus wrote...

Lyrebon wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

acidic-ph0 wrote...

Anyone who believes that deus ex machina is a good way to end a story like Mass Effect doesn't know what good writing is.

In fact deus ex machina is practically synonymous with bad writing.

You have a better way to defeat the Reapers in one fell stroke? Unless you were expecting the beginning of a scavenger hunt be on the Crucible, there wasn't much other way the story could have ended.

SteamieHotPlayer wrote...

good? then you are the minority.

A minority on the internet. And we all know that the vocal part of the internet is the absolute voice of all who played it.

Kanner wrote...

What was good about it?

It fit the theme tof the game.
It really wrapped me up in the moment when the time came.
It wasn't a happy ending. That would have seem more like pandering than anything.

Overall it was satisfying enough to not make me mad, but it wasn't amazing enough for me to incredibly happy about it either.

The Crucible targets all lifeforms in the galaxy, wiping them out. Except organics are spared at the expense of Shepard sacrificing herself as the catalyst. In effect, her organic DNA excludes all organics as targets to the Crucible. This leaves synthetics as the only targets, destroying both the Reapers and the geth.

As for the themes: 
http://jmstevenson.w...-mass-effect-3/ 

Scroll down to section 2. Those established themes are essentially spat on in the last moments of the game. The Reapers come across as a joke, instead of the seemingly unstoppable menace that drives the self-determination vs. fate debate.

I don't believe the Reapers to be gods spawned from nothing. No. Infact the best theory I've heard on their origin is that they were created by an advanced race millions of years ago. A race that was embroiled in a war with synthetics and their solution was to create a different synthetic, one that wouldn't begin to question its existence and rebel against its makers, to fight their war for them.

Only, this organic race hadn't factored in their own hubris over their pride at their technological prowess that these new synthetics did begin to question. In the end, these new synthetics, the Reapers, postulated in the analysis of their root programming that to save organics they would have to reset the galaxy periodically at the height of technological evolution - before synthetic life completely eradicated *all* organic life.

What we view as cruel and evil is believed by the Reapers to be the act of justice and order. We are the chaos their order must intervene. It's what makes them so frightening, believing as one what they're doing is right.

I like this take on the background for the Reapers.  It also makes an important distinction.  We can fully accept at the end of ME3 that the Reapers may believe that the 'organics vs synthetics' conflict is inevitable.  But that doesn't explain why Shepard (or we the audience) would agree - especially if we've successfully dealt with the Geth/Quarian conflict.  This to me is one of the key issues with the ending (along with the starchild).  It comes across as though the writers also believe this is an inevitable conflict when the rest of the ME story can completely disprove this premise.  Not sure if that's what the writers intended, just saying that's how it feels in the current ending.

With that kind of logic it only makes sense to believe that the Catalyst and Reapers are actually malfunctioning machines.

Basically theyre tin foil hat people with nuclear weapons.

[Bat32391]

Meh the ending was mediocre in my book. I just used that epilogue that Shannon person made to give myself the closure I wanted. Although I really hated that wormhole thin.

[DannyGloverfromPredator2_]

Amioran wrote...

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.

I can respect your conclusion about the end game choices given your assumption about the underling philosophical theme of the ME series being about free will vs. will of God (or another higher power). However, I don't agree with you even in the slightest about that assumption. 

I don't see any reason to buy into that theme from anything that has happened before in the series. I would argue, much to the contrary of a free will vs. a higher power theme, that the ME series thematically comes out in force in favor of:
(1) the power of an individual to create change by defying and beating the odds
(2) strength through diversity and inclusion
NOT
(3) man's free will vs. the will of god/higher powers

The appearance of StarChild and as a higher power/god figure in the final act of the game, in the endgame narrative of a series that has had very little religious inclination, destroys the strong thematic framework throughout the rest of the series. 

The series could easily have been resolved without being overly "happy" while still working in concert with established narrative patterns and themes. The endgame, as it stands, for me, fails miserably.

Modifié par DannyGloverfromPredator2 , 09 avril 2012 - 03:43 .

[Il Divo]

Amioran wrote...

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

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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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. 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.  

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.

But in the philosophical theme you have to arrive to a point where the thing cannot be resolved without consequences. It comes a point where you have to accept the consequences of an action no matter what, and those consequences are already written. Why that's so? It would be too long to explain and a discussion like this will be off-topic, but there's a motivation why this happens and no matter what's your mileage you come to the same conclusions because those are the only way around. 

Again, this is all contained within the philosophical theme that is behind the saga from beginning. You have free will until a point, after you have to decide what it matter most: this "free will" or "peace" or "power" (not the exact words, but bear with me).

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.

Shepard has been established as a character who doesn't simply lay down and die because someone else tells him to. 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. There is no dialogue on this theme you continually bring up. Shepard isn't confronted with some earth-shattering truth. 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.

But as I've explained the SC is not out of place in this story at all. It may seem only in the case you lack the philosophical background.

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

We can debate on the fact that this is a game, so given the audience it was maybe an inopportune move expecting people to understand something as that and expecting something as that, however this doesn't the change the fact that his presence is not out of place.

The audience can understand concepts which are explained clearly. The Catalyst is not explained clearly.

This again is ineherent in the philosophical them. Order and chaos are too much divergent point of views. It will come a point where the two have to collide and when this happens no "best" choice can exist.

Then that should be explored through the conflict with the catalyst. Organic perspective vs. machine perspective. This is not explored in the finale. Definitely not enough to be considered significant. ME2 brought up the whole "ascenscion" process and how the Reapers think they are helping us. The Catalyst barely glosses over this issue.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 09 avril 2012 - 04:05 .

[DannyGloverfromPredator2_]

Ericus wrote...

I do still feel that the addition of the starchild at the last minute was not an appropriate way to express these choices to the audience however.  If the dream sequences throughout the game had dropped more explicit hints about the starchild (or whatever he really is), then I could accept it.  But, given what Shepard has experienced through the rest of the ME trilogy, it would currently make far more sense for Harbinger to fulfill this role on the screen.  It would maintain the high levels of threat and mystery that the Reapers should embody, while providing some closure to Shepard's conflict with the Reapers.

Had BioWare elected to not go all Deus Ex Machina on us and use Harbinger as a principle antagonist in establishing Shepard's (and everyone else's) futility in trying to resist the unstoppable force that is The Reapers, then maybe, just maybe they could have pulled off a functional endgame with a such a bleak, fatalist, powers bigger than you can force you into corners ending. Even then, I wouldn't have appreciated it from a thematic perspective, because I think the established themes of individual choice and power, and strength through diversity and inclusion are much more powerful and resonate better in a 21st century climate where religion/gods/higher powers are not seen by many to ultimately run our lives.

That being said, BioWare instead went theme shift and narrative shift in conjunction and it failed.

[DannyGloverfromPredator2_]

@ Il Divo,

It seems you and I see very similarly in evaluating the ending. I enjoyed reading your dissection of the free will vs. higher power theme.

[Il Divo]

DannyGloverfromPredator2 wrote...

@ Il Divo,

It seems you and I see very similarly in evaluating the ending. I enjoyed reading your dissection of the free will vs. higher power theme.

It seems we do. We will fight many battles together, before the end comes.

Btw, awesome username.