5087 réponses à ce sujet

[frypan]

What are you folks doing? I go away for a few days and the thread runs amok. Eleven pages of reading to get through! I'd better get cracking.

I did get to meet Jennifer Hale and see some cool ME cosplay outfits at Supanova, so it was worth it. First time for such things and I can state I'm very pleased not to have said anything stupid - or so I'm told. My adviser in this regard has, by his own admission, managed to make himself look like an idiot in front of Harlan Ellison no less, and so is an expert on what not to say and who not to say it to.

I didnt ask about the ending though or the EC. That would have been unfair.

EDIT: Oh c'mon. I've been away and shouldnt have to do this. I even have a note from mum!

OK, how about something different? John Williams doing Rodriguez - brilliant musician, beautiful guitar.

Modifié par frypan, 20 juin 2012 - 05:29 .

[Seijin8]

Hey frypan, welcome back.

Excellent restraint from you at the convention. It would have been poor form to ask the voice of Ms. Shepard something she probably had to sign an NDA about.

[KitaSaturnyne]

Welcome back, frypan. I see you like to make an entrance.

Glad you had fun at the convention.

[delta_vee]

Morning. Heat waves are The Worst. Good to have you back, frypan.

You all know Film Crit Hulk, right? Good. Film Crit Hulk on Prometheus. It's a good read on its own, but swap out a name and a title and much of it applies to ME3 as well. This jumped out at me, in particular:

AND IN ALL HIS CONVERSATIONS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT LINDELOF NEVER SEEMED TO UNDERSTAND REGARDING THE FALLOUT OF LOST IS THE FACT THAT PEOPLE DIDN'T GET SO UPSET MERELY BECAUSE THEY WERE EXPERIENCING SOMETHING UNRESOLVED, BUT BECAUSE IT QUITE LITERALLY (IF INADVERTENTLY) RUBS THEIR NOSE IN ITS UNRESOLVEDNESS. AMBIGUITY SHOULDN'T FEEL LIKE IT'S BEING DECLARED TO THE AUDIENCE (WHICH ALL HIS PROPERTIES ARE GUILTY OF). IT SHOULD FEEL LIKE IT'S BEING EXPLORED WITH THE AUDIENCE.

And later on...

WHICH COMPLETELY TELLS US THAT SOMETIMES THE PROBLEMS OF FILMMAKING AREN'T A MATTER OF SCREWING UP BASIC PLOT MECHANICS, OR LOSING A CHARACTER MOTIVATION, OR MISSING A BEAT. SOMETIMES IT IS ABOUT COMING AT A PROJECT WITH AN ENTIRE DISPOSITION THAT IS JUST SLIGHTLY OUT OF SORTS.

Sigh. So true. Anyways, go read.

Modifié par delta_vee, 20 juin 2012 - 04:15 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

A great read. What really got my attention was this part:

AND HELL, ON A FUNCTIONAL LEVEL YOU CAN'T TEASE OUT AN IDEA IN A MOVIE AND THEN IN THE END, JUST SAY THE ENTIRE THING WILL BE FURTHER EXPLORED IN SEQUELS.

Just replace "a movie" with "Mass Effect 3", and "sequels" with "DLC".

Modifié par KitaSaturnyne, 20 juin 2012 - 07:08 .

[edisnooM]

@delta_vee

Good read, and I agree a lot of that could be applied to ME3. This in particular caught my attention:

SIMPLY PUT: FOR WHATEVER THE FILM DOES WELL, THE CHIEF PROBLEM IS THAT IT DOESN'T QUITE WORK.

Edit: Although as I have said before, were it not for the ending I probably would have been fine with all the little flaws in the game. So it's more the ending that doesn't quite work.

Modifié par edisnooM, 21 juin 2012 - 12:46 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

@Mani Mani

Agreed. I was enjoying the games an awful lot until the ending. The whole "loose thread on a tapestry" thing.

[frypan]

I'm still working my way through the backlog, so hopefully there's no repetition here of ideas.

The Ridley Scott parallel is interesting as I found his last movie, Robin Hood, to be somewhat "wrong" as well. This suggests a methodology that has somehow become messed up. For instance, the final battle of Robin Hood is an ugly, thematically weak schmozzle that fails to engage me, a war movie buff I might add, on any level. Contrast a smaller effort like The Eagle, which for all its flaws packs a powerful message into every scene of its final battle.

I wonder if ME3 somehow lost track of itself by following a different methodology to the first two games. Personally, the game felt closer to DAO and DA2 in tone - particularly the darker aspects and forced sacrifices. Its like someone from Dragon Age moved over to ME and said, "You're not making the players miserable enough. Kill some more of their friends or arbitrarily wipe out a whole race - that'll work." Such comments seem in tune with Allan's comments on this forum anyway.

This brings me to an issue with the game that's been bothering me recently. The fate of just about every ME1 and ME2 character is a miserable one for the player, even if the crewmates are not being outright killed through player choices or plot devices. To list a few:

Jacob is unfaithful
Thane dies, naturally but it is still quite sad
Miranda is involved in killing her own father
Mordin/Wrex - we lose one no matter what, unless we effectively murdered Wrex in ME1. (something that occurred to me recently but just feels wrong)
An attempt is made to make us think Grunt dies - but even then he loses his squad
Samara loses a daughter no matter what, and may suffer a worse fate
Tali or Legion or both die
Katsumi effectively rejects helping you
Kelly also refuses to join you and so does Zaeed
Liara loses her homeworld

Imagine if this was a group of your real frineds. You lose, or risk losing each one watch them suffer or have them reject you at every turn. I may be taking an extreme view here, but the only real positive I can see is Jack's story (I'll get to Garrus later). This begs the question, were they out to punish long time paragons or players who liked these characters? I know its a war, but not a single genuinely triumphant moment involved these characters, only breaths of relief if you didnt lose all of them, such as on Rannoch or with Grunt.

When I think about playing the game, its hard to find a reason to look forward to the major episodes, as each carries an awful price or implication. This culminates in an ending with no payoff for the ones you do save. I imagine this is anothre one of the War Story aspects noted by Delta Vee, but its quite draining and not very enjoyable an experience for somelike me who has been with the game a while.

This suggests that each team worked on their own section, but were all largely guided by a similar philosophy. Maybe it works for new players, or those who simply dont care, but for me, its all a bit much when set against an already awful background.

As an aside, the Turian mission on Tuchanka had an extended scene with the general's son, that I cannot help but think was a potential death scene for Garrus. Maybe they thought that was too much though, and repurposed it later.

EDIT: Thane's death might not be strictly natural, but we see it as something that was bound to happen due to his sickness in ME2.

Modifié par frypan, 21 juin 2012 - 03:14 .

[edisnooM]

@frypan

Kelly can also die if you don't convince her to change her identity, or apparently kills herself if you get mad at her for spying for TIM.

It really seems that they were trying to give the whole bleak war torn universe aesthetic, maybe make it more realistic, but to repeat a question that I have seen quite often on the boards: What's so wrong with a happy ending? Or having something that doesn't leave you feeling like you've got a black cloud above you.

Even the great "happy" victories we could achieve are tainted with grimness, Tuchanka and Mordin, Rannoch and Legion. Nothing we do seems to come out smiling. It might be more realistic but much more of a downer.

[zakaryzb]

frypan wrote...


As an aside, the Turian mission on Tuchanka had an extended scene with the general's son, that I cannot help but think was a potential death scene for Garrus. Maybe they thought that was too much though, and repurposed it later.

I had Garrus with me during this mission and I kept thinking "I swear if Garrus is killed off..."

Also, if you watch the final hours app, Hudson states that they originally intended for both your squadmates to be killed as you ran towards the beam.

[frypan]

@edisnooM and zakaryb

Yeah if we take the way we feel into consideration, its all a real disincentive to replay. Contrast the feeling of power at the end of ME2, where if we lose someone, we know it is our fault. Here, it all feels arbitrarily bad, through a combination of the consequences of our choices and the design decisions we have no control over.

A critical mass of crapulousness if you'll forgive the pun.

EDIT: edisnooM, I want my happy ending too, without some miserabe tacked on price to make me feel bad. Honestly, it feels like the game is aimed at people who enjoy this kind of suffering or who have never been exposed to it. What's next in this trend, an ending where they realy rub your face in a pile of disempowerment, a la the Lost comments above?

Modifié par frypan, 21 juin 2012 - 03:28 .

[delta_vee]

@frypan

I've generally tried to avoid Ridley's work of late. I was fairly nonplussed by Gladiator and Black Hawk Down, and despite Ridley having made two of my favorite movies (Alien and Blade Runner) I either haven't been compelled by the work, or find it problematic on multiple levels, or sometimes both. I'm told I should really watch the full version of Kingdom of Heaven sometime, though.

As far as ME3, I'll reiterate my belief that they tried to marry the war story to the hero's journey (more Film Crit Hulk on the latter here, with a touch of ME1 snark), to the detriment of both. And the war narrative, especially, seemed to elicit an almost punitive streak in terms of the insistent, recurring losses you mention. It makes the game rather, well, draining. The first time through, there was much I held in abeyance, hoping for a grand payoff to make it all worthwhile. I don't think I was the only one who did that.

[KitaSaturnyne]

I think the various character deaths speak into Mac Walters' inherent failure to provide meaning to emotional reactions.

If not, they certainly shine a certain light on a flaw in the trilogy. In the first game, we got our first crew of characters, and players loved them all. Then in the second game, we got an even bigger crew of characters and players loved them all too. When it came to the third game, for some reason, we were allowed to see things through to the end with a very small fraction of that populace that we'd come to love.

As for the rest? They took the easy way out. They killed them.

I'm truly beginning to wonder now just how big a sadist Mac Walters really is. I can't help picturing him cackling in a stone tower, lightning erupting from the dark clouds above.

"Speculations from everyone! SPECULATIONS FROM EVERYONE! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAAAAAAAAAA!"

[frypan]

@Delta_vee.

The thing about a war story is that you can get across the message without just killing people off or hammering the "everybody is miserable" message. Images like the child in the trailer get that across, and they could have done some more of that in game, through placement of more civilians caught up in the combat zones. Imagine if you had found a mother and children huddling in the garage of the final level, or a scion dragging someone off - like in the Collector attack from ME2.

In any case, unlike actual war, with all its ambiguities, this is a straight up fight against wrongdoers. We should have no need for many of the "why are we fighting" and "maybe they're not all bad" issues of a modern war story. No need to humanise the enemy to illustrate what war costs, as in this case the underlying truth is that it has to be done.

We've even got the "generals are incompetent" aspect out of the way in ME1 and 2. As far as I can see, there is simply no value in using a war story template in this case, especially the modern template with all its inherent hypocricies in depicting horror - while entertaining at the same time.

Modifié par frypan, 21 juin 2012 - 03:50 .

[frypan]

@Kita

And is it any wonder that when we speculate, we imagine the worst possible situations? The game conditions us to expect or fear the worst at every turn.

Even the Krogan solution was left open to a bad interpretation, with Wrex (in one instance) already demanding more planets for his people before the war is even over. Very little seemed to have any hope post war, except maybe Rannoch.

Modifié par frypan, 21 juin 2012 - 03:58 .

[delta_vee]

@Kita

As for the rest? They took the easy way out. They killed them.

To me, that element suggests a certain despondency at the number of outstanding variables and deferred resolutions a full import would entail. I suspect the strategy chosen was compartmentalization, and this being a war narrative, the easiest, cleanest (ha!) method of such is multiple character deaths and relative cameos. Without a preestablished superstructure for fitting all the Schrodinger-characters into the endgame, I think they thought they had no other real choice.

As for Walters' sadism: nah. I think Walters suffers from something similar to Lindleof - he's addicted, nay, obsessed, with the kind of thematically-heavy emotional punch (for lack of a better term) which is ultimately detrimental not only to narrative cohesion, but to true catharsis as well. He's so determined to elicit a particular version of emotional payoff that all else becomes secondary.

@frypan

Thus my oft-stated disagreement with beginning the game with the Reapers' invasion. It locked them into that war story, and as in Film Crit Hulk's Lindleof/Prometheus piece, I think it's the problem which all the other problems can be traced to.

Modifié par delta_vee, 21 juin 2012 - 04:09 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

@delta_vee

Point. I suppose it's more born from realizing that the ME2 cast really amounts to little more than cannon fodder in the whole storyline. The survivors of ME1 get to come back all sparkly and ready to get back into the thick of things while the ME2 cast is picked off, more or less, one by one.

That said, I still think Jacob's character arc was fully realized and satisfying, but I invite any and all to prove me wrong.

[zakaryzb]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

@delta_vee

Point. I suppose it's more born from realizing that the ME2 cast really amounts to little more than cannon fodder in the whole storyline. The survivors of ME1 get to come back all sparkly and ready to get back into the thick of things while the ME2 cast is picked off, more or less, one by one.

That said, I still think Jacob's character arc was fully realized and satisfying, but I invite any and all to prove me wrong.

It wasn't for any of those that had him as a love interest...

[KitaSaturnyne]

zakaryzb wrote...

It wasn't for any of those that had him as a love interest...

Well in the context of the story, he really seems to serve as little more than a 'love diversion', as it's impossible to stay with him after ME2 is over. I mean, he refuses to join your cause and gets another woman pregnant. And is happy about it. I mean, ouch.

[memorysquid]

frypan wrote...

I'm still working my way through the backlog, so hopefully there's no repetition here of ideas.

The Ridley Scott parallel is interesting as I found his last movie, Robin Hood, to be somewhat "wrong" as well. This suggests a methodology that has somehow become messed up. For instance, the final battle of Robin Hood is an ugly, thematically weak schmozzle that fails to engage me, a war movie buff I might add, on any level. Contrast a smaller effort like The Eagle, which for all its flaws packs a powerful message into every scene of its final battle.

I wonder if ME3 somehow lost track of itself by following a different methodology to the first two games. Personally, the game felt closer to DAO and DA2 in tone - particularly the darker aspects and forced sacrifices. Its like someone from Dragon Age moved over to ME and said, "You're not making the players miserable enough. Kill some more of their friends or arbitrarily wipe out a whole race - that'll work." Such comments seem in tune with Allan's comments on this forum anyway.

This brings me to an issue with the game that's been bothering me recently. The fate of just about every ME1 and ME2 character is a miserable one for the player, even if the crewmates are not being outright killed through player choices or plot devices. To list a few:

Jacob is unfaithful
Thane dies, naturally but it is still quite sad
Miranda is involved in killing her own father
Mordin/Wrex - we lose one no matter what, unless we effectively murdered Wrex in ME1. (something that occurred to me recently but just feels wrong)
An attempt is made to make us think Grunt dies - but even then he loses his squad
Samara loses a daughter no matter what, and may suffer a worse fate
Tali or Legion or both die
Katsumi effectively rejects helping you
Kelly also refuses to join you and so does Zaeed
Liara loses her homeworld

Imagine if this was a group of your real frineds. You lose, or risk losing each one watch them suffer or have them reject you at every turn. I may be taking an extreme view here, but the only real positive I can see is Jack's story (I'll get to Garrus later). This begs the question, were they out to punish long time paragons or players who liked these characters? I know its a war, but not a single genuinely triumphant moment involved these characters, only breaths of relief if you didnt lose all of them, such as on Rannoch or with Grunt.

When I think about playing the game, its hard to find a reason to look forward to the major episodes, as each carries an awful price or implication. This culminates in an ending with no payoff for the ones you do save. I imagine this is anothre one of the War Story aspects noted by Delta Vee, but its quite draining and not very enjoyable an experience for somelike me who has been with the game a while.

This suggests that each team worked on their own section, but were all largely guided by a similar philosophy. Maybe it works for new players, or those who simply dont care, but for me, its all a bit much when set against an already awful background.

As an aside, the Turian mission on Tuchanka had an extended scene with the general's son, that I cannot help but think was a potential death scene for Garrus. Maybe they thought that was too much though, and repurposed it later.

EDIT: Thane's death might not be strictly natural, but we see it as something that was bound to happen due to his sickness in ME2.

Compound that with Shepard dying for no particular reason and you have a recipe for a thoroughly depressing game. 

It's perfectly realistic to assume some situations require someone to step up and take one for the team, close friends will die in war, etc., but in the context of the actual years spanned by this trilogy and the effort spent making the player identify with Shepard, I just wonder why? 

A game designed to explore how to make the most meaningful sacrifice in an emergency situation doesn't to be a great choice for a franchise that has done everything possible to get the player to immerse themselves in the setting.  Plus when you suddenly slap that bleak an ending down in a flat 10 minutes, you're begging for trouble.  Ultimately, you are not rewarded for making rational decisions, which is even more stark than actual reality. 

It is certainly possible that someone who exemplifies every virtue and makes great practical decisions will through no fault of his own be forced to sacrifice himself for the greater good, but why in the world would you want to enshrine that in a work of art?  The failure of others to behave rationally and the constraints of choice resulting from unfortunate happenstance is simply not a great choice for an artistic vision.  Will Bioware's next video game feature an abrupt stop after 10 minutes of gameplay when a drunk driver crashes into the protagonist and leaves him braindead?  The artistic integrity they prize is to celebrate how irrational whim and blind chance can end the best of us? 

[frypan]

@memorysquid

My thoughts too - this grim reflection of the vagaries of real life has a place in film, but is probably not appropriate for a game we spend so much time in.

Does anyone smell what I do? Is that...yes, its Requiem for a Dream, sneaking into our beloved franchise when its not wanted.

So the misery is all Keith David's fault then. It clearly followed him in from the movie.

[Seijin8]

Something I have been pondering about the endings and their relation to the EC:

On this thread we have repeatedly discussed both the narrative issues of the endings, and their poor execution. Basically, we can only guess at the artistic intent because the execution of that narrative was so abyssmal.

With the EC, we will (apparently) be treated to the full power of their artistic integrity as they execute their finale once again.

With the discussions about the tech singularity, leaked script, etc, we have an idea of what their artistic vision actually was. Most of us on this thread seem opposed to the whole premise, so even a spot-on execution in the EC will not salvage the story in any real way.

On the other hand, as delta_vee mentioned, the "artistic vision" may be the resultant emotional 5-finger deathpunch, and the narrative itself is a slave to that concept.

I know everyone will have their own thoughts on this (and many of these have already been mentioned somewhere in the voluminous depths of this thread), but I am curious what variations of the theme could be used to deliver that desired emotional piledriver in a way that did not break the theme or the setting in some way.

As I write this, I do not know of a way to execute such an emotional hit without simultaneously murdering any sense of triumph that the finale might be able to generate, but more creative minds than mine frequent this thread, so maybe they will be able to do so.

So, to summarize: can you construct the outline of an ending whereby:
- The Catalyst is retained in the spirit of elucidation machine and voice of the Reaper's motives
- The summation of the plot is emotionally rigorous, possibly even horrifying, without being so jarring as to divorce the player form the avatar or the narrative itself
- Shepard most likely self-sacrifices without it seeming like a deathmarch
- The finale is "bittersweet" while justifying the notion of Shepard being a legend in the far future, as opposed to a war criminal, mass murderer, foolish pawn of eldritch superbeings, etc.

Consider it a creative writing challenge. Be as complete or outline-oriented as you wish, or ignore this whole foolhardy endeavor.

[BigglesFlysAgain]

@frypan

Your right that it can't really be a traditional "war film" since you don't have the "humanisable" enemy, or even the dubious motives for the war in the first place, I thought about why a film with a faceless enemy could work as a war film, something like starship troopers (though its not to be taken too seriously!) and I think its because with most of those films, the protagonists are the faceless grunts, and its usually the incompetent or uncaring generals that put them in the danger they are in, and cause deaths of close friends ect, while in mass effect 3, for most of the game you are nearly always in command or control of a situation, so there are very few people you can blame when something goes wrong apart from yourself or the enemy, so to sum up ME3 is a war film without:


Humanised enemy

Goal or causes of war dubious

Incompetent commanders (apart from shepard?!?)


@Seijin8

I thought about it, but I think this is more worthwhile than anything bioware (or anyone)  could write to "improve" the current endings.


Edited for "clarity"

Modifié par BigglesFlysAgain, 21 juin 2012 - 01:34 .

[Seijin8]

@BigglesFlysAgain: While that is certainly the going meme, if "more worthwhile than anything bioware could write" were true, none of us would be in this thread. BioWare dropped the ball when it mattered most, and for some people, the demolition done to the franchise is irredeemeable, and I understand that sentiment.

However, BW has repeatedly demonstrated exceptional writing ability that has kept millions of players entertained. Their image is tarnished, and their last few games have not been up to their own high standards, but even so, their "middle of the road" is leagues better than many game developer's best efforts.

I'm not an apologist by any stretch. BW F'd up BADLY. If the EC isn't stellar, they've lost me as a customer for the forseeable future.

But repairing this (at least in some way) is certainly NOT beyond their demonstrated ability.

[/rant]

Modifié par Seijin8, 21 juin 2012 - 11:34 .

[BigglesFlysAgain]

Seijin8 wrote...

@BigglesFlysAgain: While that is certainly the going meme, if "more worthwhile than anything bioware could write" were true, none of us would be in this thread. BioWare dropped the ball when it mattered most, and for some people, the demolition done to the franchise is irredeemeable, and I understand that sentiment.

However, BW has repeatedly demonstrated exceptional writing ability that has kept millions of players entertained. Their image is tarnished, and their last few games have not been up to their own high standards, but even so, their "middle of the road" is leagues better than many game developer's best efforts.

I'm not an apologist by any stretch. BW F'd up BADLY. If the EC isn't stellar, they've lost me as a customer for the forseeable future.

But repairing this (at least in some way) is certainly NOT beyond their demonstrated ability.

[/rant]

Yes what they have done before was enjoyable, I meant within those set parameters, anyone will struggle, if they could start a new IP next week I'm not saying it will 100% be terrible, but anyone trying to write somthing to "improve" the ending without significantly changing it would probably be poor.


I'm not trying to be hipster "bioware sucks lol"... What is bioware? Its just a certain team of people working with certain constraints during a set period of time, nothing they make has to be good or bad, its just about the people in charge.

Modifié par BigglesFlysAgain, 21 juin 2012 - 01:29 .