5087 réponses à ce sujet

[ArchDuck]

DoctorCrowtgamer wrote...

pistolols wrote...

*meaningless drivel*

Parents really shouldn't let their four year olds post on message boards.

Yeah he could use with some parental monitoring.

[drayfish]

[quote]
[quote]drayfish wrote...

(Indeed, the ghost-boy is proved to lie in the Destroy ending: he assures you that you will die, but the final image of the game is still Shepard taking a breath...)[/quote]

pistolols wrote...
This is incorrect by the way. Catalyst assures Shepard he will die with control choice, not destroy.[/quote]
[/quote]

@pistolols

I guess you're right.  The Catalyst-Kid never explicitly says that you will die – though he does imply it pretty heavily: All synthetics will be wiped out, and you are part synthetic. But you're correct, he never literally lies: my bad.

Modifié par drayfish, 19 avril 2012 - 10:16 .

[raizathestorm]

After sixteen pages, I don't think this is entirely necessary, but I'd still like to say that that was very well stated.

[Udalango]

[quote]drayfish wrote...

[quote]drayfish wrote...

(Indeed, the ghost-boy is proved to lie in the Destroy ending: he assures you that you will die, but the final image of the game is still Shepard taking a breath...)[/quote]

This is incorrect by the way. Catalyst assures Shepard he will die with control choice, not destroy.[/quote]

@pistolols

I guess you're right.  The Catalyst-Kid never explicitly says that you will die – though he does imply it pretty heavily: All synthetics will be wiped out, and you are part synthetic. But you're correct, he never literally lies: my bad.[/quote]

But dont they say that the Reapers are also not 100% synthetic?  So if you manage to live...logically shouldnt they?

[Udalango]

Well that formatted super weird

[NS Wizdum]

drayfish wrote...

drayfish wrote...

(Indeed, the ghost-boy is proved to lie in the Destroy ending: he assures you that you will die, but the final image of the game is still Shepard taking a breath...)

This is incorrect by the way. Catalyst assures Shepard he will die with control choice, not destroy.

@pistolols

I guess you're right.  The Catalyst-Kid never explicitly says that you will die – though he does imply it pretty heavily: All synthetics will be wiped out, and you are part synthetic. But you're correct, he never literally lies: my bad.

That is actually up in the air at the moment. It seems that it depends on your EMS score, and your interpretation of the conversation. With an EMS of ~4000, the child says something along the lines of "it will also destroy much of the technology your civilization relies upon, and even you are partially synthetic". Aparently this line is removed with a higher EMS score.

Modifié par NS Wizdum, 17 avril 2012 - 09:21 .

[Ansible]

[quote]Udalango wrote...

[quote]drayfish wrote...

[quote]drayfish wrote...

(Indeed, the ghost-boy is proved to lie in the Destroy ending: he assures you that you will die, but the final image of the game is still Shepard taking a breath...)[/quote]

This is incorrect by the way. Catalyst assures Shepard he will die with control choice, not destroy.[/quote]

@pistolols

I guess you're right.  The Catalyst-Kid never explicitly says that you will die – though he does imply it pretty heavily: All synthetics will be wiped out, and you are part synthetic. But you're correct, he never literally lies: my bad.[/quote]

But dont they say that the Reapers are also not 100% synthetic?  So if you manage to live...logically shouldnt they?

[/quote]

Thank you!! Someone other than me has asked that. Shepard is NOT 100% Synthetic, and he lives.

Reapers are not just machines, they are still part organic.

So... In theory, the Destroy ending could mean:

The Geth die. You live, The Reapers live, no Mass Relays.

This ending sucks, and while you could answer my above question by clarifying it, the ending would still suck. Lack of claity only makes the suck worse, it is not the actual cause of the suck.

[pistolols]

drayfish wrote...

for me it felt emotionally cheap, because my Shepard was being compelled to make a decision that flew in the face of everything her experience had lead her to believe. 
 

Interesting and did your shepard rewrite or destroy the geth heretics?  Which one was the "right" choice, in your opinion?  Were you equally enraged that Legion had compelled you to make that difficult decision instead of say.. proposing a peace plan between the geth and geth heretics?

[Kunari801]

drayfish wrote...

... this bewildering finale felt as if you had been listening to a soaring orchestral movement that ended in a cacophonous blast, the musicians tossing down their instruments and walking away.  I find it hard to conceive how the creators of such a magnificent franchise could have made such a mess of their own universe. The plot holes, thematic inconsistencies and a deus ex machina that was unforgivable in ancient Greek theatre, let alone in any modern narrative, all combine to erode the foundations upon which the rest of the experience resides...  

I loved that section, I feel the same.  

[Kloreep]

Daedalus1773 wrote...

optimistickied wrote...

Do you think the Catalyst's warning to Shepard that the created will rebel against their creators is worthy of elucidation, or was it an unsatisfying platitude?

I call Thesaurus Porn.

Nah, I call Yes, That's Really Just How optimistickied Talks.

optimistickied wrote...

But technology's role in the Mass Effect universe is undeniable. I think that whoever was responsible for the endings must have thought the concept of technological progress vs. the evolutionary process was more relevant to us than another good vs. evil story. The conflict may have abruptly delineated from what was expected, but I thought there was something attractive about trying to reconcile our ability to create destruction with our ability to sustain life.

I don't think the Geth being synthetic is incidental; they are referred to throughout the series as physical disclaimers, as warnings against technological abuse. The Lazarus Project, the Mass Relays, the Citadel... the Reaper Invasion... the Genophage... Cerberus... Indoctrination... There is a clear connection.

Transhumanism and where technological progress is leading humanity/organic life itself might have been an interesting way to go, especially as it was indeed touched on here and there, albeit never really brought front and center. (The few times it was, like with Lazarus, the writers seemed to studiously avoid really getting into it. :/) But I didn't get that at all from this ending, as it didn't do much to touch on things like Lazarus. I didn't hear any discussion from the Catalyst of what Shepard's resurrection, or biotic implants, or President Huerta's new synthetic brain, really mean. All I heard was "the created rebels against the creator, AIs are automatically a source of destruction and death, so let's go around creating destruction and death of our own."

I can only read that as a "technology" theme if I ignore the personhood of the Geth, EDI, etc. and view them as somehow analogous to all those other things like Lazarus Project, Mass Relays, etc. To me, that's a repugnant way of looking at sapient life. It was specifically organic life vs. synthetic life that was called out by the Catalyst, not just technology in general, that itself and the Reapers are supposed to be some kind of "solution" to. Technological innovation was only referenced as the source of AI's inevitable creation. And so that "solution" is to a "problem" that sounded straight out of ME1. As others have said, any grounding that theme might have had in ME1's more alarmist take on AIs was very well eroded by the way the writers chose to handle characters like EDI and Legion in the next two games.

Now, certainly the theme was foreshadowed, insofar as it has certainly been brought up plenty. The discussion of AI does indeed predate Javik and goes back to the beginning of ME1 with the Quarians & Geth being introduced, plus the discussion of AI research being banned if you dig into some of the exposition. However, since then, ME2 and 3 have provided huge amounts of evidence that Javik, the Catalyst, and others are incorrect, and that EDI, the Geth, Cerberus, and other pro-AI groups are very much correct in viewing synthetic life is simply another form of life. Heck, after completing the trilogy, I remain far more concerned about the Krogan are a threat to other races and galactic peace than that AI automatically is a threat. As far as I can tell, the argument for AI being so gorram dangerous basically boils down to "it's different, therefore we can't get along." Applies as much or more to the Krogan as anyone else. And indeed, we see very similar arguments with the Krogan. "It will always be control-or-be-controlled with them, so we have to keep them under wraps, no matter how inhumane that can seem." How is synthetic life some sort of special focus? So, yeah, I suppose you can say that it was foreshadowed, sure. I would say an ending in which the issue of aggressive species like Krogan suddenly take front-and-center, and the question of what to do with them and the Yahg is strangely tied into the Catalyst and into the Reaper's very motivations, would have been just as "foreshadowed."

I agree with drey and others that what makes those last fifteen minutes especially nerd-enraging is that Shepard was forced to go along with the three choices. I had the Javik DLC, so I had him giving me warnings against AIs throughout the game, in language that the Catalyst called back at the end. Javik had an interesting perspective to have onboard, and it was cool to hear such a throwback to ME1. I dismissed it readily from experience, but it was a nice addition to have that perspective there for me to dismiss - I was never forced to do anything but disagree with it. In those last fifteen minutes with the Catalyst, on the other hand, Shepard is forced. There's no Sheridan-style "we refuse to be part of this argument anymore!" option. (<-- To be a bit less obscure: that was a Babylon 5 reference.) It's one thing for the Catalyst to present me with a view of the universe that makes me laugh. It's not at all laugh-worthy for me and Shepard to be forced to go along with it.

optimistickied wrote...

I think Shepard has always had free will inside a tiny box....Our options were never unlimited.

A very good point. Even though I just pointed to lack of choice, you're completely correct in pointing out that the series is and has always been incredibly linear and limiting. It only feels branchy and open because of how it compares to the vast majority of other games that have come before it.

It's not so much that we can't do anything we want, as that the limitation of the final choice doesn't feel satisfactory to many of us. For instance, I would say Udina and Anderson really are just about the only two humans we've met during the game and who are still alive who seem like they could be acceptable to both Shepard, the Council, and to the Alliance government.

And of course, sometimes it indeed doesn't work. Some people felt Kaidan vs. Ashley was a bit forced. I've seen others complain about the ME2 ending, saying they felt it too was forced, or that there could at the least have been a third option to keep the base but tell the Alliance to try and beat Cerberus to it.

For me, though, the Catalyst felt like Hand of Dev like no other decision in ME before it.

Droidsbane42 wrote...

I hope Bioware is looking at this

Me too.

optimistickied wrote...

Moreover, I don't censure what I do not like; I don't place demands on anyone. I do believe very strongly in supporting a free creative environment. I think criticism is valid, but abusive brickbatting is not. I believe that by mollifying our criticisms, to humanize our interactions with one another on matters of subjectivity, we will probably lead to more meaningful discussion than: "It sucks and I demand a new one!"

I don't disagree. Though I'm not comfortable saying I disagree with Retake, either. Still, I think you just outlined pretty well why I don't sport the Retake banner and have never been comfortable with the idea of doing so.

pistolols wrote...

Were you equally enraged that Legion had compelled you to make that difficult decision instead of say.. proposing a peace plan between the geth and geth heretics?

I suppose that would have been an interesting option, but I never felt the need for it because my experience led to me believe it would not have been workable. Part of the lead-up to Legion's loyalty mission is fighting Geth Heretics all ME1 long and for parts of ME2 as well. And seeing them stick with Sovereign all the way to trying to open the Citadel gate. And never once having them even try to communicate with me, much less in anything but a hostile way.

The lead-up to the Catalyst over three games is simply not analogous at all. I was given many, many reasons to question the range of choices it fed me.

Modifié par Kloreep, 17 avril 2012 - 09:39 .

[Udalango]

[quote]Ansible wrote...

[quote]Udalango wrote...

[quote]drayfish wrote...

[quote]drayfish wrote...

(Indeed, the ghost-boy is proved to lie in the Destroy ending: he assures you that you will die, but the final image of the game is still Shepard taking a breath...)[/quote]

This is incorrect by the way. Catalyst assures Shepard he will die with control choice, not destroy.[/quote]

@pistolols

I guess you're right.  The Catalyst-Kid never explicitly says that you will die – though he does imply it pretty heavily: All synthetics will be wiped out, and you are part synthetic. But you're correct, he never literally lies: my bad.[/quote]

But dont they say that the Reapers are also not 100% synthetic?  So if you manage to live...logically shouldnt they?

[/quote]

Thank you!! Someone other than me has asked that. Shepard is NOT 100% Synthetic, and he lives.

Reapers are not just machines, they are still part organic.

So... In theory, the Destroy ending could mean:

The Geth die. You live, The Reapers live, no Mass Relays.

This ending sucks, and while you could answer my above question by clarifying it, the ending would still suck. Lack of claity only makes the suck worse, it is not the actual cause of the suck.

[/quote]

It didnt even dawn on me until I posted it.  But if thats the case that really sucks
Also, when StarBrat gives you the Control option he says "Do you THINK you can control us"  What if Shepard is wrong and cant......
Everytime I think about this ending I hate the Addition of StarBrat more and more

[ChickenMan77]

pistolols wrote...

drayfish wrote...

for me it felt emotionally cheap, because my Shepard was being compelled to make a decision that flew in the face of everything her experience had lead her to believe. 
 

Interesting and did your shepard rewrite or destroy the geth heretics?  Which one was the "right" choice, in your opinion?  Were you equally enraged that Legion had compelled you to make that difficult decision instead of say.. proposing a peace plan between the geth and geth heretics?

Legion never forces you to do anything..your Shepard doesn't even have to activate him much less take him to the Geth base..So no one is ever enraged about Legion ever forcing them to do anything

[DoctorCrowtgamer]

ChickenMan77 wrote...

pistolols wrote...

drayfish wrote...

for me it felt emotionally cheap, because my Shepard was being compelled to make a decision that flew in the face of everything her experience had lead her to believe. 
 

Interesting and did your shepard rewrite or destroy the geth heretics?  Which one was the "right" choice, in your opinion?  Were you equally enraged that Legion had compelled you to make that difficult decision instead of say.. proposing a peace plan between the geth and geth heretics?

Legion never forces you to do anything..your Shepard doesn't even have to activate him much less take him to the Geth base..So no one is ever enraged about Legion ever forcing them to do anything

Thank you!

Also it is one thing to destory certain members of a race but to whipe out a whole race encluding the members of it who are helping you(anyone remember the Geth?)crosses the line into history's greatest crime and my Shepard would have never done that.

[SkaldFish]

optimistickied wrote...

SkaldFish wrote...

<snip/>

I personally believe -- this is just my opinion and is not a criticism of players but of the gaming industry -- that those who didn't mind or liked the ending are just exhibiting the behavior we've all been expected by the industry to display. We've all been conditioned to accept narrative mediocrity. We're not to mind dropping out of the story and taking on the role of writer when a game's writers fail. Better, in fact, if we forget that it even matters. Best if we actually begin to enjoy playing that role.

I see what you're saying. For me, the choices at the ending felt reminiscent of many other choices I had made. I never really questioned the script. I made decisions based on the information that was presented to me. I made these decisions to advance the storyline. If the script did not indicate a character was lying, I accepted that that character was telling the truth.

I don't feel comfortable placing objective standards on storytelling. Mass Effect could be criticized as using stale, archetypal characters to advance a convoluted plot that is overly reliant on the established tropes of the genre. It's really hard for me to say that a matter of taste can be objectively defended. For all intents and purposes though, Mass Effect 3 is a conventional storyline, that does not grossly violate any of those cardinal rules people impose on the narrative structure.

And I guess I do take offense to the idea that, in order to accept the ending, I must be permissive of mediocrity. It's possible my standards are too low, I guess. I like interesting subjects, and I like to be challenged as a viewer or reader. If nothing else, I still genuinely enjoy being entertained.

I apologize for offending you. I didn't intend to offend. I was trying to figure out how to say that without being offensive, so obviously I failed. I'll have to think on it some more, because I don't mean it as a polarizing or demeaning observation. Maybe it comes down to what each of us is willing to accept as part of our commitment to the experience? Do you feel you apply the same quality standards to the narrative of a novel, for example, as to a game like ME3?

[TainGAME]

Wow, this thread went from great to fantastic quite fast. I've never been good with words so I'm happy someone who actually can articulate their thoughts feel the same as me. (Is that the right word?)

Although with everyone referring to you guys as "doctor" and "the professor" I now imagine Doctor Who and Prof. Farnsworth posting every time I see your names. Makes this thread even more entertaining to read!

[DoctorCrowtgamer]

TainGAME wrote...

Wow, this thread went from great to fantastic quite fast. I've never been good with words so I'm happy someone who actually can articulate their thoughts feel the same as me. (Is that the right word?)

Although with everyone referring to you guys as "doctor" and "the professor" I now imagine Doctor Who and Prof. Farnsworth posting every time I see your names. Makes this thread even more entertaining to read!

either that or imagine the 7th Doctor traveling with Ace.

[deliphicovenant42]

pistolols wrote...

drayfish wrote...

for me it felt emotionally cheap, because my Shepard was being compelled to make a decision that flew in the face of everything her experience had lead her to believe. 
 

Interesting and did your shepard rewrite or destroy the geth heretics?  Which one was the "right" choice, in your opinion?  Were you equally enraged that Legion had compelled you to make that difficult decision instead of say.. proposing a peace plan between the geth and geth heretics?

As someone who agrees with the OP and drayfish on this issue I'll say that I was not enraged by that choice in ME2.  To my mind Legion's loyalty quest is a perfect example of doing tough choices the right way and how the end of ME3 fails the same test. 

Yes, the loyalty quest gives you a binary choice between two less than desirable actions, but it earns that limitation (for lack of a better phrase)  by exploring the issue before, during and after the mission.  You're given plenty of opportunity to argue against how the choice is unfair in a believable way if you so choose, and the limited options feels like it belongs in the situatioin as opposed to something imposed by the writers because its given a chance to be explored.   ME3 just has you going along with the Catalyst's options regardless of your prior actions or thoughts on the matter with no significant chance to fight back, even if your objection is ultimately futile.  The meek accepting of inevitability that runs counter to the way so many played the main character is one key factor in why the ending is unpalitable, to me at least. 

I have no problem with down endings, or being forced to make tough choices in games, but in my opinion the storytelling in those last five minutes did not "earn" the contrived RGB ending.  Because of how short the whole sequence was, any chance the writers had to justify why any branch of RGB made sense within the context of the game goes right out the window.  I think the extended cut has a chance to mitigate how poorly thought out the endings are, and I'm not dead set against the idea of it succeeding to the point of rescuing the ending entirely.  However, I definitely think Bioware screwed up at the worst time imaginable as the story stands right now.

Modifié par deliphicovenant42, 17 avril 2012 - 11:10 .

[Kunari801]

pistolols wrote...

drayfish wrote...

for me it felt emotionally cheap, because my Shepard was being compelled to make a decision that flew in the face of everything her experience had lead her to believe. 
 

Interesting and did your shepard rewrite or destroy the geth heretics?  Which one was the "right" choice, in your opinion?  Were you equally enraged that Legion had compelled you to make that difficult decision instead of say.. proposing a peace plan between the geth and geth heretics?

That was answered by Strange Aeons on page 11

The decision in Legion’s loyalty mission is nothing like the ending of ME3 except in the most superficial sense that both involve some sort of choice. The context of the situations, the nature of the revelation involved, the significance of the “choice” are all completely different.

At the time we met Legion, we had just spent a game and a half fighting the Geth, who were actively waging a war against the Citadel races in conjunction with the Reapers. There was no question that at some level they were a destructive and dangerous enemy. Then we learned that this was only part of the story. This information challenged our assumption that the Geth were a homogeneous society, but it didn’t contradict the clearly-established lessons of the story that preceded it. It expanded our knowledge of the situation without asking us to ignore the significance of what we had witnessed previously. 

Modifié par Kunari801, 17 avril 2012 - 10:08 .

[Dr_Hello]

Made Nightwing wrote...

So, my lit professor and I are nerds. I throw in 'but the prize' references on my essays about Odysseus and Achilles, he throws in Firefly references in his lectures, we get on great. Now, I've previously mentioned that he disliked the endings, but today he gave me a full rundown on what exactly he found displeasing about the endgame:

"I don't get it. You get a choice between control. I just shot The Illusive Man five minutes ago because I said that we weren't ready for that power. Why on Earth isn't there an option to express how faulty that choice is? And then Destroy? Dammit, I just saved the geth and quarians, they're working together as a re-united race. Why is genocide an option? WHY? And then Synthesis just completely mistakes everything about evolution. There is no apex of evolution, we continue to adapt and move forward or we die. Aside from that, I'm forcing a choice on the entire galaxy, without the option to tell the damn thing to go to hell! All three endings were so entirely removed from the themes of the whole series that they were completely unrecognisable! It's like Casey had just finished playing Deus Ex and Mac had just watcched teh season finale of BSG."

"If I'm going to speak about 'artistic integrity', I will be compelled to point out that the ending was in no way the artistic vision of the team. BW has already stated that the ending was thought up between Casey and Mac, without any part of the peer review process being consulted. It was not a product of the team, but individuals. Aside from that, saying that artistic integrity forbids them from changing the ending is ridiculous. Many novelists have re-written entire works because of negative feedback on them. Charles Dickens wrote Oliver Twist in chapters, publishing each one as they went, and each chapter would be based on the feedback that he got for that chapter. Conan Doyle brought Holmes back from the dead. Those are just wo examples, there are many more. BW broke their own artistic integrity when they allowed EA to set their deadline. Now there are many things that you can say about ME1, but you can never say that it was rushed. The graphics were glitchy, sure, but the characters and dialogue were finely polished."

"In conclusion, I must say again that all the endings were thematically revolting. It is absolutely critical in the name of good writing that the ending of a story must match the journey. Mass Effect has never been a story about the disparity between synthetics and organics. As a matter of fact, it has been quite the obvious. For three games, BW has hinted and pointed out that life could be so much more greater and mysterious than the organic perception. It's driven the point home, time and time again, that unity is possible. So why, then, at the very end of a series that has clearly been about unity and co-existence, would they end it with the point that different forms of life simply cannot co-exist unless their diversity is totally stripped away? It makes no sense. Furthermore, it is emotionally crushing that all this hope of co-existence that has been built up from the quarian-geth storyline  (Geth Prime:...and then we will help you rebuild your world.) is suddenly yanked away at the last second. Good day."

Dr. C. Dray.

(Lit professor dropped in on P.13 to add onto my paraphrasing)

I can only agree with Dr. Dray. Great analysis.

[Muhkida]

Here's a question about the Destruction ending concerning the geth. Seeing how Legion can possibly rewrite the geth with the Reaper code, wouldn't that in a sense, be considered a form of synthesis? The Reapers are structurally organic/synthetic beings.

Shepard can live through the "destroy" ending being partially synthetic himself/herself. The Catalyst mentions this. Granted the Catalyst didn't say Shepard was going to die, but what's the point of saying that unless it was alluding to it. EDI can survive in that ending as well, and she's been made of Reaper tech since the LUNA VI mission. What I'm trying to ask is, couldn't the geth possibly survive the Destruction ending because they are now partially organic?

The Catalyst said that all synthetic life will be destroyed, but how can it know for sure? It's never seen or done this before. It's not some omnipotent, perfect being that can foresee the future...is it? The Catalyst even told Shepard that whatever decisions he/she makes, it will mean that the Catalyst's Reaper Cycle solution was wrong. So why can't the Catalyst be wrong about the results of the destroy ending as well?

[drayfish]

TainGAME wrote...

Wow, this thread went from great to fantastic quite fast. I've never been good with words so I'm happy someone who actually can articulate their thoughts feel the same as me. (Is that the right word?)

Although with everyone referring to you guys as "doctor" and "the professor" I now imagine Doctor Who and Prof. Farnsworth posting every time I see your names. Makes this thread even more entertaining to read!

Am I in the slippers or the bowtie?  ...Ah, we can do both.

[20x6]

Excellent read!

However, you are correct - the post is too long for the internet.

Let me know if this sums it up neatly:  
 
The current ending... most definitely "The Other Guy's Brake Pads"

drayfish wrote...

I've never posted on this forum before, so I hope I don't embarrass myself or this discussion entirely – and I apologise for the wall of text that is to follow, but I'm an academic, and tedious tracts of self-important linguistic gymnastics is what we do.

My name is Dr. Dray, and I should start by saying: oh, dear, I've been cited for my nerd indignation. I'm surprised Made Nightwing didn't mention that my little fists were shaking with rage. But they were. They did. With feeble, pointless nerd rage.

I must point out though, that as flattered as I am to be referenced, were I still marking Made Nightwing's work I would have to circle this passage and remind him that these words are not in fact directly attributable to me: his phrasing is a paraphrase of our conversation rather than a quotation. ...However, he has an attentive mind, and I must admit that he has captured the majority of my issues with the ending, my penchant for hyperbole, and the general dislocation of the thematic threads that I felt violated the larger narrative arc of the trilogy. And I'm sad to say I did use the words 'thematically revolting' – although I've watched both the Matrix sequels and Godfather 3, so I've probably said that phrase quite a lot.  

If you'll permit me then, I did just want to write quickly in my own words to clarify some of my issues with these endings, and why I thought that they erode the themes heretofore at the core of their series. Of course, all of these arguments have no doubt been stated numerous times by voices far more worthy than mine over the past few weeks, but as someone intrigued by the production and reception of literature in all its forms this has been a fascinating – if disheartening – time to be an enormous fan of this fiction. I'd also like to particularly commend Strange Aeons for the fantastic post.  And that analogy: 'It’s like ending Pinocchio with Geppetto stuffing him into a wood chipper'. What an exquisite image!

So, putting aside all of the hanging plot threads that rankled me (where was the Normandy going? why did my squad mates live? Anderson is where now? wait, the catalyst was Haley Joel Osment? etc), I would like to explain why, when I was offered those three repellent choices, I turned and tried to unload my now infinite pistol into the whispy-space-ghost's face. It was not because I was unhappy that my Shepard would not get to drink Garrus under the table one last time, or get to help Tali build a back-porch on her new homestead, nor that I was pretty sure no one was going to remember to feed my space fish – it was because those three ideological options were so structurally indefensible that they broke the suspension of disbelief that Bioware had (up until that point) so spectacularly crafted for over a hundred hours of narrative. Suddenly Shepard was not simply being asked to sacrifice a race or a friend or him/herself for the greater good (all of which was no doubt expected by any player paying attention to the tone of the series), Shepard was being compelled, without even the chance to offer a counterpoint, to perform one of three actions that to my reading each fundamentally undermined the narrative foundations upon which the series seemed to rest.

In the Control ending, Shepard is invited to pursue the previously impossible path of attempting to dominate the reapers and bend them to his will. Momentarily putting aside the vulgarity of dominating a species to achieve one's own ends (and I will get to complaining about that premise soon enough), this has proved to be the failed modus operandi of every antagonist in this fiction up until this point – including the Illusive Man and Saren – all of whom have been chewed up and destroyed by their blind ambition, incapable of controlling forces beyond their comprehension. Nothing in the vague prognostication of the exposition-ghost offers any tangible justification for why Shepard's plunge into Reaper-control should play out any differently. In fact, as many people have already pointed out, Shepard has literally not five minutes before this moment watched the Illusive Man die as a consequence of this arrogant misconception.

The Destroy ending, however, seems even more perverse. One of the constants of the Mass Effect universe (and indeed much quality science fiction) has been an exploration of the notion that life is not simplistically bound to biology, that existence expands beyond the narrow parameters of blood and bone. That is why synthetic characters like Legion and EDI are so compelling in this context, why their quests to understand self-awareness – not simply to ape human behaviours – is so dramatic and compelling. Indeed, we even get glimpses of the Reapers having more sprawling and unknowable motivations that we puny mortals can comprehend... 

To then end the tale by forcing the player to obliterate several now-proven-legitimate forms of life in order to 'save' the traditional definition of fleshy existence is not only genocidal, it actually devolves Shephard's ideological growth, undermining his ascent toward a more enlightened conception of existence, something that the fiction has been steadily advancing no matter how Renegadishably you wanted to play.  This is particularly evident when the preceding actions of all three games entirely disprove the premise that synthetic will inevitably destroy organic: the Geth were the persecuted victims, trying their best to save the Quarians from themselves; EDI, given autonomy, immediately sought to aid her crew, even taking physical form in order to experience life from their perspective and finally learning that she too feared the implications of death.

And finally Synthesis, the ending that I suspect (unless we are to believe the Indoctrination Theory) is the 'good' option, proves to be the most distasteful of all. Shepard, up until this point has been an instrument though which change is achieved in this universe, and dependent upon your individual Renegade or Paragon choices, this may have resulted in siding with one species or another, letting this person live or that person die, even condemning races to extinction through your actions. But these decisions were always the result of a mediation of disparate opinions, and a consequence of the natural escalation of these disputes – Shepard was merely the fork in the path that decided which way the lava would run. His/her actions had an impact, but was responding to events in the universe that were already in motion before he/she arrived. 

To belabour the point: Shepard is an agent for arbitration, the tipping point of dialogues that have, at times, root causes that reach back across generations. Up until this moment in the game the narrative, and Shepard's role within it, has been about the negotiation of diversity, testing the validity of opposing viewpoints and selecting a path through which to evolve on to another layer of questioning. Suddenly with the Synthesis ending, Shepard's capacity to make decisions elevates from offering a moral tipping point to arbitrarily wiping such disparity from the world. Shepard imposes his/her will upon every species, every form of life within the galaxy, making them all a dreary homogenous oneness. At such a point, wiping negotiation and multiplicity from the universe, Shepard moves from being an influential voice amongst a biodiversity of thought to sacrificing him/herself in an omnipotent imposition of will.

(And lest we forget that the entire character arc of Javik (the 'bonus' paid-DLC character that gives unique context to the entire cycle of destruction upon which this fiction is based) is utilised to reveal that a lack of diversity, the failure to continue adapting to new circumstances, was the primary reason that his race was decimated. ...So I guess we have that to look forward to.)

And this was the analogy I made to Made Nightwing in our discussion (and which I have bored people with elsewhere): this bewildering finale felt as if you had been listening to a soaring orchestral movement that ended in a cacophonous blast, the musicians tossing down their instruments and walking away.  I find it hard to conceive how the creators of such a magnificent franchise could have made such a mess of their own universe. The plot holes, thematic inconsistencies and a deus ex machina that was unforgivable in ancient Greek theatre, let alone in any modern narrative, all combine to erode the foundations upon which the rest of the experience resides. (It's a disturbing sign when apologists for such an ending have to literally hope that what they witnessed was just a bad dream in the central character's head.)

I'm sure in my diatribe with Made Nightwing I would have cited Charles Dickens being alert to, and adapting his writing in response to the floods of letters he received from his fans in the serialised delivery of stories such as The Old Curiosity Shop. And I know I mentioned F.Scott Fitzgerald extensively redrafting Tender is the Night for a second publishing after receiving negative critical feedback.  Indeed, whatever you think of the final result, Ridley Scott was able to reassert a definitive vision of Blade Runner in spite of its original theatrical release.  Despite what critics might burble about artistic vision there is innumerable precedent for such reshaping, even beyond fundamental industry practices such as play-testings and film test-screenings.  If a work of art has failed in its communicative purpose (and unless angering and bewildering its most invested fans was the goal, then Mass Effect 3 has done so), then it cannot be considered a success, and is not worthy of regard.

And for those who would respond that I, and fans like myself, are simply upset because the endings do not offer some irrefutable 'clarity' that would mar the poetic mysteries of the ending, I would point out that I am in no way against obscure or bewildering endings: if they are earned. In contrast to a majority of viewers, I happen to love the ending of The Sopranos for precisely this reason – because, despite the momentary jolt of surprise it engendered, that audacious blank screen was wholly thematically supportable. The driving premise of that program was a man seeking therapy (a mobster, yes, but a psychologically damaged man) – indeed, the very first beat in that narrative was Tony Soprano walking into a psychiatrist's office.  The principle thematic tie of the entire series was therefore revealed to be a mediation upon the underlying psychological stimuli that produces identity: whether the capacity to interpret and understand one's impulses can impact upon the experience of one's life; whether one can attain agency over one's life. 

That ending might have been agonising, but it was entirely fitting that the series ended with a loaded ambiguity, inviting a myriad of interpretations in which we the audience were now placed into the role of the psychiatrist, suddenly compelled to reason out the ending of those final thirty seconds with the cumulative experience of the preceding six years of imagery. Did Tony die? Did he have a second plate of onion rings and enjoy his family's company? Did Meadow ever park that car? In its final act The Sopranos gives over the interpretive, descriptive function of its narrative to its audience, intimately binding the viewer to Tony Soprano's own (perhaps failed) attempts to comprehend himself and attain authorship over his life. ...But the only reason that they could even try this is because every minute of every episode to this point has been propagated upon the notion that Tony Soprano was a man with a subconscious that could be explored, and that motivated his actions whether as a loving father or brutal criminal.

The obscurities in the ending of Mass Effect 3 have not been similarly earned by its prior narrative. This narrative has not until this point been about dominance, extermination, and the imposition of uniformity – indeed, Shepard has spent over a hundred hours of narrative fighting against precisely these three themes. And if one of these three (and only these three) options must be selected in order to sustain life in the universe, then that life has been so devalued by that act as to make the sacrifice meaningless.

And that is why I shall continue to go on shooting Haley-Joel-Osment-ghost in the face.

...Sorry again for the length of this post.

Modifié par 20x6, 17 avril 2012 - 10:09 .

[Darth Spike]

I like that teacher. I would have so much fun in his class if he was my Lit. teacher

[DoctorCrowtgamer]

drayfish wrote...

TainGAME wrote...

Wow, this thread went from great to fantastic quite fast. I've never been good with words so I'm happy someone who actually can articulate their thoughts feel the same as me. (Is that the right word?)

Although with everyone referring to you guys as "doctor" and "the professor" I now imagine Doctor Who and Prof. Farnsworth posting every time I see your names. Makes this thread even more entertaining to read!

Am I in the slippers or the bowtie?  ...Ah, we can do both.

This is what I imagine you look like while reading your posts.

[MrNighttime]

Made Nightwing wrote...

So, my lit professor and I are nerds. I throw in 'but the prize' references on my essays about Odysseus and Achilles, he throws in Firefly references in his lectures, we get on great. Now, I've previously mentioned that he disliked the endings, but today he gave me a full rundown on what exactly he found displeasing about the endgame:

"I don't get it. You get a choice between control. I just shot The Illusive Man five minutes ago because I said that we weren't ready for that power. Why on Earth isn't there an option to express how faulty that choice is? And then Destroy? Dammit, I just saved the geth and quarians, they're working together as a re-united race. Why is genocide an option? WHY? And then Synthesis just completely mistakes everything about evolution. There is no apex of evolution, we continue to adapt and move forward or we die. Aside from that, I'm forcing a choice on the entire galaxy, without the option to tell the damn thing to go to hell! All three endings were so entirely removed from the themes of the whole series that they were completely unrecognisable! It's like Casey had just finished playing Deus Ex and Mac had just watcched teh season finale of BSG."

"If I'm going to speak about 'artistic integrity', I will be compelled to point out that the ending was in no way the artistic vision of the team. BW has already stated that the ending was thought up between Casey and Mac, without any part of the peer review process being consulted. It was not a product of the team, but individuals. Aside from that, saying that artistic integrity forbids them from changing the ending is ridiculous. Many novelists have re-written entire works because of negative feedback on them. Charles Dickens wrote Oliver Twist in chapters, publishing each one as they went, and each chapter would be based on the feedback that he got for that chapter. Conan Doyle brought Holmes back from the dead. Those are just wo examples, there are many more. BW broke their own artistic integrity when they allowed EA to set their deadline. Now there are many things that you can say about ME1, but you can never say that it was rushed. The graphics were glitchy, sure, but the characters and dialogue were finely polished."

"In conclusion, I must say again that all the endings were thematically revolting. It is absolutely critical in the name of good writing that the ending of a story must match the journey. Mass Effect has never been a story about the disparity between synthetics and organics. As a matter of fact, it has been quite the obvious. For three games, BW has hinted and pointed out that life could be so much more greater and mysterious than the organic perception. It's driven the point home, time and time again, that unity is possible. So why, then, at the very end of a series that has clearly been about unity and co-existence, would they end it with the point that different forms of life simply cannot co-exist unless their diversity is totally stripped away? It makes no sense. Furthermore, it is emotionally crushing that all this hope of co-existence that has been built up from the quarian-geth storyline  (Geth Prime:...and then we will help you rebuild your world.) is suddenly yanked away at the last second. Good day."

Dr. C. Dray.

(Lit professor dropped in on P.13 to add onto my paraphrasing)

Nail------->head

Shepard was supposed to to one of the first Iconic Heros of the 21st Century---IMO  not some punk who got whipped.