5087 réponses à ce sujet

[drayfish]

I apologise if this is too much of a jump from the current extremely-fertile discussion going on throughout this post. ...If so, please ignore; I simply wanted to get this written somewhere.
 
As much of the comments I have posted are predicated on the notion that the narrative arc with which we have been presented by Bioware is the entirety of the game, I did want to speak briefly (and I know my version of the word 'briefly' differs from most) to the notion that this is not, in fact, the end of Shepard's tale. ...Yes, I am about to utter the words 'Indoctrination Theory' – which I know that for a subset of players will no doubt inspire images of me sitting in a basement with a tin-foil hat. 
 
I'm not going to say that I think that Indoctrination Theory is valid (although I will admit I dearly, passionately hope that it is so), I merely want to speculate in narrative terms about what it would mean for all of the critique that I – and numerous others – have levelled at the present conclusion; and further, what it would mean for this game, this franchise, and the entire medium of video gaming. So please indulge me.
 
People need not have me repeat yet again the components of the Indoctrination Theory – suffice to say that it involves the jarring ending being but a psychological morality play within Shepard's wounded psyche; Ghosty-McSpace-Scamp represents the voice of three options, two of which lead to surrender, and the third, Destroy, playing out as a catalyst through which to break the stranglehold of Harbinger's influence (hence the breath amongst the rubble).
 
If this is what is actually occurring – and sadly I know at this point in the media spin-cycle that might be a very big 'if' – if 'clarification' and 'expansion' mean putting this ending into context by revealing (through a supplemental free DLC patch) these events to be the imaginings of Shepard  moments before the true conclusions (whatever they might actually be) play out, this narrative will be one of the greatest acts of literary manipulation and storytelling ever conceived. (Again, I want to point out: I am not saying that this is what is happening – merely what it would mean if it is.)
 
The symmetry between audience and experience would be sublime: all the rancour and disbelief on the internet, all the fighting for Shepard's identity and ideology would perfectly parallel the character's own fight for survival, breaking the hold of an omnipotent, omniscient force that seems to compel him/her to act against his/her actions. All of the angst, all of the sorrow, even my own pretentious blather, would therefore feed directly into the psychological rallying cry that our focal character, Shepard, requires to wake him/herself up from this delirious stupor, and return to the fight.
 
Indeed, if Indoctrination Theory is accurate – if the concluding moments of the game as we have them now are but the shadows cast upon Shepard's mind by Harbinger in an attempt to bend him/her to the Reaper's will – then Mass Effect 3 would not be Game of the Year: it would be Game of the Century. No hyperbole. It would do for the communicative form of gaming what Citizen Kane did for film, what Joyce's Ulysses did for modern fiction: it would turn the medium itself into a fundamental, inseparable element of the means through which the narrative was communicated. It would elevate the audience's engagement with this text to a profoundly intimate level (arguably impossible in any other artistic form), would fold dissenters and believers and self-righteous critics on both sides all into the miasma of speculation and emotion required for Shepard to act. It would be the perfect culmination of player agency in the story-telling medium that Bioware has promised (and for the great majority of these narratives, delivered) for the past several years.
 
This 'ending' would be an intentionally, necessarily disturbing waypoint in the journey towards this tale's epic dénouement. And in such an instance, I will be at the front of the pack, howling myself hoarse with praise for the audacity and brilliance of this writing team and its talented crafts-people. 
 
There would be no more question as to whether games were art. People would simply harrumph and murmur the name Mass Effect as they do Mona Lisa, and then swan away to drink lattes and wear berets and talk about Kierkegaard.
 
...That, or Hayley-Joel-Osmont-Ghost wins. 
 
(Sure, I'd still be a little sorry for those people, like myself until only a few months ago, without an online avenue to get the real ending, but the manner in which form, craft and reception had united would be so exquisite as to outweigh the frustration.)  

Modifié par drayfish, 18 avril 2012 - 03:32 .

[Njald]

When the percentage of people who express they like the ending is far below the Dunning–Kruger ratio I think it's pretty obvious that most of those who like the ending don't even know the problems with it. Also, their inability to precieve the issues, even if disagreeing with the emotional impact of them, is hampering their ability to have a discussion. To connect the thematical choices in the RGB ending with the earlier storyline requires mental selfinflicted delusion on a grand scale. It like saying Pizza is shellfish because sometimes someone put shrimp on it.

[optimistickied]

drayfish wrote...

There would be no more question as to whether games were art. People would simply harrumph and murmur the name Mass Effect as they do Mona Lisa, and then swan away to drink lattes and wear berets and talk about Kierkegaard.

Zing.

Njald wrote...

When the percentage of people who express they like the ending is far below the Dunning–Kruger ratio I think it's pretty obvious that most of those who like the ending don't even know the problems with it. Also, their inability to precieve the issues, even if disagreeing with the emotional impact of them, is hampering their ability to have a discussion. To connect the thematical choices in the RGB ending with the earlier storyline requires mental selfinflicted delusion on a grand scale. It like saying Pizza is shellfish because sometimes someone put shrimp on it.

Seeing as how I'm one of the few people who publicly come out to support the endings, I'd just like to say, ouch, man. Ouch. Because I'm delusional and totally mentally hamstrung, I'd probably even eat your gross sounding pizza.

And like it.

[recentio]

Not rain on your parade, Doc. But have you considered the structural shortcomings of IT, particularly the version where Shep's indoctrination is a protracted process over the course of the game, in that it is not set up clearly so that the average player is prepared for that revelation as an epiphany rather than yet another WTF? I think IT is a nice concrete (until it isn't) path for discounting the awful Starchild, but it's arguments are largely far flung and not suitable for effective storytelling to a general audience. EDIT: Because it's "foreshadowing" is so obscure.

Modifié par recentio, 18 avril 2012 - 03:38 .

[generalleo03]

optimistickied wrote...

Sure, at this point, all of our decisions have delineated into one basic color-coded moral domain. Now suddenly the blue option doesn't feel very honorable... and the red option does. The actual choices aren't morally absolute; we may not be able to protect the status quo. It's a challenging scenario, moreso because the information we received to base it on is vague. Did you want to trust the Catalyst? Nobody does. And yet...

What choice do we have?

Admittedly, it feels out of place, but it's interesting, kind of. I think it is.

The same feeling happened to me. Seriously. I was so immersed in Shepard's quest, so comfortable with the game's progression, that the shift violently jolted me out of that frame of mind. When the Catalyst proved difficult to digest, when my options appeared limited and undefined, when Shepard is stripped of his power to be sacrificed with no real understanding of what his legacy will be, I was crazy. How protective I'd become over Shepard!

Yet, I thought it was a fantastic feeling of dread and anticipation, of confusion and anger and sickness and... yeah, I'm one of those. I sat there wondering if I had made the right decision, considering all I'd done, all I'd achieved. It was a cool experience.

However, I totally see your point. I just can't argue against it. The ending may well be notoriously contrived and utterly logic deficient, but even just you and I seem to have seen the endings in vastly different ways.

I just wanted to say I like your thoughts here.  Although I'm unsatisfied with the ending, you have come up with a really good reason for enjoying it!  Truly, you seem to be reveling in the fact that the game made you feel something totally unexpected, and that is what makes it enjoyable!  I like this.  I just wish that I could feel the same, really I do.  

However, I just can't.  The moment was lost long ago.  It can be both a cool experience, and an unsatisfying ending at the same time. I just can't get past the multitude of hints of what happens next.  The salarian delatross wasn't worried about the curing the genophage because of the reapers, but what the krogan would do after the reapers were defeated.  All of the other story lines had a good clear concise ending, and to end the most important story line with vague cosmicism was just a sucker punch.  Normally I like cosmicism, it just felt too out of place for me, too contrary to other themes, too little exploration of the themes it was suggesting were important, and just too contrived. 

[recentio]

Njald wrote...

When the percentage of people who express they like the ending is far below the Dunning–Kruger ratio I think it's pretty obvious that most of those who like the ending don't even know the problems with it. Also, their inability to precieve the issues, even if disagreeing with the emotional impact of them, is hampering their ability to have a discussion. To connect the thematical choices in the RGB ending with the earlier storyline requires mental selfinflicted delusion on a grand scale. It like saying Pizza is shellfish because sometimes someone put shrimp on it.

Thanks for introducing me to the Dunning-Kruger effect. It goes a long way to explaining the apologists. They don't get that they don't get it.

[Njald]

drayfish wrote...

IIndeed, if Indoctrination Theory is accurate – if the concluding moments
of the game as we have them now are but the shadows cast upon Shepard's
mind by Harbinger in an attempt to bend him/her to the Reaper's will –
then Mass Effect 3 would not be Game of the Year: it would be Game of the Century  

 
 
This will be the most tragic loss when/(if) a bland DLC filler with some scenes to explain the worst narrtive transgressions come out. Had Bioware played this from the start, or even pretended like it, it would have been a comercial risk but a brilliant artistic gamble. Would the player accept the new reality once "woken", would this turn around and sell DLC and prequels/sequsls like gold?
 
And because decieveing the customers with a fake product/finish is much more risky than launching with low quality ending (remember BW intially thought the current ending would "work") I highly doubt Bioware/EA to be the company that produces art/masterpiece/genre redfining moments. Everything EA stands for is clockwork and limitation of risk in favour of blandness and repetition. To believe Bioware would ever gotten free hands like that is highly optimistic. 
 
So I highly doubt we will see much more innovation out of Bioware ever again. This whole ordeal will probably just cause Bioware to sink further down into formulaic content with little risk nor little time in production cycles.   
 
EA/Bioware might yet surprise and none should be happier than me to be proven wrong. But judging from DA2 and SWTOR I doubt that innovaters have any power inside BW these days.

[Njald]

optimistickied wrote...

drayfish wrote...

There would be no more question as to whether games were art. People would simply harrumph and murmur the name Mass Effect as they do Mona Lisa, and then swan away to drink lattes and wear berets and talk about Kierkegaard.

Zing.

Njald wrote...

When the percentage of people who express they like the ending is far below the Dunning–Kruger ratio I think it's pretty obvious that most of those who like the ending don't even know the problems with it. Also, their inability to precieve the issues, even if disagreeing with the emotional impact of them, is hampering their ability to have a discussion. To connect the thematical choices in the RGB ending with the earlier storyline requires mental selfinflicted delusion on a grand scale. It like saying Pizza is shellfish because sometimes someone put shrimp on it.

Seeing as how I'm one of the few people who publicly come out to support the endings, I'd just like to say, ouch, man. Ouch. Because I'm delusional and totally mentally hamstrung, I'd probably even eat your gross sounding pizza.

And like it.

Don't worry, I thought I could sing properly up until middle school. Then it dawned on me when the other kids started laughing. I was so bad that I couldn't tell the difference between keeping a tune or not.  

I'm all for people disagreeing with the emotional impact of the game or the satsifaction attained by it. But structurally the ending was poor from several different angles and to not see that these issues is to be colour blind. 
The ending failed in several aspects and we all know them by heart now. That some parts of it apeased/pleased some consumers is pretty much guaranteed. But I doubt the ratio is something you can build a business around. 
The ending shows that creativly and artistically gaming industry is still in silent movie era. We have a long way to creating masterpieces within the industry. Masterwork is still only created outside and only in very small scope. 
 

[Mystiq6]

I would just like to add that if the Indoctrination Theory turned out to be true all along that I would be one of those people bowing down and praying to the new Gods of storytelling. Unfortunately, it now has so much stigma as well as praise that it would be incredibly difficult for BioWare to play that card.

But still...

[MrFob]

Ok, I was lurking this thread since it's beginning now. First I want to say this is arguably the best thread on the forums at the moment and thanks to each and every contributor for giving us very interesting and enjoyable reads.
Unfortunately I at the moment I lack the time to write responses, long and articulate enough to participate in the discussion. I still do which is why my post here is going to be short.
However, I just quickly want to say that drayfish, while delivering exquisite reading from the beginning has completely won me over with his latest post on the IT. To clarify, I myself do not believe anymore that the IT is true or was ever intended by BW (sadly) but I completely agree with his take on the repercussion if it were true. It would be the greatest achievement, not only in video games but in story-telling in general in at least the last several years IMO. And yes, I agree there would probably be an outrage again (and for good reason too) but this time it would be worth it. It would be the ultimate achievement of story telling in video games as an art form.
and @recentio, yes the hints are far and few between but that is exactly the point. the idea is to keep the audience in the belief that what they experienced was actually happening and keeping every indication ambiguous at best. It is the only way to pull this off.
As I said, unfortunately I am very hesitant to give BW credit for this and I doubt that they intended this ingenious possibility. However, if I am wrong and if they did, hell, even if they only decide now to implement it because they recognize the potential, than I will join drayfish in praising them until to days after the apocalypse.
Anyway, I kind of drifted off here and should go back to work. Just wanted to say thanks to everyone and to drayfish in particular as in the ending critique as well as in the IT post, you articulated my thoughts exactly (and surely better than I could have). Cheers!

[Njald]

recentio wrote...

Not rain on your parade, Doc. But have you considered the structural shortcomings of IT, particularly the version where Shep's indoctrination is a protracted process over the course of the game, in that it is not set up clearly so that the average player is prepared for that revelation as an epiphany rather than yet another WTF? I think IT is a nice concrete (until it isn't) path for discounting the awful Starchild, but it's arguments are largely far flung and not suitable for effective storytelling to a general audience. EDIT: Because it's "foreshadowing" is so obscure.

   
 
While the foreshadowing is indeed not something an average veiwer/player would pick up on there is nothing that says IT couldn't do a MissMarple/Sherlock recap of the "hints". Most consumers will forgive getting tricked if they are shown in retrospect that the clues were infact there. Think Sixth Sense or The Usual Suspects. Even if neither of those movies are perfect selfcontained circles they are easily forgiven because the major pieces of the puzzle fits. Even Unbreakable is forgiven by most audience members despite it's less than stellar reveal.  
 
In short: don't underestimate the power of the reveal, even when it's sloppy, the surprise makes most people swallow it whole without blinking.

[FoxShadowblade]

Well that is certainly better than everyone else I've talked to in real life, all their reasons can be summed up in: "It sucks, it sucks really bad."

But your professor did hit on one subject really well, "artistic integrity" Yeah, my ass. Two people came up with an ending hated by fans and it's suddenly the "team's" dream ending?

Not buying it.

[Delta_V2]

Njald wrote...

recentio wrote...

Not rain on your parade, Doc. But have you considered the structural shortcomings of IT, particularly the version where Shep's indoctrination is a protracted process over the course of the game, in that it is not set up clearly so that the average player is prepared for that revelation as an epiphany rather than yet another WTF? I think IT is a nice concrete (until it isn't) path for discounting the awful Starchild, but it's arguments are largely far flung and not suitable for effective storytelling to a general audience. EDIT: Because it's "foreshadowing" is so obscure.

   
 
While the foreshadowing is indeed not something an average veiwer/player would pick up on there is nothing that says IT couldn't do a MissMarple/Sherlock recap of the "hints". Most consumers will forgive getting tricked if they are shown in retrospect that the clues were infact there. Think Sixth Sense or The Usual Suspects. Even if neither of those movies are perfect selfcontained circles they are easily forgiven because the major pieces of the puzzle fits. Even Unbreakable is forgiven by most audience members despite it's less than stellar reveal.  
 
In short: don't underestimate the power of the reveal, even when it's sloppy, the surprise makes most people swallow it whole without blinking.

If IT is used to fix the endings, the strongest piece of foreshadowing would be the dreams.  Even average gamers should realize, in hindsight, that there was something just not right about those dreams.  As it stands, they are just bad because they feel awkward, forced, and break the flow of the game (dropping one right in the middle of the romance scene? really, Bioware?).  But if IT is used, that sense of 'wrongness' simply becomes foreshadowing.

[-Spartan]

Kunari801 wrote...

-Spartan wrote...

...  after reading drayfish's commentary (p13) and one by Doyce Testerman, I decided I could not add anything substantive to those essays in full or in part as they comprehensively cover the issue at hand exceptionally well...

Doyce's comment is brilliant!  I love how he compared it to LotR it was perfect analogy! 

I think so as well. It opened up the "discussion" to people that did not play the game and were wondering what all the fuss is
about. I read several comments by people that were "for" BW prior to reading it then changed their opinion after the LotRO analogy.

The only other time in my life in which I have ever felt such utterly total dismay and instant emotional whiplash for a narrative ending regarding a story I became deeply involved in was with the reimagined BSG ending. I actually through a nearly full bottle of expensive wine through my 50” LCD monitor! My wife and friends were not happy to say the least but I digress… 

Modifié par -Spartan, 18 avril 2012 - 04:51 .

[optimistickied]

Njald wrote...

Don't worry, I thought I could sing properly up until middle school. Then it dawned on me when the other kids started laughing. I was so bad that I couldn't tell the difference between keeping a tune or not.  

I'm all for people disagreeing with the emotional impact of the game or the satsifaction attained by it. But structurally the ending was poor from several different angles and to not see that these issues is to be colour blind. 
The ending failed in several aspects and we all know them by heart now. That some parts of it apeased/pleased some consumers is pretty much guaranteed. But I doubt the ratio is something you can build a business around. 
The ending shows that creativly and artistically gaming industry is still in silent movie era. We have a long way to creating masterpieces within the industry. Masterwork is still only created outside and only in very small scope. 
 

I'm delusional and color blind? Oh hoh. Too many paint chips.

Are we criticising the endings here, giving BioWare professional advice, policing them by imposing authoritarian restrictions on creative license, making demands, or having a discussion? Have we moved beyond suggestion to censorship yet? And why aren't silent movies masterpieces? Why is masterwork only created outside and where is that exactly, and how small is that scope?

And will you kindly enlarge it?

I can get passed form and structure if there is content. What good is grammar if there is nothing to say? I see enough here to analyze and enjoy, so I do. Can you accept that some of us can find fault in the endings and still be entertained? 

Modifié par optimistickied, 18 avril 2012 - 04:21 .

[Byronic-Knight]

pistolols wrote...

Seriously though, it's amazing to me how many people do not understand the final 3 choices.  Apparently even a lit professor (community college?).  Some even try to claim the 3 choices "have no foreshadowing"... lol?  Were you playing a different game from me?  For christ' sake, the very first AI we meet in ME1 tells us "All organics will either control or destroy synthetic lifeforms".  It is intellectually dishonest and just blatantly retarded for people to act as if this stuff is not important within the series.

Apologies if someone has already addressed this, but that is in complete contradiction to what the Catalyst was yammering about. 

The theme of organics either controling or destroying synthetics can clearly be seen with the Quarian-Geth relationship in the way which the Geth were created as a labour force, as slaves, but were then deemed worthy of destruction when they proved themselves capable of existential pondering, which creates a moral quandry involving the ethics of subjugating a conscious entity---a quandry that the Quarians apparently couldn't handle. It's the reason for the disparity of opinions among the Quarian admirals in ME2. Xen thinks of them merely as machines, as tools, refusing to recognise their self-awareness and penchant for contemplation. Koris sympathises with them as he sees them as a created race---but a separate race nonetheless---that was wronged by the Quarian people. Gerrel sees them only as enemy combatants (whether they are "people" in even a vague sense is irrelevant to him). 

But the Catalyst posed the rationale for his Reaper solution for the chaos of organics creating synthetics was that synthetics would always rebel and kill organics, so it controls synthetics to assimilate (read as kill and turn into paste) organics with the ability to do so so they won't create synthetics that will eventually rebel and kill them---giving birth to the ubiquitous "Yo Dawg" meme. Either way, organics are dead and synthetics are the ones who killed them. 

In fact, if the aforementioned philosophy (in your quote) were exchanged for the one currently in-game, suddenly it is a sort of revenge motive on the part of the Reapers---that synthetics are used as slaves or are otherwise destroyed by organics is prime justification for their actions; by forcibly making organics part of themselves serves to subjugate organics to synthetic will, a reversal of roles---not to mention the fact that they would empower the synthetics already created by organics. 

"Geth build our own future. The heretics asked the Old Machines to give them a future." -- Legion

Suddenly, it makes sense. They indoctrinated the heretics to believe that they could be rid of their organic overlords once and for all and not be confined to the area beyond the Perseus Veil. 

And yet, if you convince the Geth and Quarians to make peace, it still invalidates the logic, as the acceptance of the Geth as conscious, contemplative beings is also an acceptace of them as equals, not slaves nor tools, which, again, was the theme of the entire Geth-Quarian story arch. 

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I am super conflicted about the IT. On one hand, it would be Andy Kaufman-level brilliance if it were truly the plan from the beginning. If the feeling of disbelief, nihilistic frustration, and anticlimax I feel upon encountering the ending are, in fact, the emotions the ending intended to evoke... well, Bioware, you've just revolutionized not only the genre, but mainstream entertainment as we know it. You would have created a magnificent piece of performance art by evoking my existential despair at the death of great narrative. Damn you, you magnificent bastards, etc.

That said, I'm not sure "how it would play in Peoria," as we say in the states. I know a few people who have decided not to think too deeply about the existing endings, and who are satisfied with the choices they were given. Personally, it still makes me cringe a bit that willingness to possibly commit genocide is symbolic of breaking free of brainwashing, but hey, nothing's perfect.

I'm just rambling at this point, but I do want to ask this. Dr. Dray, do you have any of this (or any other relevant scholarship) up online anywhere other than here? I have a friend who is curious about the literary analysis of this, but he's hesitant to venture into the BSN, with things as they are now.

[M0keys]

Byronic-Knight wrote...

pistolols wrote...

Seriously though, it's amazing to me how many people do not understand the final 3 choices.  Apparently even a lit professor (community college?).  Some even try to claim the 3 choices "have no foreshadowing"... lol?  Were you playing a different game from me?  For christ' sake, the very first AI we meet in ME1 tells us "All organics will either control or destroy synthetic lifeforms".  It is intellectually dishonest and just blatantly retarded for people to act as if this stuff is not important within the series.

Apologies if someone has already addressed this, but that is in complete contradiction to what the Catalyst was yammering about. 

The theme of organics either controling or destroying synthetics can clearly be seen with the Quarian-Geth relationship in the way which the Geth were created as a labour force, as slaves, but were then deemed worthy of destruction when they proved themselves capable of existential pondering, which creates a moral quandry involving the ethics of subjugating a conscious entity---a quandry that the Quarians apparently couldn't handle. It's the reason for the disparity of opinions among the Quarian admirals in ME2. Xen thinks of them merely as machines, as tools, refusing to recognise their self-awareness and penchant for contemplation. Koris sympathises with them as he sees them as a created race---but a separate race nonetheless---that was wronged by the Quarian people. Gerrel sees them only as enemy combatants (whether they are "people" in even a vague sense is irrelevant to him). 

But the Catalyst posed the rationale for his Reaper solution for the chaos of organics creating synthetics was that synthetics would always rebel and kill organics, so it controls synthetics to assimilate (read as kill and turn into paste) organics with the ability to do so so they won't create synthetics that will eventually rebel and kill them---giving birth to the ubiquitous "Yo Dawg" meme. Either way, organics are dead and synthetics are the ones who killed them. 

In fact, if the aforementioned philosophy (in your quote) were exchanged for the one currently in-game, suddenly it is a sort of revenge motive on the part of the Reapers---that synthetics are used as slaves or are otherwise destroyed by organics is prime justification for their actions; by forcibly making organics part of themselves serves to subjugate organics to synthetic will, a reversal of roles---not to mention the fact that they would empower the synthetics already created by organics. 

"Geth build our own future. The heretics asked the Old Machines to give them a future." -- Legion

Suddenly, it makes sense.

Well, of course it does! The Reapers are trying to convince you they're there to save you from the very thing they're responsible for.

[Sable Phoenix]

drayfish wrote...

I apologise if this is too much of a jump from the current extremely-fertile discussion going on throughout this post. ...If so, please ignore; I simply wanted to get this written somewhere.
 
As much of the comments I have posted are predicated on the notion that the narrative arc with which we have been presented by Bioware is the entirety of the game, I did want to speak briefly (and I know my version of the word 'briefly' differs from most) to the notion that this is not, in fact, the end of Shepard's tale. ...Yes, I am about to utter the words 'Indoctrination Theory' – which I know that for a subset of players will no doubt inspire images of me sitting in a basement with a tin-foil hat. 
 
I'm not going to say that I think that Indoctrination Theory is valid (although I will admit I dearly, passionately hope that it is so), I merely want to speculate in narrative terms about what it would mean for all of the critique that I – and numerous others – have levelled at the present conclusion; and further, what it would mean for this game, this franchise, and the entire medium of video gaming. So please indulge me.
 
People need not have me repeat yet again the components of the Indoctrination Theory – suffice to say that it involves the jarring ending being but a psychological morality play within Shepard's wounded psyche; Ghosty-McSpace-Scamp represents the voice of three options, two of which lead to surrender, and the third, Destroy, playing out as a catalyst through which to break the stranglehold of Harbinger's influence (hence the breath amongst the rubble).
 
If this is what is actually occurring – and sadly I know at this point in the media spin-cycle that might be a very big 'if' – if 'clarification' and 'expansion' mean putting this ending into context by revealing (through a supplemental free DLC patch) these events to be the imaginings of Shepard  moments before the true conclusions (whatever they might actually be) play out, this narrative will be one of the greatest acts of literary manipulation and storytelling ever conceived. (Again, I want to point out: I am not saying that this is what is happening – merely what it would mean if it is.)
 
The symmetry between audience and experience would be sublime: all the rancour and disbelief on the internet, all the fighting for Shepard's identity and ideology would perfectly parallel the character's own fight for survival, breaking the hold of an omnipotent, omniscient force that seems to compel him/her to act against his/her actions. All of the angst, all of the sorrow, even my own pretentious blather, would therefore feed directly into the psychological rallying cry that our focal character, Shepard, requires to wake him/herself up from this delirious stupor, and return to the fight.
 
Indeed, if Indoctrination Theory is accurate – if the concluding moments of the game as we have them now are but the shadows cast upon Shepard's mind by Harbinger in an attempt to bend him/her to the Reaper's will – then Mass Effect 3 would not be Game of the Year: it would be Game of the Century. No hyperbole. It would do for the communicative form of gaming what Citizen Kane did for film, what Joyce's Ulysses did for modern fiction: it would turn the medium itself into a fundamental, inseparable element of the means through which the narrative was communicated. It would elevate the audience's engagement with this text to a profoundly intimate level (arguably impossible in any other artistic form), would fold dissenters and believers and self-righteous critics on both sides all into the miasma of speculation and emotion required for Shepard to act. It would be the perfect culmination of player agency in the story-telling medium that Bioware has promised (and for the great majority of these narratives, delivered) for the past several years.
 
This 'ending' would be an intentionally, necessarily disturbing waypoint in the journey towards this tale's epic dénouement. And in such an instance, I will be at the front of the pack, howling myself hoarse with praise for the audacity and brilliance of this writing team and its talented crafts-people. 
 
There would be no more question as to whether games were art. People would simply harrumph and murmur the name Mass Effect as they do Mona Lisa, and then swan away to drink lattes and wear berets and talk about Kierkegaard.
 
...That, or Hayley-Joel-Osmont-Ghost wins. 
 
(Sure, I'd still be a little sorry for those people, like myself until only a few months ago, without an online avenue to get the real ending, but the manner in which form, craft and reception had united would be so exquisite as to outweigh the frustration.)  

Holy cow, Drayfish.  You are the only other person who has even touched on this aspect of art in games that I've ever seen.  Not less than four days ago I wrote a blog post on this very subject, which only a handful of people ever saw, I'm sure.  It was in response to a variation of defense for the ending as it exists... but I think (as someone who also fervently wishes the Indoctrination Theory were true) that it is perfectly bookended by your post.  I'll attach said blog here:

As I'm sure every Mass Effect fan knows by now, the ending of the trilogy has sparked something of a controversy.  The reaction has been almost universally negative among the fanbase, with the majority of game websites and critics like IGN standing in opposition to that viewpoint, in some cases accusing those who dislike the ending of an overgrown sense of entitlement, or simply complaining for the sake of complaint (a.k.a, "whining).  BioWare itself has issued multiple statements that defend the ending on the grounds of "artistic vision."

This defense is unfortunate, since it implies that the playerbase is simply not sophisticated enough to appreciate what BioWare has accomplished.  Naturally, it has been latched onto by both the pro- and anti-ending sides of the debate as "proof" that one or the other viewpoint is valid, resulting in a continuous spiral of circular logic and opinions presented as fact.  This blog post by sagequeen of Gametourists is a wonderful summary of how this tends to play out.  After reading that post and thinking about it for a while, I decided to take it upon myself to address the aspect of this that she does not: whether games are art.

Many people hold a popular view that games cannot be art, because traditional art requires a passive audience instead of an active participant.  To paraphrase, they "violate the relationship between the artist and the audience", in which the artists produces the work and the audience experiences it.  Those same people will often claim that the parts of a game -- the music, graphics, acting, etc. -- are art, just not the game as a whole.

The arguments for why games are not art are the same arguments used for why film is not art, back when film was a newly birthed medium.  They couldn't possibly be art, because they were commercial entertainment!  Entertainment for the masses, no less!

People who made that argument conveniently ignored artists such as Mozart and Beethoven, who produced their art for the express purpose of commercial entertainment.

Another example: for some time after its development, photography was not viewed as a valid art form.  It couldn't possibly be art when a painter would take hours on end to create a portrait, while a photographer would simply set up the device, press a button, and produce a portrait in a fraction of the time.

I don't know anyone who studies or critiques art today who will claim that photography or film are not art forms.

The problem lies in the tendency of new forms of art to be judged by the criteria used to define previous forms of art.  You can't define a painting as a work of art using the exclusive criteria as you would use to define a film, or a piece of music, or a dance, or a play, or a book.  There are similarities, definitely, yet each medium has unique properties which can only be evaluated on their own merits.  They are still, undeniably, all art.  Likewise, you cannot define a game as art using the criteria of other media.

Games are currently closest to films in their production and presentation; they involve moving images on a screen with an accompanying soundtrack, they involve screenwriting, music and voice production, in fact there is a lot of crossover between the two media, especially in the acting department (something well-highlighted by Mass Effect, with Charlie Sheen, Claudia Black, Carrie-Ann Moss, Raphael Sbarge, and others who have worked in film voicing prominent roles).  As such, games are typically judged on the same merits as a film would be.  Yet games are not films and can not be exclusively evaluated by the same criteria.  Evaluating and judging games as films completely ignores the actual core of a game, gameplay.  That is, the choices and actions of the participant (née viewer) which actively shape the experience.

In order to clarify, I'll divert to another form of art: sculpture.  Sculpture, you might say, has no interactivity.  It is presented in a non-malleable medium, as a finished product of the artist's work.  The role of the participant in this art is, you might say, completely passive, to be a viewer of the art and nothing more.

And you would be wrong.  Sculpture, as a three-dimensional form of art, is highly subjective to the input of the viewer; where one chooses to place the sculpture, how one lights it, and where one stands to view it all influence the perception of the final artwork.  A perfect example is this modern sculpture in New York, or these scultpures by a Japanese artist, which rely on the viewer's interaction with the art to achieve their effect.

No work of art is an entirely passive experience on the part of the viewer.  Various forms of art require differing levels of interactivity from the audience, but all of them require at least some action on the part of someone other than the artist.  Books require active reading.  Paintings require active viewing.  Movies require actively inserting a disc into your DVD player and pressing "Play".  All forms of art require the audience to do something, however miniscule, in order to experience the artwork.

Games are still experiencing push-back as an invalid form of art, precisely because they offer an unprecedented amount of interactivity and agency on the part of the audience in the finished product.  Give one more generation the chance to grow up and achieve adulthood, and games will be viewed culturally as an art form just as valid as film, or music.  Or sculpture.  And I would argue that gameplay is, in fact, the main criterion that will be used to judge the artistry of a game on its own merits, independent from other art forms.  How completely can the game invest the player in the choices and actions necessary to move the story forward and reach a conclusion?

Now, given that specific criterion (i.e., player agency) as one that can be used to evaluate the artistry of a game, Mass Effect succeeds brilliantly through most of its length. It's only at the end that it falls apart.  Yes, when viewed from a literary perspective, the ending of Mass Effect 3 fails objectively.  It fails to carry through on the main themes of the entire work, it fails to address the problems presented by the main plot, it fails to offer resolution to the climax.  But on another level, that of gameplay, the criteria that is unique to games as an art form, it fails as well.  This is a series of games that appealed to the highest level of art a game can achieve, that of the player agency, the ability of the player to influence the game world.  The illusion that you actually influence the storyline and create the outcome has been something that BioWare has touted as one of the main attractions of the Mass Effect series through all three games.

That all collapses at the end, and the game railroads you into a false choice (I say false because choosing the color changes nothing important about the ending) that has nothing to do with any of your previous choices.

In summary, then: are games art?  Absolutely.  Is Mass Effect 3 art?  Without question.  Is Mass Effect 3 good art?  Based on the criteria for judging a game as art... no.  It is not a successful work of art, because it fails in what its medium attempts to achieve.  And that is why the emotional response of the players has been so broadly and violently negative.

As I said before, you're the only other person who I have ever seen mention, even obliquely, that gameplay is in fact the unique measure of artistry for games.  I hope I'm not too presumptive in claiming you as a kindred spirit.

I pray that BioWare goes the indoctrination route; it would be a coup of incredible proportions and would elevate one of the largest failures in gaming to one of the greatest successes in any medium.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 18 avril 2012 - 09:40 .

[TODD9999]

I regret that I have little to add to this thread other than to say I've enjoyed the intelligent discussion occurring within (not that all of it has been intelligent), and am posting to thank those with the patience and willingness to write up their thoughts and explanations in such a detailed manner. And also to hopefully get others to read this thread.

[optimistickied]

Byronic-Knight wrote...

But the Catalyst posed the rationale for his Reaper solution for the chaos of organics creating synthetics was that synthetics would always rebel and kill organics, so it controls synthetics to assimilate (read as kill and turn into paste) organics with the ability to do so so they won't create synthetics that will eventually rebel and kill them---giving birth to the ubiquitous "Yo Dawg" meme. Either way, organics are dead and synthetics are the ones who killed them.

I think Reapers harvest advanced civilizations to prepare for new life. Their cycles are there only to ensure a synthetic intelligence doesn't emerge capable of undoing organic existence. Reaper technologies are even left behind to be exploited by developing organics; everything goes like clockwork. Reapers come in, harvest old life, new life flourishes, Reapers come in, harvest old life, new life flourishes. They're instruments of order. Shepard notes that this removes all hope for the future of organics, and the Catalyst responds that indeed, the solution must change.

Organics are kept in relative squalor with strict limits imposed upon them. The player disrupts this process.

[-Spartan]

optimistickied wrote...
I think Reapers harvest advanced civilizations to prepare for new life. Their cycles are there only to ensure a synthetic intelligence doesn't emerge capable of undoing organic existence. Reaper technologies are even left behind to be exploited by developing organics; everything goes like clockwork. Reapers come in, harvest old life, new life flourishes, Reapers come in, harvest old life, new life flourishes. They're instruments of order. Shepard notes that this removes all hope for the future of organics, and the Catalyst responds that indeed, the solution must change.

Organics are kept in relative squalor with strict limits imposed upon them. The player disrupts this process.

When I experienced the ending I thought to myself the narrative is getting into the Babylon 5 Shadow and Vorlon "debate" with that argument but from a different perspective.   

[optimistickied]

-Spartan wrote...

optimistickied wrote...
I think Reapers harvest advanced civilizations to prepare for new life. Their cycles are there only to ensure a synthetic intelligence doesn't emerge capable of undoing organic existence. Reaper technologies are even left behind to be exploited by developing organics; everything goes like clockwork. Reapers come in, harvest old life, new life flourishes, Reapers come in, harvest old life, new life flourishes. They're instruments of order. Shepard notes that this removes all hope for the future of organics, and the Catalyst responds that indeed, the solution must change.

Organics are kept in relative squalor with strict limits imposed upon them. The player disrupts this process.

When I experienced the ending I thought to myself the narrative is getting into the Babylon 5 Shadow and Vorlon "debate" with that argument but from a different perspective.   

I won't lie; I have no idea what that means...

But I like it.

[SkaldFish]

While I can't argue against the notion that Indoctrination Theory would have been an amazing achievement, when I look at what is actually provided by BioWare versus all the (admittedly brilliant) apologetic content that ME fans have used to sew the concept together, I have to make two observations:

First, if this were somehow the original plan, BioWare's ham-handed treatment of the ending becomes even more egregious than previously imagined. To be successful, such "Sixth Sense" - style twists require very careful setup and even more skillful execution. They can't rely solely on our ability to archaeologically assemble missing information and ambiguous events into a gradually dawning, plausible explanation. We must be able to look back and instantly see that the answer -- the WHOLE answer -- was there all along, IN THE STORY, but completely hidden until the writer was ready to point it out to us. As things stand now, the elements that make up IT are both too obvious and too apocryphal (i.e., only existing outside the story as a later fabrication) to serve that essential narrative function.

...which brings me to the second observation: If BioWare were to make IT the rabbit it pulls out of the hat after such an inept setup (or as a way to save face whether originally intended or not), my reaction would certainly not be relief or praise. It would be anger at having been punked, because, yes, IT would have fit. Many of the pieces needed to make it work were there for the taking. But they were never lined up so that the narrative dominoes would actually fall at the moment of the big reveal, and that's the only way to pull off a satisfying plot twist. At the moment the writer pulls back the narrative curtain, we have to be able to look back and say "Of course! How could I have missed it?" More importantly, the reveal has to be part of the story, not content added later on as some sort of bizarre value-add. Once we've turned the last page and closed the last book of a trilogy, we have no reason to believe we haven't just read the end of the story.

[-Spartan]

optimistickied wrote...
I won't lie; I have no idea what that means...

But I like it.

The whole "chaos vs order" justification for things.  JMS (the writer for the series) also used a god like creature to end the situation at its apex. 

Modifié par -Spartan, 18 avril 2012 - 05:47 .