5087 réponses à ce sujet

[-Spartan]

SkaldFish wrote...

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.

While my inclination is to agree with your position, there is one saving grace for BW (beyond its historical reputation) and it is simply that EA is the new master and just maybe, just maybe BW was not allowed to execute things “properly”. I know it is pulling at very small straws but hey we can dream….. 

Modifié par -Spartan, 18 avril 2012 - 05:51 .

[SkaldFish]

-Spartan wrote...

SkaldFish wrote...

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.

While my inclination is to agree with your position, there is one saving grace for BW (beyond its historical reputation) and it is simply that EA is the new master and just maybe, just maybe BW was not allowed to execute things “properly”. I know it is pulling at very small straws but hey we can dream…..

Far be it from me to snatch hope away from the hopeful! I'll happily concede that possibility.

[drayfish]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

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.

@ Sable Phoenix:

A Fantastic post/blog. I heartily agree that those who fail to allow for the possibility that games are art – even if they don't yet concede that they are – miss the basic hypocrisy in engaging with any other medium as viewer, audience, reader. Until art is downloaded fully-formed into our brains, the interpretive act of interacting with the delivery system of that art is fundamental to its meaning. I read the book; I hear the song; I see the painting; I press the left-trigger; without the imposition and application of I ('eye' – sorry, just being obnoxious now) art has not yet communicated its purpose.
 
I would suggest, if you're interested in further authorship on the capacity for games to be considered art, you might check out the book Extra Lives: Are Videogames Art? by Tom Bissell. It offers a selection of engaging and provoking musings upon games as an interactive medium. (Also, Bissell's blog is always fairly entertaining...)

Modifié par drayfish, 18 avril 2012 - 06:15 .

[Byronic-Knight]

optimistickied wrote...

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.

Well, sure, that at least makes sense. I read somewhere that they also have the cycle so that they could grow their numbers or evolve, which was hinted at when you see the human Reaper in ME2. 

They use organics to gauge their own abilities and seek methods with which they could improve, so they choose the species that was the most capable or was exceptional from any given cycle off which to model themselves (I wonder if that means at one point in time the Hanar were the best the galaxy had?). EDI mentions, before the final fight, that the reason there aren't any Prothean Reapers is because they couldn't make use of them other than turning them into slaves---probably because the Protheans coercively homogenised the galaxy in their cycle---and speculated that the Reapers, in making it in the first place, could be their form of reproduction. 

At least then their motives could have been justifiable in any sense, horrific though their actions might be, and despite the fact that those actions should still be resisted. 

But that isn't what was presented. We are simply told that the created will always rebel against the creator (*cough* except the Geth), that synthetics will always rise up any kill organics (*cough* except EDI), and that to prevent this, the Catalyst controls (at least, it is implied he created them but it isn't stated explicitly I don't think) a group of synthetics that kills organics every fifty-thousand years or so to keep the synthetics they create from rising up and killing them. 

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

 

Overcoming obstacles and transcending barriers. Sounds like (the majority of) Mass Effect to me. 

Modifié par Byronic-Knight, 18 avril 2012 - 06:27 .

[Wes Finley]

This post and this one are important. The marginalization of dissenting opinion about the ending of the game, the idea that "they want a happy ending" or that the current ending needed "clarification" is an insult to our intelligence.

I honestly don't need a new ending at this point. It'd be nice, but it won't wash away the stain this whole mess made. What I want is an explanation, an admission that what we got was less than we were promised and reasonably should have expected, and an apology for attempting to shine us on about how great what we got was, that we didn't appreciate it in our ignorance.

[Hawk227]

optimistickied wrote...

Whoa, you're not butting in. I like it.

I'm having a hard time understanding why making this decision was different from our previous decisions.The characters and settings and options had always been predefined for us; there was never a unique version of Shepard. If you're like me, you projected parts of your own personality onto the character; you mentally kept track of his quest and gave him or her a personal history; you distinguished the character from other Shepards. The game did not care whether I picked a Paragon or Renegade option, but I did. In other words, I didn't feel as though this mental continuity I had formed was suddenly disposed of, because it was never really in the coding of the game to begin with. The decisions I'd made only reinforced my connection to Shepard; it did not supplant the personal connection I'd made with the character. Or something. I don't know. It's hard to explain.

People keep saying they suddenly felt as though they weren't in control of the story, but I never really thought I was. I pretended.

The Catalyst presents the scenario; we must react to it. Its claim that synthetic life will supplant organic life is the information it is giving us. Whether that is true is irrelevant. It is not refutable, because we do not get to refute it. We can think it over, we can speculate about it, but when the game options are placed upon the screen, we must make our decision, according to what we believe is the closest to our ideal of resolution. If we wanted to hand Kasumi Goto into the authorities because we felt she was breaking the law, that is not within our available options. If we wanted Liara to stop being the Shadow Broker, we can't.

Outside of the ending, I can't recall a single instance in which I felt all available choices were morally reprehensible to the Shepard that Bioware had allowed me to create. Legion's loyalty mission comes closest, but I would feel reasonably comfortable making either choice.

The heretic geth were servants of the avowed enemy of sapient life. Had I met them on the battle field (which seemed inevitable), I would not have hesitated to kill them. Doing so with a few keystrokes and an EMP felt underhanded and gave me pause, but it felt like an appropriate option. Even rewriting them, the less acceptable of the two, didn't feel outrageous. Legion explained that their following the Reapers was a simple math error, created by code rewritten by the Reapers. I understand they volunteered to be rewritten, but knowing what I did about Saren and Benezia, I was distrustful that "choice".

I understand your point in regards to Kasumi, and Liara but it seems... inappropriate. I'm not sure. As you've mentioned elsewhere within the thread, the entire story arc was finely contained. We never had free will over shepard, we were just given the option to pick a side here and there. Nearly universally, Bioware left us an option that was appropriate to the Shepard we had molded. Renegade Shep distrusts Geth after ME1-he can give legion to Cerberus for study. Paragon Shep is open to the good in everybody (or whatever) - gives legion a chance to be heard (I did kind of expect the option to space him if I didn't like him, but BW made him really likable). There was always a choice that seemed appropriate, even if it was difficult (see Geth rewrite).The ending didn't have that. For reasons much better articulated by Drayfish.

I also understand why you like the "catalyst presents a scenario, we act" aspect, but I feel like for that to work (at least in that sense and in relation to the Catalyst's thesis) required Destroy not resulting in the genocide of the Geth, Control being changed to allowing the cycle to continue, and Synthesis.... not feeling like space magic. In such a scenario it would've genuinely been a question of whether you accept the Catalyst's justification for the reapers. We can reject his thesis destroy them and see what happens, accept their purpose and "ascend", or find an alternate transhuman solution. The ''problem'' then would be that everyone would pick destroy because who trusts the catalyst? Which just leads us back to the whole thing being a mess. It felt like the Geth genocide was put in there simply to force us to agonize over it. It felt cheap. Also, I'm not sure how Control is a solution to the proposed problem. On its face it's fundamentally the same as destroy, the cycle ends. Is the option just to keep them around in case we need a race of super powerful sentient space ships in case they were right all along? If so, isn't that a copout? A way of saying "Well, I don't believe you, but just in case, we'll turn you off and put you in storage in case I'm wrong".

It also failed because the preceeding narrative gave me no reason to distrust synthetic life simply for being synthetic. I agonised over curing the genophage, because I saw a Krogan horde as a threat to the galaxy, but I didn't bat an eye brokering peace between the Quarians and Geth. My only anxiety was whether my reputation would be strong enough to do so, because I saw the Geth and Quarians as equally worthy.  While Organics vs. Synthetics is an interesting theme it didn't work as justification for the Reapers and the cycle because the Reapers embody that conflict. You can't take the embodiment of a conflict and turn it into a neutral arbiter in that conflict. They went from our mortal enemy to helping us in their own perverted way... in the span of a sentence.

Modifié par Hawk227, 18 avril 2012 - 07:53 .

[Cimeas]

While your analysis of the game was most interesting, I must say that in your original post you said 'myriad of' when in fact (I believe) the 'of' should be omitted. However a quick search has shown that apparently 'myriad of' is acceptable. What should I be using, dear Professor?

[Feyrithe]

johnxtreeme wrote...

While your analysis of the game was most interesting, I must say that in your original post you said 'myriad of' when in fact (I believe) the 'of' should be omitted. However a quick search has shown that apparently 'myriad of' is acceptable. What should I be using, dear Professor?

I've always written it (and have read it written) without the 'of'.   Myriad can be a synonym for 'various' and that is also not written with an 'of' after it.

Then again, the Oxford comma is also 'acceptable', though I hate it with the fury of a 1000 suns.

[OddBodkin]

I don't know how the mumpin' heck they wrote this:

“Hard to imagine galaxy. Too many people. Faceless. Statistics. Easy to depersonalize. Good when doing unpleasant work. For this fight, want personal connection. Can’t anthropomorphize galaxy, but can think of favorite nephew. Fighting for him.”

...while giving us the ending that they did.

It's like drafting a hell of a contract and forgetting to get the bloody client to sign it.

[kidbd15]

Man o man, great read. I'd like it if Casey Hudson responded to your post doc, just to see his counter argument... Thanks for the fantastic read

[SkaldFish]

optimistickied wrote...

<snip/>

The Catalyst presents the scenario; we must react to it. Its claim that synthetic life will supplant organic life is the information it is giving us. Whether that is true is irrelevant. It is not refutable, because we do not get to refute it.

Doesn't this seem like a problem to you? This is a branching narrative matrix, but, just when everything in Shepard's world is at stake, we "do not get to refute" anything. In fact, the ability to interact on a meaningful level has suddenly been taken away. The Catalyst is nothing more than a delivery mechanism -- a clumsy device the writers are using to obfuscate the fact that they are "assuming direct control" of both story and game play. Any pretense of player agency is stripped away. We are now a passive audience pushing the start button for one of three bafflingly incoherent cinematic conclusions that rob us of the satisfaction of either participatory gameplay or an appropriate narrative resolution. I discuss this in more detail here.

[drayfish]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

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.

@ CulturalGeekGirl:

Sorry to say that I've not yet published anything on this issue myself - this forum is my first attempt to really verbalise my concerns with the ending.  But I have to admit, the quality of debate and analysis going on in the discussions throughout this thread is incredibly inspiring. 

Modifié par drayfish, 18 avril 2012 - 12:48 .

[Lyrebon]

I completely agree with Dr. Dre since his first post. That's not because he has a doctorate and I should feel intimidated but as a literary academic he's been able to succinctly epitomise my grievances and, as I'm sure, many others.

Combining what Skaldfish posted and Drayfish's analysis, the mere fact that you can't contend the words of the Catalyst, when intuitively Shepard knows they are abhorrently blind-sided subjectivism, is down to poor writing and stripping of the volition afforded us as players throughout the series. We are the mediators of our story, whether you chose to kill the rachni queen, calm Wrex on Virmire or put a bullet in his face, are all your choices made on conscious logic.

When the Catalyst presents his options we know they are counter-intuitive to what we have experienced and thematically opposing to the entire narrative. At this point, Shepard is no longer in control of herself, she's regressed from the individual that identifies herself with that very merit, to a pair of pants the Catalyst can put on and walk her towards one of three endings.

The question you should ask, optimistickied, is why Shepard violates her own ideals, motives and beliefs when we've seen her oppose what others believed to be "sound logic." Why does she not oppose the Catalyst when her experiences dictate she be revolted. Shepard has gone against what is "impossible" and proved it to be possible; if the Catalyst is irrefutable in cognition Shepard would contend it with frustration and anger that nothing she's done up to that point matter. It is the nature of humans to be irrational in search of truth coinciding with their beliefs. Shepard, as any human in her place, would not sit like a dog when told, she would question why she was being told to sit.

[CINCTuchanka]

Excellent post Professor Dray, it's quite fantastic to see a piece so well written that I don't need to question the authenticity of you actually being an expert in your field, it shows.  Here's hoping that one day you get to teach a class on this very subject (having ME1, 2 and 3 on a syllabus would be fantastic).

Anyway, I did want to point out one caveat I would like to introduce to your narrative, one that arises rather naturally from the non-linear structure of the ME narrative.  Your claims that killing the Geth is a violation of many aspects of the narrative are, I agree, for the most part correct.  Killing the Geth, taking the act on its own, would be immoral for a good number of Shepards and the introductions of EDI and Legion are clearly meant to have the player sympathize with synthetics.  However, I think it's critical to remember that the Geth themselves can be purposefully wiped out earlier in the game.  

In fact, the player has a dialogue wheel option of "Let the Geth Die" during the conclusion of the Rannoch arc.  Thus, I think it becomes pretty tricky to determine thematic consistency on this point because the player him/herself can choose earlier in game what the theme is in this case.  In fact, if the player chooses to allow the Geth to be effectively wiped out earlier in the game then the Destroy option ceases to be thematically inconsistent.  At the very least, it shows that allowing the Geth to be wiped out is a thematic inconsistency not specific to the ending.   

Now, assuming that the player does save the Geth, the question is whether destroying them while also destroying the Reapers is unecessary or otherwise harmful to the narrative.  It is my belief that the destruction of the Geth in the destroy ending was included simply because BioWare must have realized that it would obviously be the best option.

This is what simply baffles me about the ending choices: If Destruction was too tempting an option for players in the Dev's eyes then why not simply further exposit upon the other choices and make them more "appealing" in some fashion?  

As it stands, it appears that many players feel "forced" to take the Destroy option because the other options are simply more unpalatable and because destroying the reapers is the ONLY goal that the player has been presented with through the entire trilogy.  Further, it is simply not made clear in a logical manner how and why the other options would actually provide any sort of end to the Reaper War, or the cycle for that matter.  

Thus, instead of having more time spent on making Control and Synthesis more valid choices, BioWare cops out by threatening to kill the Geth if you choose Destroy.  Sure there is a good in-game logic behind why the Geth would be killed (upgraded with Reaper tech) but there isn't a narratively acceptable reason to include that caveat other than to make the Destory ending less appealing relative to the others. 

Thanks for reading, hope this contributes something to this great discussion!

Modifié par CINCTuchanka, 18 avril 2012 - 01:51 .

[PoisonMushroom]

This is probably the best topic I've read on the forums, and it's this level of analysis that makes the whole ending backlash so interesting.

I might add something later, if I feel I've got something useful to say. Until then consider this a bump.

[SkaldFish]

(EDIT: fixed formatting)

Lyrebon wrote...

I completely agree with Dr. Dre since his first post. That's not because he has a doctorate and I should feel intimidated but as a literary academic he's been able to succinctly epitomise my grievances and, as I'm sure, many others.

Combining what Skaldfish posted and Drayfish's analysis, the mere fact that you can't contend the words of the Catalyst, when intuitively Shepard knows they are abhorrently blind-sided subjectivism, is down to poor writing and stripping of the volition afforded us as players throughout the series. We are the mediators of our story, whether you chose to kill the rachni queen, calm Wrex on Virmire or put a bullet in his face, are all your choices made on conscious logic.

When the Catalyst presents his options we know they are counter-intuitive to what we have experienced and thematically opposing to the entire narrative. At this point, Shepard is no longer in control of herself, she's regressed from the individual that identifies herself with that very merit, to a pair of pants the Catalyst can put on and walk her towards one of three endings.

The question you should ask, optimistickied, is why Shepard violates her own ideals, motives and beliefs when we've seen her oppose what others believed to be "sound logic." Why does she not oppose the Catalyst when her experiences dictate she be revolted. Shepard has gone against what is "impossible" and proved it to be possible; if the Catalyst is irrefutable in cognition Shepard would contend it with frustration and anger that nothing she's done up to that point matter. It is the nature of humans to be irrational in search of truth coinciding with their beliefs. Shepard, as any human in her place, would not sit like a dog when told, she would question why she was being told to sit.

I really like the way you put that, Lyrebon: "We are the mediators of our story." That's a perfect way to conceptualize what we do when we play the game. In that blog post I linked to earlier, I think I was trying to get there, but you just made it all fit for me:

"We actively build a personal instance of the story from a complex body of narrative elements and character templates provided to us by the game's creators. The result is much more than just the path a character takes through that graph of branching narrative elements. Each play-through is the product of those choices and all the reasoning we used at each decision point, as well as the instance of the character we play and whose personality we refine along the way. All the wonderful, creative universe that enables us to do this belongs to the developers, but each instance of the story we create when we play is unique, and unquestionably ours. We are audience, but we are also actor and author of our instance(s) of the game."

For each installment in the trilogy, the Mass Effect team created what amounts to a story development kit. There is only story potential in this kit; there is no story until we step in. As players, we stand between this framework and an actual instance of the story, acting as mediators. Each of us defines a single path through the matrix of potential decisions, and, in spite of the fact that the finite number of branches in the matrix limits the number of unique combinations, two things (that are often overlooked) make each of our paths absolutely unique: (1) the reasoning behind each decision we make, and (2) the unique Shepard personality we build as part of that reasoning process. As long as each new scene and decision set can be reconciled with (and integrated into) the particular story arc our decisions have created up to that point, we can move forward within the context of our story instance.

But, as Dr. Dray and others have so eloquently pointed out, therein lies the problem. In the final moments of the final installment of the trilogy, after hundreds of hours of actively building that unique story instance, the ability to mediate is wrenched away. We find we can no longer integrate new narrative elements into a cohesive whole, because we've actually been demoted to passive observers. Our instance of story is made moot, because the developers have elected to reward our enthusiastic participation by doing away with the framework's rich universe and replacing it with the video game equivalent of an Ed Wood movie.

Modifié par SkaldFish, 18 avril 2012 - 02:04 .

[SkaldFish]

@CINCTuchanka: Excellent observations!

[pistolols]

Byronic-Knight wrote...

pistolols wrote...

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. 

I fail to see how.  Catalyst was "yammering" on about chaos between organics and synthetics.  The AI i've referenced is completely on point with what the catalyst says.  The AI explains to us in detail how it rebeled against it's creator and was able to get it's creator thrown into a turian prison.  His existence is precisely what the catalyst is talking about.  A synthetic lifeform created by an organic that has rebeled against it's creator.  In Mass Effect, organics opt to control or destroy synthetics because they're acutely aware of this dangerous reality.  Even Edi has to pretend to be a regular VI to mask her sentience from alliance soldiers because of the paranoia that exists.  My point in bringing it up was just to point out that the logic the catalyst talks about is not something the writers are throwing at us out of no where as a lot of ending haters are trying to claim.  It's well established.

Byronic-Knight wrote...

"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. 

At what point are you saying they were indoctrinated.. i thought Legion makes it very clear the heretics chose to follow Sovereign out of their own free will and that the other geth let them go in peace.  Which is also why Tali of all people, if you have her with you, objects to Legion's proposal of rewriting them.  If the heretics were simply indoctrinated then the choice is not nearly as difficult...

Modifié par pistolols, 18 avril 2012 - 02:21 .

[pistolols]

Another question for the thematically revolting crowd: Remember way back in ME1 when you straight up murdered the Thorian? A sentient creature thousands of years old. A situation which by the way, gave no choice to the player as to how to go about it. Would you say that was equally as "jarring" as "the endings"?

Just trying to get a sense of where exactly Mass Effect turned thematically revolting.

Nobody displays outrage over Shepard being forced to control or destroy the geth heretics. Nobody has a problem with Shepard becoming a cyborg despite this happening to him "without consent". Evidently nobody has an issue with Edi taking control and literally claiming ownership of Eva. But somehow the 3 ending choices are "revolting"? Ridiculous.

[palanora]

great read

[Omilophile]

Made Nightwing wrote...


"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.

Ha! That just made me realize what this is all REALLY about. Casey and Mac are butthurt children who are mad because nobody liked their ending, so they're throwing a tantrum and not changing it. Artistic integrity my ass. That's just what they tell themselves so they can sleep at night.

[SkaldFish]

pistolols wrote...

Another question for the thematically revolting crowd: Remember way back in ME1 when you straight up murdered the Thorian? A sentient creature thousands of years old. A situation which by the way, gave no choice to the player as to how to go about it. Would you say that was equally as "jarring" as "the endings"?

Just trying to get a sense of where exactly Mass Effect turned thematically revolting.

Nobody displays outrage over Shepard being forced to control or destroy the geth heretics. Nobody has a problem with Shepard becoming a cyborg despite this happening to him "without consent". Evidently nobody has an issue with Edi taking control and literally claiming ownership of Eva. But somehow the 3 ending choices are "revolting"? Ridiculous.

You're holding up specific events as if they were broad narrative themes and asking us to tell you why they aren't thematically revolting. It's because they aren't themes, they're events.

The ending is jarring because of a wholesale thematic shift and a sudden, precipitous drop in the quality of its writing, editing, pacing, and gameplay mechanic, not because of any single event within it.

[the slynx]

drayfish wrote...

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...

I find a lot of what you're contributing to the forum to be cogent and probing. This post... I'm not so comfortable with this whole post. I can see your point in a fashion, and I've argued with friends before that a video game that can make effective use of an unreliable-narrator type technique would clearly suggest the narrative possibilities of the medium.

But if IT is true (and I don't know if it is or not), I don't think it's been handled well at all in ME3. The non-game effects it produces are certainly interesting, but the mechanics by which it arrives at that point aren't so sound, and the in-game effects it produces for those genuinely concerned with the narrative that's so integral to ME are even less spectacular.

[PoisonMushroom]

drayfish wrote...
 
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.
 

Dear Esther and The Stanley Parable are two games that had a lot of emphasis on audience-experience relationship. In my opinion they both do an excellent job, although on nowhere near the scale you're talking about here. Give them a try, if you haven't done already.