5087 réponses à ce sujet

[SkaldFish]

RShara wrote...

It's like how sentences have a structure that you follow without even thinking about it. Which one of these sentences appeals to you more?

I dislike the endings because I feel they were inconsistent with the presented themes during the rest of the game.

i hate end sucked cuz it wuz bs

Or even better

endings dislike themes the with game I were with inconsistent the because feel I during rest they presented the of.

I vigorously support your right to express your personal syntactic vision.

[bc525]

RShara wrote...

I dislike the endings because I feel they were inconsistent with the presented themes during the rest of the game.

i hate end sucked cuz it wuz bs

endings dislike themes the with game I were with inconsistent the because feel I during rest they presented the of.

Okay, l'll play along ...

The first made clear sense and was nicely worded.  I understood it the best.

The second was cute.  It had some humor to it, and I must admit that I liked it.  Forgive me, my grade school grammar teachers, but it actually takes talent to use "silly speak" and get your meaning across.

The third was pure jibberish, and it annoyed me.  You exagerated for effect.  Did ME3 stop speaking English at the end?

[darthoptimus003]

bc525 wrote...

RShara wrote...

I dislike the endings because I feel they were inconsistent with the presented themes during the rest of the game.

i hate end sucked cuz it wuz bs

endings dislike themes the with game I were with inconsistent the because feel I during rest they presented the of.

Okay, l'll play along ...

The first made clear sense and was nicely worded.  I understood it the best.

The second was cute.  It had some humor to it, and I must admit that I liked it.  Forgive me, my grade school grammar teachers, but it actually takes talent to use "silly speak" and get your meaning across.

The third was pure jibberish, and it annoyed me.  You exagerated for effect.  Did ME3 stop speaking English at the end?

accually it stoped at making since  
it might has well been a diffrent langage

[bc525]

But I understood its meaning.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

bc525 wrote...

RShara wrote...

The thematic rules are followed because they work for 99% of the population.  Violating them can be done, but you have to be brilliant to do it successfully.

99% of the population?  How do you know this, is that figure in the wikipedia article?

Nah, I'm just teasing.  I get your drift, but honestly these thematic rules could be open for interpretation, couldn't they?  What worked for me in the ME3 ending, clearly didn't work for you.  That's cool.

It's just strange that creative works should fit within a set of rules.  That contradicts my impression of creativity, since creativity can (and often does) break accepted conventions.  Is it possible that people who study literary works maybe lose some appreciation of literary works?  Maybe they get too caught up in analyzing the rhyme and meter of the work?

Let me give you a gonzo-pop-lit theory example, here.

A while ago, while analyzing the literary SF subgenre "slipstream," a bunch of SF literary people suggested a new genre: Infernokrusher

Explosion is the new transgression. Demolition is the new deconstruction.
[—Benjamin Rosenbaum]

More than the death of the Reader, Infernokrusher prizes the sudden, violent dismemberment of the Reader

Infernokrusher fiction explodes stagnant genre conventions, e.g., that it's not okay to have all your characters run over by a monster truck in what would seem to be the middle of the story

While other attitudes to art yearn to communicate truths, to move people, to challenge, or to entertain, infernokrusher art wants to blow stuff up

Now, I'm a huge fan of the idea of Infernokrusher literature... in small doses. I like the idea that everything in the story could just blow up at any moment, that story doesn't have to make sense, that we may never reach the end of the journey. I like the idea of a story that has no purpose, no character arc, no ending other than the complete fiery destruction of everything... the startling moment when we are lead to realize that fiction is a trap that offers us easy answers, but nothing in life is as important as the awesomeness of explosions.

Art doesn't have hard and fast rules, and any intentional transgression you imagine has been classified, cataloged, lost, found, made fun of, and reinvented.

Some of this is about intent. If I thought the destruction of character and theme at the end of Mass Effect was intentional, I'd be viewing it differently. If I thought the ending was supposed to violently dismember me and plunge me into a state of nihilistic apathy, then I'd consider the work skillful, even if it was something I disliked. There are books I don't personally enjoy very much which I still admit are works of art of quality and importance (Ulysses, for example.) There are books and films that I enjoyed, but whose conclusions were so intentionally psychologically upsetting that I would not read or watch them again (The Prestige, Lolita.)

While art does not have hard and fast rules, there are guidelines for narrative flow, thematic consistency, and character development that tend to be found in most great literature. There are great works that break these patterns, but most do so deliberately, and often with creating distress in the reader and disconnection from the art as a primary aim.

The thematic inconsistency and character disconnects in the ending of Mass Effect don't feel like a deliberate transgression to me, they feel like a misstep. They don't create the complete explosive confusion and destruction that an Infernokrusher ending does, they don't have the sublime incongruity and detachment of a Brechtian opera, they don't have the amusingly frenetic incongruity of absurdism.

TL;DR

To sum up, there are no hard and fast rules in art, but if you're going to break the "soft rules," you need to do so deliberately and with full knowledge of the effect that doing so will have on the reader.

Consistency of theme creates emotional investment and cognitive engagement.

You can decide to discard consistency of theme, but you have to be aware that you are sacrificing emotional investment and cognitive engagement with the main narrative itself to do so. If you do so, you are saying that you care more about breaking with convention than you do about the reader's immersion and investment. You want the reader to focus on the fact that you're breaking literature, more than on the story itself.

The rest of Mass Effect is a triumph of narrative investment and emotional engagement, so I don't think the "death of theme" was what the writers were going for.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 21 avril 2012 - 01:36 .

[RShara]

bc525 wrote...

RShara wrote...

I dislike the endings because I feel they were inconsistent with the presented themes during the rest of the game.

i hate end sucked cuz it wuz bs

endings dislike themes the with game I were with inconsistent the because feel I during rest they presented the of.

Okay, l'll play along ...

The first made clear sense and was nicely worded.  I understood it the best.

The second was cute.  It had some humor to it, and I must admit that I liked it.  Forgive me, my grade school grammar teachers, but it actually takes talent to use "silly speak" and get your meaning across.

The third was pure jibberish, and it annoyed me.  You exagerated for effect.  Did ME3 stop speaking English at the end?

Yes, I exaggerated for effect.  It's the exact same words as the first sentence, but randomized.  They are English.  The words come out of no where, have no flow, or structure to them.
Much like the ending of Mass Effect

[SkaldFish]

@CulturalGeekGirl: Great comment! TL;DR? No way!

RE: The Prestige: Now there's an example of a great story with a well-executed plot twist. Never been so shocked and horrified in my life as when that last scene panned into view. But you're right. I don't think I could watch it again. Not for a few more years, anyway...

Modifié par SkaldFish, 21 avril 2012 - 01:57 .

[bc525]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Art doesn't have hard and fast rules, and any intentional transgression you imagine has been classified, cataloged, lost, found, made fun of, and reinvented.
...

You can decide to discard consistency of theme, but you have to be aware that you are sacrificing emotional investment and cognitive engagement with the main narrative itself to do so. If you do so, you are saying that you care more about breaking with convention than you do about the reader's immersion and investment. You want the reader to focus on the fact that you're breaking literature, more than on the story itself.

That's some great stuff there.  Thank you for the thoughtful post, that was some cool reading.

Of the top statement that I quoted, I believe that you speak truth CG girl.  I liken it to fashion design that has been invented, cast away, and then brought back.  It's very subjective, and it never truly dies.  Good Social Network quote there.  A more technical example is Formula 1, where once discarded suspension arrangements have suddenly become vogue again (i.e push-rod vs pull-rod).

Of the bottom statement, I don't particularly agree.  I'm going on personal experience here and I'm going to stay specific here, so forgive me if I sound ignorant.  We've established ME3 broke from a consistency of theme?  Correct?

My emotional investment (as the player) wasn't broken.  My investment clearly continues (after all, I am posting here).  The end sequence breaking from previously established themes didn't kill my buzz.  On some levels it worked for me.  I wish I could articulate it better than that, but simply put, it worked for me.

[dancarrero]

ShepnTali wrote...

He's an entitled whiner who doesn't get it.

Refute him with logic...Or is his reasoning beyond you?

[valor163]

This is stupid...

I mean what referencing system are you trying to use?
no brackets around the in text reference, no date, and a complete lack of an end text or even a foot note. I'm sorry you need to look closely at your referencing guide before you decide to post again.

While the argument presented in your post is compelling. and Professor Drey has some very interesting points that describe the issue perfectly, i'll have to deduct marks for your incorrect reference format.

74.9% Distinction.

[drayfish]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Art doesn't have hard and fast rules, and any intentional transgression you imagine has been classified, cataloged, lost, found, made fun of, and reinvented.

I know I'm repeating what others have said, but what a marvellous sentiment!  Wonderfully put!

Modifié par drayfish, 21 avril 2012 - 09:55 .

[Eudaemonium]

valor163 wrote...

This is stupid...

I mean what referencing system are you trying to use?
no brackets around the in text reference, no date, and a complete lack of an end text or even a foot note. I'm sorry you need to look closely at your referencing guide before you decide to post again.

While the argument presented in your post is compelling. and Professor Drey has some very interesting points that describe the issue perfectly, i'll have to deduct marks for your incorrect reference format.

74.9% Distinction.

Ah, academic grading systems, how I love thee.

THis thread is amazing, btw. Having great fun reading along.

[DJBare]

A good interview in my opinion.




RetakeME3 Interview with Hold The Line!

[dubdevo]

Honestly I knew I would agree with this guy the second my eyes hit the bit about the Matrix sequels.

[nlag]

Thank you for the very interesting read Professor and also thank you Nightwing for bringing his words in these forums.

Modifié par nlag, 21 avril 2012 - 09:04 .

[-Spartan]

DJBare wrote...

A good interview in my opinion.




RetakeME3 Interview with Hold The Line!

An excellent interview concerning grassroots community development. 

[GuardianAngel470]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

bc525 wrote...

RShara wrote...

The thematic rules are followed because they work for 99% of the population.  Violating them can be done, but you have to be brilliant to do it successfully.

99% of the population?  How do you know this, is that figure in the wikipedia article?

Nah, I'm just teasing.  I get your drift, but honestly these thematic rules could be open for interpretation, couldn't they?  What worked for me in the ME3 ending, clearly didn't work for you.  That's cool.

It's just strange that creative works should fit within a set of rules.  That contradicts my impression of creativity, since creativity can (and often does) break accepted conventions.  Is it possible that people who study literary works maybe lose some appreciation of literary works?  Maybe they get too caught up in analyzing the rhyme and meter of the work?

Let me give you a gonzo-pop-lit theory example, here.

A while ago, while analyzing the literary SF subgenre "slipstream," a bunch of SF literary people suggested a new genre: Infernokrusher

Explosion is the new transgression. Demolition is the new deconstruction.
[—Benjamin Rosenbaum]

More than the death of the Reader, Infernokrusher prizes the sudden, violent dismemberment of the Reader

Infernokrusher fiction explodes stagnant genre conventions, e.g., that it's not okay to have all your characters run over by a monster truck in what would seem to be the middle of the story

While other attitudes to art yearn to communicate truths, to move people, to challenge, or to entertain, infernokrusher art wants to blow stuff up

Now, I'm a huge fan of the idea of Infernokrusher literature... in small doses. I like the idea that everything in the story could just blow up at any moment, that story doesn't have to make sense, that we may never reach the end of the journey. I like the idea of a story that has no purpose, no character arc, no ending other than the complete fiery destruction of everything... the startling moment when we are lead to realize that fiction is a trap that offers us easy answers, but nothing in life is as important as the awesomeness of explosions.

Art doesn't have hard and fast rules, and any intentional transgression you imagine has been classified, cataloged, lost, found, made fun of, and reinvented.

Some of this is about intent. If I thought the destruction of character and theme at the end of Mass Effect was intentional, I'd be viewing it differently. If I thought the ending was supposed to violently dismember me and plunge me into a state of nihilistic apathy, then I'd consider the work skillful, even if it was something I disliked. There are books I don't personally enjoy very much which I still admit are works of art of quality and importance (Ulysses, for example.) There are books and films that I enjoyed, but whose conclusions were so intentionally psychologically upsetting that I would not read or watch them again (The Prestige, Lolita.)

While art does not have hard and fast rules, there are guidelines for narrative flow, thematic consistency, and character development that tend to be found in most great literature. There are great works that break these patterns, but most do so deliberately, and often with creating distress in the reader and disconnection from the art as a primary aim.

The thematic inconsistency and character disconnects in the ending of Mass Effect don't feel like a deliberate transgression to me, they feel like a misstep. They don't create the complete explosive confusion and destruction that an Infernokrusher ending does, they don't have the sublime incongruity and detachment of a Brechtian opera, they don't have the amusingly frenetic incongruity of absurdism.

TL;DR

To sum up, there are no hard and fast rules in art, but if you're going to break the "soft rules," you need to do so deliberately and with full knowledge of the effect that doing so will have on the reader.

Consistency of theme creates emotional investment and cognitive engagement.

You can decide to discard consistency of theme, but you have to be aware that you are sacrificing emotional investment and cognitive engagement with the main narrative itself to do so. If you do so, you are saying that you care more about breaking with convention than you do about the reader's immersion and investment. You want the reader to focus on the fact that you're breaking literature, more than on the story itself.

The rest of Mass Effect is a triumph of narrative investment and emotional engagement, so I don't think the "death of theme" was what the writers were going for.

Yup, it's a pleasure to have you back CGG.

To be honest I got the same impression from the ending (that it was unintentionally bad). The reason was that the questions were not just unanswered, they were unaddressed. If the intent was to destroy everything everywhere, in my opinion that would have been more explicitly detailed.

We assume that everything was destroyed because that's the only logical conclusion for most people based on what we were presented with but that assumption is based solely on deduction.

If the intent was to leave us with lots of questions, it would likely have just ended at a cut to black, never showing the Normandy crash or the destruction of the Reapers.

It just screams incompetence and NOT an artistic statement.

[Zing Freelancer]

Good read, thanks for posting.

[-Spartan]

It seems a literary educator in Taiwan has posted something similar to the contemplations posed in this thread. A rough translation has been post Osiris273 here.

The primary material is here.


On a side note: Maybe one of the Retake or Hold the Line members will take the initiative and contact Public Citizen and
educate them on the issue and see if they will take up the cause within their action network which an old and influential one (likely many literature buffs). 

Modifié par -Spartan, 21 avril 2012 - 12:33 .

[carabaldo75]

great post. thank you

[deliphicovenant42]

This thread has been a great read, and a great resource to help me tease apart my reaction to the ending.  In particular I've really appreciated the thoughtfulness of some of those who enjoyed or at least didn't hate the ending.  In light of those posts, I've really been trying to understand the various reactions so I thought I'd throw something out there in an attempt to explore the relationship between the objective standards of "good writing" being discussed versus the subjective enjoyment of the end (or lack there of).

Would it be fair to say that the further an artist strays from the standards of "good art" the more someone's enjoyment of that work will hinge on what the audience brings to the table?  For example, does the fact that Bioware violated core aspects of good narrative in the ending, whether that was intentional/a side effect of being rushed/some combintion, mean that the player's satisfaction is more dependent on their own unique background and individual thoughts rather than the material in the game itself?  Would it be better to say the rules of "good art" allow a work to stand on its own, but they do not in any way dictate how a given individual will necessarily react?

I've been wrestling with untangling this relationship between the objective and subjective aspects of narrative because after reading the thoughts of people like optimistickied or Pistolols, I can't say they are wrong to have walked away satisfied.  At the same time, their enjoyment doesn't change the fact that there are objective problems with the way the ending is written, and their enjoyment doesn't change the fact that I thought the ending was terrible.  I also know there are plenty of examples of other movies, books, tv shows I love that other people hate so I've been on both sides of this divide so I can't help but feel there is some kind of inverse relationship between the quality of the narrative as far as the rules of "good art" and the variability in the audience appreciation.

Anyway, as a non-lit expert I guess I'm just thinking out loud here.  Am I totally off base?

Modifié par deliphicovenant42, 21 avril 2012 - 03:39 .

[SkaldFish]

I'm going to throw this question out without having put much thought into it -- it just occurred to me this morning -- but it seems like something folks here would be interested in considering, since it suggests a thematic consistency issue, and possibly even a logical schism in the narrative.

Given what we know or think we know about the Reapers (post-singularity level of intelligence; consciousness consisting of billions of conjoined organic minds; experience informed by an existence measured in millions of years, etc.), doesn't it really strain credulity to assert that controlling them could even be an option?

From the perspective of Control as an option Shepard can choose, my core assertion, I suppose, would be that what cannot be understood cannot truly be controlled unless it willingly cedes that control. And if one has control only because it is allowed, one does not really have control at all, but only the illusion of control.

Of course, that's not the only level of control here. Taking a step back, since the Catalyst claims to be the Architect of the Reapers, even if I accept the notion that they could be controlled by their creator, Sovereign was either lying or had somehow been completely deceived:

"We are each a nation - independent, free of all weakness."
"We have no beginning. We have no end. We are infinite. Millions of years after your civilization has been eradicated and forgotten, we will endure ... We are eternal -- the pinnacle of evolution and existence."

But I'm not sure I can accept the notion that the Catalyst could control the Reapers either. It woud seem to be that beings with such massive cognitive potential could quickly surpass the intelligence of their creator and thus be beyond its control, regardless of where either might fall along the organic <--> synthetic continuum.

I would love to hear others' thoughts on this.

(If someone knows of another thread where this has been addressed or is being discussed, please point me there...)

Modifié par SkaldFish, 21 avril 2012 - 04:10 .

[-Spartan]

The following link is to a well crafted thread covering nearly all the issues with the development of ME3 that nearly everyone has forgotten about in light of the topic at hand. If you have check it out - it is worthy.

Concerns about Bioware and other issues with the game


@SkaldFish - given that the starchild said "It" had control over them and that you could do the same I guess most people just went with it. Also for what it is worth, I consider the "higher order" processes to be from ONE mind [starchild] and the tactical from the local mind [the unit] when dealing with stimuli.

Modifié par -Spartan, 21 avril 2012 - 04:57 .

[ahandsomeshark]

all I wanna know is what school you go to and how I can sign up for this dudes classes.

[-Spartan]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

all I wanna know is what school you go to and how I can sign up for this dudes classes.

I hope you live in Oz 'cause that is where he teaches.