5087 réponses à ce sujet

[legion999]

MintyCool wrote...
Those who can't do, teach.

Those who can't muster an arguement or present anything resembling an intelligent thought, belittle and insult.

Anyway if the good professor feels like a child amongst adults then I'm an infamt here. So I'll say this quickly. Drayfish the things you've typed are probably some of the best thought out and intelligent posts I've seen on this site. For that I thank you.

[delta_vee]

JadedLibertine wrote...

[reluctantsnip]

Though ME3 is excellent for certain stretches, the writers often refuse to trust the player to use their own imaginations or feel their own emotions.  I could sense Hudson and Walters standing over me and very loudly and very slowly telling me exactly what I was supposed to be thinking and feeling while jabbing their fingers insistently into my chest.  It would be grating and unsubtle even in a Stalinist propaganda movie.

Sable Phoenix wrote...

[reluctantsnip]

The narrative troubles start with the very first scene of the game.

[another reluctant snip]

...it does serve as one of the many examples of rushed, sloppy writing.  And that sloppy writing takes its worst toll on the characters themselves, most notably and most destructively on the two who have been driving the narrative forward from the very first moments of the very first game, Anderson and Shepard.

Yep. But a "yep" with a Cantor set's worth of qualifiers.

This part may be somewhat controversial to say in this company, but narrative cohesion and consistent quality are emphatically not part of the Mass Effect experience. Because ME is constructed in many (but not all) ways within the framework of the ludological expectations of Western RPGs, elements such as sidequests, levelling, and exploration are near-as-dammit required, even as they chip away at and subvert the urgency of the main plotline. ME1's overarching "find Saren" goal was undermined at every turn by driving around on random planets in the Mako. ME2 handled this much more gracefully, with its core content fundamentally episodic in nature, but at the cost of the relevance and narrative weight of its primary antagonist. And in ME3, the Priority:X missions were strictly linear in their distribution by narrative necessity, giving rise to the common complaint about a dearth of side-mission options even as the Reaper War dicated their disappearance.

The most frequently praised portions of the game were the Tuchanka and Rannoch arcs (the former more so than the latter), and both were also far more cohesive narratively than the game as a whole, as only self-contained mission groups can be. Tuchanka, especially, is something of a ludonarrative triumph (assuming, of course, we conveniently neglect the complete disconnect between combat gameplay and dialogue-wheel gameplay). A large number of variables in play from both previous games; a substitue character (Wreav) who, though possessing the most of the same dialogue and function, has such a different tenor and implication that he complicates the decision-making process; a thematically-fitting cathartic death of a beloved character along the well-trod path, but with other, darker options and more demanding compromises available; useful, fitting side missions giving additional context; and a nicely epic boss fight.

Technically, I can argue that the circumstances of Mordin's death (if you choose to let him fix the cure) was entirely a contrivance, but the thematic resonance was so tremendous that I'll ignore that flaw. If you shoot him in the back to get the Salarians onside, however, the scene actually works well with many, if not most of the overarching themes of the game. (Pity the ending is so impoverished as to negate the justification for such an act of bastardry.) Legion's death (if the code is uploaded) is harder to justify - the textual explanation was handwaving at its worst - but if you deny him and shoot him down, the scene retains its punch and its reasoning. These are smaller nitpicks among better-designed missions, but the list of unnecessary narrative decisions in the series as a whole is long and distinguished (working for Cerberus, anyone?), and when so many elements of the third game suffer in this fashion without the redeeming aspects of Tuchanka, the grievances pile up like so many corpses on the Citadel. A grand ending would give us reason to overlook them - since we received no such thing, the corpse-pile putrifies and infects our perception of the game as a whole.

I should also point out that both Tuchanka and Rannoch end with the destruction of a Reaper, reinforcing the end goal in the player's mind and giving a promise of satisfaction to come. Whether we receive such satisfaction ludonarratively is, of course, entirely debatable.

Drayfish wrote...

To argue that 'it is the journey not the destination', is to actually entirely misunderstand the structure of all quest narrative. The journey is indeed where the heart of the text lies, but until the lessons gleaned from this expedition have been confirmed by the endpoint of the tale, they are merely a series of things that happened to one person, without resonance and coherency, failing to unify into a cohesive narrative whole.

Well-stated, but I'd add the qualifier of referring to discrete narrative-centric literature. There are plenty of literary nooks and crannies which are certainly less plot-centric, and could quite easily be summed up as "a series of things that happened to one person" (or several, in the case of One Hundred Years of Solitude and its ilk). For a primarily narrative game such as Mass Effect, you're absolutely correct. For a thoroughly undirected game such as Minecraft, I would say such a statement has...less applicability. (Minecraft, especially, since the game gets abandoned instead of finished - although even Notch deigned to include a nominal "ending" after some time.)

Modifié par delta_vee, 29 avril 2012 - 12:54 .

[SkaldFish]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Something else happened, and I don't mean to imply any kind of corporate malfeasance or conspiracy. It could have been something as simple as a miscommunication somewhere in the writer's room, but somehow that well-oiled machine fell apart at the end.

I know this is stepping way back into the thread, but I think it warrants mentioning, since the Final Hours app is being brought up again, that in it Keighley does clear up an assertion regarding how the ending came to be that some have criticized as being an unsubstantiated rumor or downright fabrication.

Back in late March, I think, some gaming media outlets reported that a penny arcade forum poster who was supposedly a Mass Effect writer was claiming that the ending had been written behind closed doors by Walters and Hudson working alone. Chris Priestly later reported that the writer denied being the source and attributed the comments to an imitator, thus effectively discredting what was said as well. I have no opinion on that little drama that I'd be willing to state, but...

Interestingly enough, Keighley confirms the forum poster's claim in the Final Hours app:

"Hudson was pretty sure he wanted this to be the end of the Commander Shepard story, but did that mean he would die or could he survive? For weeks Hudson and Walters discussed the emotions they wanted players to feel at the end of the game and then wrote dialogue and scenes to support those feelings." (Section 10, page 8, emphasis mine)

Pretty clear and unambiguous, I'd say.
I could also say quite a bit about the "feelings" aspect, but I'll leave that up to someone else. <_<

[davishepard]

So, what makes OP's professor opinion so special?

Ah, yes. Nothing. It's just an opinion like every opinion out there.

[drayfish]

Delta_vee wrote:
I'd add the qualifier of referring to discrete narrative-centric literature. There are plenty of literary nooks and crannies which are certainly less plot-centric, and could quite easily be summed up as "a series of things that happened to one person" (or several, in the case of One Hundred Years of Solitude and its ilk). For a primarily narrative game such as Mass Effect, you're absolutely correct. For a thoroughly undirected game such as Minecraft, I would say such a statement has...less applicability. (Minecraft, especially, since the game gets abandoned instead of finished - although even Notch deigned to include a nominal "ending" after some time.)

 
Absolutely. Nice qualification, Delta_vee. In fact, I'd probably add something like Skyrim into that mix also, since, despite having several plot threads that all lead to conclusions, it is not as focused upon a singular narrative path. It's more of a sandbox to play in (an exquisite, multifaceted sandbox with freaking dragons in it!), that is specifically designed to have no definitive end.
 
I was – as you rightly surmise – more blathering about a plot-centric adventure that leads to a moment of climax and closure; and perhaps even more specifically referring only to the epic journey structure of Mass Effect with its unique invitation to live into the experience and discovery that Shepard undertakes. (Indeed, this kind of cumulative progression is particularly true when dealing with an RPG such as Bioware are famous for producing, in which even the game mechanics of character upgrading and skill trees are designed to further embed this notion of advancement and development into the player's psyche.)
 
p.s. – and now that you've mentioned Marquez's One Hundred Years of Solitude, I wonder if there is not some wonderfully tiresome equivalency to be drawn between that text and its play with collapsing the experience of time (“Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendia was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice”) with Jonathan Blow's Braid? ...Sorry, now I'm just giddy with a free-associative haze.

Modifié par drayfish, 29 avril 2012 - 01:09 .

[Jog0907]

davishepard wrote...

So, what makes OP's professor opinion so special?

Ah, yes. Nothing. It's just an opinion like every opinion out there.

That it comes from someone much more experienced with such matters than the majority of people, that alone makes it  a more worthwhile opinion to listen to.

[davishepard]

Jog0907 wrote...

That it comes from someone much more experienced with such matters than the majority of people, that alone makes it  a more worthwhile opinion to listen to.

Not for me. He is not involved in the creation of any gaming, let alone a Mass Effect game. His personal opinion and analysis is just and only as valid as anyone's.

[Jog0907]

davishepard wrote...

Jog0907 wrote...

That it comes from someone much more experienced with such matters than the majority of people, that alone makes it  a more worthwhile opinion to listen to.

Not for me. He is not involved in the creation of any gaming, let alone a Mass Effect game. His personal opinion and analysis is just and only as valid as anyone's.

He's experienced in literature, in storytelling, that alone puts his capabilty to properly say what wrong with a game story far above most. You dont need game making experience to say a writer made a huge error, you need experience with storywriting and creation and he has such things, that why he can criticize the game with more validity than most people.

[Reorte]

davishepard wrote...

Jog0907 wrote...

That it comes from someone much more experienced with such matters than the majority of people, that alone makes it  a more worthwhile opinion to listen to.

Not for me. He is not involved in the creation of any gaming, let alone a Mass Effect game. His personal opinion and analysis is just and only as valid as anyone's.

Would you respect a view on physics by a physics professor more than a view on the same subject by a footballer? I hope so. So why not respect a literature professor's view on the story aspects? If he was just talking about the gameplay you'd have a point.

[drayfish]

davishepard wrote...

Jog0907 wrote...

That it comes from someone much more experienced with such matters than the majority of people, that alone makes it  a more worthwhile opinion to listen to.

Not for me. He is not involved in the creation of any gaming, let alone a Mass Effect game. His personal opinion and analysis is just and only as valid as anyone's.

@ davisshepard:

Hi, and you're absolutely right.  As I've said a-ways back in the thread, in this discussion I'm speaking only as a fan of the series, not in any capacity as 'academic' adjudicator of textual worthiness.  Anything I say is firmly in the realm of subjective opnion, so please do dismiss them or not as you see fit.

[davishepard]

Jog0907 wrote...

He's experienced in literature, in storytelling, that alone puts his capabilty to properly say what wrong with a game story far above most. You dont need game making experience to say a writer made a huge error, you need experience with storywriting and creation and he has such things, that why he can criticize the game with more validity than most people.

Hey, it's clear that you care for his opinion. I don't, and nothing you post wil make me consider his opinion more valid than any other fan opinion. This line "he can criticize the game with more validity than most people" is just crap, to me. 

Besides, in the end, he can judge only by his point of view. He can't know why the game is made as it is, and what will be added to it in the near future.

[EnvyTB075]

davishepard wrote...

Hey, it's clear that you care for his opinion. I don't, and nothing you post wil make me consider his opinion more valid than any other fan opinion. This line "he can criticize the game with more validity than most people" is just crap, to me. 

Besides, in the end, he can judge only by his point of view. He can't know why the game is made as it is, and what will be added to it in the near future.

You realise how dumb that is, right?

[delta_vee]

drayfish wrote...

Delta_vee wrote:
[self-snip]

 
Absolutely. Nice qualification, Delta_vee. In fact, I'd probably add something like Skyrim into that mix also, since, despite having several plot threads that all lead to conclusions, it is not as focused upon a singular narrative path. It's more of a sandbox to play in (an exquisite, multifaceted sandbox with freaking dragons in it!), that is specifically designed to have no definitive end.

I'm...not the biggest Skyrim fan. I think it's not as good a sandbox as Minecraft (which has, well, a dragon), it's environs aren't as complex and intertwined and starkly evocative as Dark Souls, and isn't as narratively compelling as Mass Effect (the good parts, anyways). I think it tries too hard to straddle that line, and is the worse for it.

To the larger point, though: with games, we have to be at times much more precise with our tautologies, because while every text is ergodic to a degree greater than almost every other form of literature in existence, there remains such an enormous spectrum that only a small subset of games follow the narrative precedents of other media. For every Halo there is a Civilization, and in between we have Deus Ex and X-Com with quite different balances of directed vs emergent narrative.
 

drayfish wrote...

I was – as you rightly surmise – more blathering about a plot-centric adventure that leads to a moment of climax and closure; and perhaps even more specifically referring only to the epic journey structure of Mass Effect with its unique invitation to live into the experience and discovery that Shepard undertakes. (Indeed, this kind of cumulative progression is particularly true when dealing with an RPG such as Bioware are famous for producing, in which even the game mechanics of character upgrading and skill trees are designed to further embed this notion of advancement and development into the player's psyche.)

Much of that progression is contained within the conventions of the Western RPG - compare to shooters, for example, where the progression is a matter of player skill with a side dash of arsenal expansion. A directed narrative is far from the only method to evoke such progression, either - the parallel buildup of both difficulty and capability in X-Com, with its final, desperate mission to the alien base on Mars, provides the same basic structure without the voicework and camera angles, and can be adjudged in many of the same ways.

drayfish wrote...
 
p.s. – and now that you've mentioned Marquez's One Hundred Years of Solitude, I wonder if there is not some wonderfully tiresome equivalency to be drawn between that text and its play with collapsing the experience of time (“Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendia was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice”) with Jonathan Blow's Braid? ...Sorry, now I'm just giddy with a free-associative haze.

I'm sure Blow would be pleased to have someone make that comparison, but I'm insufficiently convinced of Braid's brilliance to agree (especially on the writing front - the text in Braid was atrocious).

Modifié par delta_vee, 29 avril 2012 - 01:33 .

[davishepard]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

You realise how dumb that is, right?

No. I realise that is my opinion, and it looks dumb to you. And that's your opinion. The difference is that I don't say your opinion is dumb as well, because of this.

Modifié par davishepard, 29 avril 2012 - 01:36 .

[EnvyTB075]

davishepard wrote...

EnvyTB075 wrote...

You realise how dumb that is, right?

No. I realise that is my opinion, and it looks dumb to you. And that's your opinion. The difference is that I don't say your opinion is dumb as well, because of this.

"Its my opinion, so it can't be wrong"

The pinnicale of saving face on the internet.

[drayfish]

delta_vee wrote...

I'm sure Blow would be pleased to have someone make that comparison, but I'm insufficiently convinced of Braid's brilliance to agree (especially on the writing front - the text in Braid was atrocious).

True.  'Pretentious' scarcely captures the emo-tone of the in-game text; I was thinking (albeit flippantly) more of the game mechanic and premise.

Although - and I brace to be assaulted with a hail of bottles - some have levelled similar criticisms at Marquez.  I remember one critic, Algris Valiunas, once likening his style to 'a kind of literary cotton candy, laying on the spectacular colouration with a thick and cloying brush'.  Ouch.

[delta_vee]

drayfish wrote...

True.  'Pretentious' scarcely captures the emo-tone of the in-game text; I was thinking (albeit flippantly) more of the game mechanic and premise.

Although - and I brace to be assaulted with a hail of bottles - some have levelled similar criticisms at Marquez.  I remember one critic, Algris Valiunas, once likening his style to 'a kind of literary cotton candy, laying on the spectacular colouration with a thick and cloying brush'.  Ouch.

At least Marquez had the prose to back it up - something which Blow decidedly lacks. (And, it must be said, for all the moments in ME we remember as poetic and valuable, all three games suffered plenty of turgid expospeak.)

In the larger debate, too, we should remember that games have a similar spread of essential natures as other literature. Works can be symbolic, or impressionist, or surreal, or simply evocative as often as they can be narrative. Ted Hughes' Crow may contain some shriveled, skeletal narrative, but that's not why I love it. The great works know what they are, though, which I think is the fundamental dissociation of the end of ME3 - it chooses to place the symbolism at the forefront, suddenly and violently, forgetting its own established nature as a literalist, narrative text.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

davishepard wrote...

EnvyTB075 wrote...

You realise how dumb that is, right?

No. I realise that is my opinion, and it looks dumb to you. And that's your opinion. The difference is that I don't say your opinion is dumb as well, because of this.

I'd like to point out that I would love to read a defense of the ending as well-articulated as the OP of this thread. That's why I consider Dr. Dray's essay more valuable than the vast majority of things written on this board: because it is better articulated. Not because of any credentials, or even because he agrees with me. I'd consider an article in support of the ending that was well-articulated equally valid... I just haven't seen one.

This may be because the vast majority of things written in support of the ending are based on the premise of a lack of understanding on the part of those who dislike the ending, which leads them to spend large portions of their articles building and demolishing straw men, leaving little space for actual critique.

The most interesting defense of the ending I've managed to find has taken place in this thread: it is the argument that, if one sees sacrifice, despair, loss of idealism, and the constant inevitable war between organics and synthetics as the primary themes of the series, the ending makes sense. I actually heartily agree with that premise, I simply don't feel that those were the themes that were most emphasized.

I would absolutely love to read an essay that outlined ways that those themes are consistently shown to be more important than the themes I feel the series is more focused on: companionship, perseverance, diversity, and free will.

As a defender of the ending, do you agree with the premise that the series' main themes are sacrifice, despair, and the inevitable war between synthetics and organics? Or do you have a different view? If you articulate it particularly well, you may very well change my mind.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 29 avril 2012 - 02:47 .

[b23h]

Made Nightwing wrote...
 
So, my lit professor and I are nerds. I throw in 'but the prize' references on my essays about Odysseus and Achilles, he throws in Firefly references in his lectures, we get on great. Now, I've previously mentioned that he disliked the endings EDIT: He dropped in on the forum to correct my paraphrasing of our conversation, so I'm updating the OP to have his infinitely superior original words replace my own feeble attempts:
 
Drayfish, p.13:
 
<cut>
 
So, putting aside all of the hanging plot threads that rankled me (where was the Normandy going? why did my squad mates live? Anderson is where now? wait, the catalyst was Haley Joel Osment? etc), I would like to explain why, when I was offered those three repellent choices, I turned and tried to unload my now infinite pistol into the whispy-space-ghost's face.
 
<cut>
 
...those three ideological options were so structurally indefensible that they broke the suspension of disbelief that Bioware had (up until that point) so spectacularly crafted for over a hundred hours of narrative. Suddenly Shepard was not simply being asked to sacrifice a race or a friend or him/herself for the greater good (all of which was no doubt expected by any player paying attention to the tone of the series), Shepard was being compelled, without even the chance to offer a counterpoint, to perform one of three actions that to my reading each fundamentally undermined the narrative foundations upon which the series seemed to rest.
 
< I think that is an okay move, but not the most compelling.   Now that we, half dead, are "talking with the Catalyst" the chips are all in, and yes I can imagine him needing to make a decision for all life.   However I think that when Drayfish states "Shepard was being compelled, without even the chance to offer a counterpoint, to perform one of three actions" he is a bit closer to my concerns.   In fact Shepard does provide a counterpoint, so it is inaccurate to say that he does not.   However his counterpoint does not meet the mark for what I would hope the response would be and in that critique I think the most compelling retort lay.>
 
In the Control ending, Shepard is invited to pursue the previously impossible path of attempting to dominate the reapers and bend them to his will. Momentarily putting aside the vulgarity of dominating a species to achieve one's own ends (and I will get to complaining about that premise soon enough), this has proved to be the failed modus operandi of every antagonist in this fiction up until this point – including the Illusive Man and Saren – all of whom have been chewed up and destroyed by their blind ambition, incapable of controlling forces beyond their comprehension. Nothing in the vague prognostication of the exposition-ghost offers any tangible justification for why Shepard's plunge into Reaper-control should play out any differently. In fact, as many people have already pointed out, Shepard has literally not five minutes before this moment watched the Illusive Man die as a consequence of this arrogant misconception.
 
< Of course the Starchild did state that the Illusive Man could not control the Reapers as they controlled him.   While perhaps I might consider controlling the Reapers as a way of resolving the contradictions of the other two choices it is a choice I would have reservations about, especially as I would have to also give my life in the attempt.   I might try to resolve the contradictions by ordering all "ascended" and indoctrinated into the Reapers and then command the Reapers to fly into various suns.   If giving my life resulted in clearing the Reaper threat without the results of killing the geth or Edi through the destroy ending, then that's an ok ending.   However I would have questions about trying to control the Reapers over a long period of time so without a caveat similar to the one I presented, the Control ending is not my preferred ending.>
 
The Destroy ending, however, seems even more perverse. One of the constants of the Mass Effect universe (and indeed much quality science fiction) has been an exploration of the notion that life is not simplistically bound to biology, that existence expands beyond the narrow parameters of blood and bone. That is why synthetic characters like Legion and EDI are so compelling in this context, why their quests to understand self-awareness – not simply to ape human behaviours – is so dramatic and compelling. Indeed, we even get glimpses of the Reapers having more sprawling and unknowable motivations that we puny mortals can comprehend...
 
To then end the tale by forcing the player to obliterate several now-proven-legitimate forms of life in order to 'save' the traditional definition of fleshy existence is not only genocidal, it actually devolves Shephard's ideological growth, undermining his ascent toward a more enlightened conception of existence, something that the fiction has been steadily advancing no matter how Renegadishably you wanted to play. This is particularly evident when the preceding actions of all three games entirely disprove the premise that synthetic will inevitably destroy organic: the Geth were the persecuted victims, trying their best to save the Quarians from themselves; EDI, given autonomy, immediately sought to aid her crew, even taking physical form in order to experience life from their perspective and finally learning that she too feared the implications of death.
 
< I tend to agree with everything he's said in this section so far>
 
<cut>
 
Shepard's capacity to make decisions elevates from offering a moral tipping point to arbitrarily wiping such disparity from the world. Shepard imposes his/her will upon every species, every form of life within the galaxy, making them all a dreary homogenous oneness. At such a point, wiping negotiation and multiplicity from the universe, Shepard moves from being an influential voice amongst a biodiversity of thought to sacrificing him/herself in an omnipotent imposition of will.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

I think this is his main point, and I am not convinced it is the most effective retort.   Let's look at this another way. Shepard has the consent of a large section of the population of the galaxy for the imposition of the various organics right to self-preservation and self determination to wipe out their enemies, the Reapers and kin.   That is the hoped for conclusion by the majority.   The other two paths involved, either control of the Reapers or synthesis does not have a consensus nor has the population even been made aware of the possibility. So in those cases the professor's points are a lot stronger, however overall the imposition of will in the defense of all organic civilizations is the consensus.
I would say the professors main point is a little weak and is contradicted within game logic   I could see how destroying the Reapers with the collateral damage of losing the Geth and Edi could be reasonable within game logic. However I treated Edi, Legion, the Geth and Rachni with respect and I would have been adverse to killing my friends the synthetics. However in my view the destruction of the Reapers and therefore all synthetics is the ending that was asserted to by the majority of all species involved
 
So while I agree with some of the material the professor has posited, I think he has slightly missed the mark as well. I think instead that the main flaw with the ending as presented is that I cannot fathom the possibility that Shepard would assert to something like the synthesis option without exploring what is meant by it and the implications of the decision. If you posit that sometimes you are forced into a decision without sufficient information and perhaps the Starchild simply cuts you off and forces a decision, I would still suggest that the likelihood that Shepard in that case would assert to the synthesis option would be remote.   I too assume that it is the intention of Bioware to present the synthesis idea as the preferred ending and as I view the possibility that Shepard would likely agree to such an idea as remote, that then is a contradiction.
 
It comes down to the idea that Shepard has seen evidence of the Reaper ideology over time and now presented with a fuller exposition by the Starchild he realizes the obsessive nature of the received wisdom and an apparent false dilemma, why then would he assert to handing over all life in the galaxy to this horrible entity to be rewritten based upon a few lines of dialogue with it. Keep in mind that Shepard response to that idea was a resolute "I don't know".     I does not work for me that Shepard would take the option.
 
The endings as presented by Bioware in order of preference to me.  
 
1. Destroy synthetics, with the collateral damage to non-Reaper synthetics.
2. Control Reapers with my caveat.
3. Synthesis in far third.
 
In a different exposition of the ending perhaps Synthesis might be first, but not here.    I don't think the three possibilities are impossible or necessarily break the ending, but I think it does as written now.

Modifié par b23h, 29 avril 2012 - 07:55 .

[NeoNight1986]

one of the most well written pieces of analysis i've seen yet

[Sable Phoenix]

Annnd the discussion has once again rapidly left behind my level of intellect and/or comprehension and/or literacy.  I just want to point out that the narrative downfall at the end of the third game was set up all the way back in the beginning of the second game, when the Lazarus Project, easily the most worldshaking scientific advancement in the history of the galaxy, was used as a simple reset button and never investigated in any deeper thematic manner from that point on (to say nothing of the fact that no technology we'd ever seen extant in the universe would allow such a project to succeed in the first place, but that's another subject).  This is a prime example of gameplay actually damaging the narrative.  Said narrative was then set irrevocably on the way to destruction ("you have no chance to survive make your time") by Mass Effect 3's Mars mission and the introduction of the Crucible, a MacGuffin to end all MacGuffins and one that was made doubly onerous because it completely replaced the Chekhov's Gun of the dark energy buildup that was made such a notable subplot of Mass Effect 2.

[Keyrlis]

davishepard wrote...

So, what makes OP's professor opinion so special?

Ah, yes. Nothing. It's just an opinion like every opinion out there.

What makes it special is that it is:
1.) a well-communicated and intelligent statement of his opinion.
2.) a description of how he came to that opinion.
3.) conducive to further discussion by having openly-discussable points.
4.) enlightened in thematic symbolism by knowledge of classic literary works.
5.) a polite comment intended to offer information, and not ignorance.

YOUR comment, however, is NOT like his in that it has no bearing on the discussion and offers no new thought.
It is, in fact, another trolling FAIL that will be reported, disregarded, and forgotten as soon as the forum reaches page 43.

Back on topic (Stay on target!):
I had completely overlooked the relations to the Odyssey, but see some familiar symbolisms. Can we assume, then, that Morinth was to have been Scylla the Siren? Beautiful, sensual, and deadly? Then it would seem that Samara would be her mirror (seeing as you can only have one of them as a squadmate), taking the role of Charybdis. Her Code requires her to act in accordance with the all-encompassing, unquestionable Justicar rules, such as the whirling Maelstrom is not an entity in itself, but a manifestation of the powers inherent in the water of the area. The swirling funnel is the whipping, screaming movements not of a physical being, but the area of influence around it/her. Her powers are immense, yet controlled by the elements of ethical rules in which her own choice is subsumed and denied, unless they coincide with her teachings. She even threatens a renegade Shepard, except that she swore the Third Oath of Subsumation, binding herself to Shepard's morals.

Also, consider how Cerberus had a "Trojan Horse" in the guise of ME2's Normandy SR-2: Aside from Miranda (who, it turns out, was in favor of planting a device in Shepard, effectively making HIM a trojan horse), EDI is originally a Cerberus agent, with a 'locked' ability to totally control the ship. Though her personality allows her to waver to the side of Shepard's cause, her programming is intended to retain Cerberus control while appearing to be simply an advanced ship AI.

Just as the cyclops Polyphemus was blinded, Shepard uses the Rannoch orbital strike to destroy the Reaper by firing the targeting laser in its "eye". Upon leaving, rather than bragging his name as Odysseus had and angering Poseiden, Shepard takes the opportunity to question the Reaper as it dies, only to have it first speak his name, to which he asks, "You know who I am?". "Harbinger speaks of you. You resist, but you will fail... (blah blah not a thing you can comprehend, blah blah inevitable, blah) ...Finish your war, we will be waiting."

Towards the end, when Odysseus, assumed dead for years, comes home disguised as a beggar, in ragged clothes and almost unrecognisable (ME3 sound familiar?), he is met and recognised first by his son (a reversal of the father figure relationship with Anderson). They then go to Odyseus' Great Hall, where Odysseus is reviled and humiliated by Antineus, an ill-mannered man unconcerned with "lesser" men unless they can further his goals (The Illusive Man fits this part well, short of his libido). Penelope, Odysseus' wife sets a challenge for her many suitors, all of whom have no regard for Odysseus' land, food, or home. They are there simply to be "reapers" of the fruits of his labor, as it were, and none are able to perform her task: she will marry which ever one can string Odysseus' bow and fire it through a dozen axes. He alone can string the bow (engage the Crucible), and uses it to kill all of the Suitors, just as we had expected of the Crucible's weaponality (I know it isn't a word, but I like the sound of it).

Note, I had to look up the Odyssey on Wikipedia to check myself, and I quote this directly from the page (emphasis is mine):

"Now at last, Odysseus identifies himself to Penelope. She is
hesitant, but accepts him when he mentions that their bed was made from
an olive tree still rooted to the ground. Many modern and ancient
scholars take this to be the original ending of the Odyssey, and the rest to be an interpolation.
The next day he and Telemachus visit the country farm of his old father Laertes, who likewise accepts his identity only when Odysseus correctly describes the orchard that Laertes had previously given him.
The citizens of Ithaca have followed Odysseus on the road, planning
to avenge the killing of the Suitors, their sons. Their leader points
out that Odysseus has now caused the deaths of two generations of the
men of Ithaca: his sailors, not one of whom survived; and the Suitors,
whom he has now executed. The goddess Athena intervenes and persuades
both sides to give up the vendetta, a deus ex machina. After this, Ithaca is at peace once more, concluding the Odyssey."
I am amazed by the symbolism I see inherent in the two stories, but how unique can any human story truly be? We are all products of the society and the history that shape us. Perhaps everything is only a retelling, until we learn how to live differently. I am reminded of Issac newton who said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on ye sholders of Giants." Unfortunately, he also said, "'Tis much better to do a little with certainty, & leave the rest
for others that come after you, than to explain all things by conjecture
without making sure of any thing."
It is apparent that BioWare held closer to this idea than the first.

[Sajuro]

And if I had a lit professor who said that following the example of post modernism, the ending of Mass Effect 3 was appropriate then no one would care. Also I'm pretty sure I could get my horror films professor to talk about how the Reapers are symbolically raping humans in the process of turning them into husks through the penetration of the dragon teeth and how the Omni blade is an outlet for Shepard's sexual frustrations which is why he uses it to kill Kai Leng to assert his masculinity or for fem shep to punish Leng for his percieved dominance over her by penetration.

[Jadebaby]

Made Nightwing wrote...

sporeian wrote...

I wanna go to your college...NOW!

And now would be an excellent time for me to advertise Campion College in Toongabbie, NSW, Australia.  A Liberal Arts Degree for Thinkers and Leaders! We also have Chess Club, Fencing Club, Boxing Club and Latin Club.

YaY! Aussie

[Dan the Man]

I would transfer from my current college just to take a class from this professor. Well stated, and I certainly hope the BioWare executives have a chance to read this.