5087 réponses à ce sujet

[CulturalGeekGirl]

M0keys wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

It's
funny, I didn't have insomnia for like three months before ME3 came
out. Or rather, I had a night or two of insomnia every month, but no
long stretches.

I swear that since this game has come out, I've had longer periods of insomnia than I've had in a decade.

did you ever read Grant Morrison's "final crisis" series?

there
was a concept in it called the anti-life equation. Upon seeing it, any
life form is drained of all desire to be alive and becomes an empty
slave to the archetypal essence of mind domination.

loneliness + alienation + fear + despair + self-worth ÷ mockery ÷
condemnation ÷ misunderstanding × guilt × shame × failure × judgment n=y
where y=hope and n=folly, love=lies, life=death, self=dark side

maybe overexaggeration, but the ending of Mass Effect 3 might just be a distant cousin...!

Grant Morrison didn't invent the Anti-life equation! Monkeyfightin' Jack Kirby came up with the Anti-Life equation. Come on now! Nerd rage is not going to help me get to sleep.

Also, this is the biggest waste of a top of the page that I've ever seen.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 01 mai 2012 - 08:37 .

[Hawk227]

@CG Girl

I'm not sure I can answer that. We all have such different expectations. So many people want such different things. The more I discuss the ending (here and in other threads) the more I hate it. Every couple days I stumble on a new reason it's awful. Personally, I think it can only be saved with a full rewrite (everything after anderson dies scrubbed) or the indoctrination theory. I find the IT really compelling for a bunch of reasons. If that was the intent, I don't think it was executed quite well enough, but I really like the idea. That idea being that we are shepard, so in order to indoctrinate shepard, they have to indoctrinate us. Indoctrination is the most insidious weapon the Reapers have. Subverting the victim's own motives and tricking them into doing their bidding. Why was shepard never really exposed to that? Because s/he's just too awesome? I don't buy it. I like the idea of the ending being a meta-gaming experience where the player is exposed to indoctrination and likely didn't even know it. After all, neither Saren nor the illusive man knew they were indoctrinated.

So, for me, the best case scenario is if you picked destroy shepard wakes up in the rubble and we see (or preferably play) as he activates the crucible and finishes the fight. With homages to our choices, whether they are successful or not. But my big fear is that they'll cater to the popular clarity and closure over addressing the actual problems. That they'll just fill in the plot holes with cinematics of Shepard telling his crew to go back to the Normandy, and we'll get some epilogue telling us what happened to everyone. What you describe would be an improvement on that, but not enough for me to trust bioware again.

Modifié par Hawk227, 01 mai 2012 - 08:41 .

[M0keys]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Grant Morrison didn't invent the Anti-life equation! Monkeyfightin' Jack Kirby came up with the Anti-Life equation. Come on now! Nerd rage is not going to help me get to sleep.

hey, whadya know? you're right. that blasted jack kirby, coming up with everything in the universe.

it's not "simpsons did it," it's "kirby did it!"

[edisnooM]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Given the parameters set forth so far, do you think it's possible that the EC will help more than a little?

Right now the only thing I can see them doing that is productive is this: you can challenge the Starkid on the idea that EDI and the Geth will die, and if your EMS is high enough you'll be right and hurrah. This still leaves us with two thematically revolting endings and the last one is sort of a copout, but most people will be sort of OK with it.

Anyone have a different opinion? Speak comfort to me, friends.

I honestly have no idea. From what Bioware has said the ending as it is will remain, but how on earth they can fix it is beyond me. I certainly do not envy them the task.

However hope springs eternal, so we'll see.

Also I think I know what you mean about the ending. I have felt emotionally drained after finishing a good book, game, or any narrative really; the sadness at the journey's end often tempered with happiness at the conclusion, but I've never felt drained to this extent. I think what makes it worse is that it felt so incomplete, that after all these years of such promise and hope for the conclusion it just sort of crumbled.

I truly hope the EC can rectify this because I want Mass Effect to have an ending worthy of the series. And also possibly for all our sanity.

[Keyrlis]

Hawk227 wrote...

@ CG Girl

I understand what you're saying. When I respond with "well actually this..." or "personally, I think this..." it's because I have a very different reason for being here. I'm here for some sort of catharsis. I just want to debate this with people that feel similarly. I want to share my interpretation, and experience others. I really enjoyed my debate with optimistickied a while back because he was opening my perspective a little. I didn't agree with him, but I was seeing things I hadn't seen before. I like the exercise of finding all the different ways it can be fixed. Analytically searching for those nice solutions that fits into the narrative. I enjoy the debate and the sharing of ideas. Not because I want to assert my clearly superior interpretation (sarcasm), but because I enjoy the back and forth. I enjoyed Keyrlis's link because it was filled with connections I hadn't made. I enjoy the sharing of ideas. I like to see that this mess really can be saved any number of ways. I guess in a way, I am here to rewrite the script to the phantom menace. Not because it'll get made, but just for the sake of my headcannon, or whatever. I'm not a writer, I have no real investment in the idea that maybe I can influence Bioware, although I'm hoping they are reading the contributions of you, dray, sable phoenix, keyrlis, strange aeons and so many others.

Having a biology background, and trying not to get too caught up in the debates over the mess that is "synthesis", I can sort of understand your feeling of being hamstrung. If only I could just explain to BW that synthetics don't have DNA, or that you can't just change DNA so it encodes for microchips!

I came here for different purposes, first to ask WTF, then to reason with the illogical, and finally to rage at the incompetence of others (LOVE that comic link!).
Not really the third so much until I noticed the general motiv of people's responses. Then I found this thread, and it has been my tether to the sanity of hope, and the hope of sanity as regards the endings. Now, I too come for the catharsis of tasting new and different opinions on how the end can, and can not, relate to reality.
I base this thread as my BioWare homepage, so I can see the newest additions to the arguments both for and against the endings as they stand. If I feel like being mad after that, I find a short thread with short words and shorter tempers, and just throw logic and wrath as though they were lightning bolts of truth hurled by Zeus. I try to remain civil, but inarguably authoritative, like Sovereign, until I calm down, until I smell trolls here. Then I turn green and ogre-like with bile, reporting offenders and smashing egos while cutting the trolls down with the double-edged sword of witty retort.
Why?
Because just like the ME universe, I have come to have a feeling of ownership with this thread, and I have a total compulsion to protect it. I have to wonder how often Dr. Dray wishes his students were as impassioned and willing to defend his ideas as the ME fans in the thread.
Now I won't go so far as to say that I wouldn't rather have a definitive ending, but I do admit that I would never have parsed so much data or felt such indignancy if the endings were more closed-ended. Some people may think that anything so reaction-provoking must be good. Without making the mistake of treading upon 'Godwin's Law' territory here, may I point out that even with the wealth of discussion and controversy about the second world war does not lead me to sympathise with the ****s for creating the discussion: Some questions need not to be asked.
I would have hoped for a wonderful narrative that had gently guided me to these discussions; Instead, I was dropped off a (space)ship into a sea of confusion where these possibilities are but thin, easily broken branches held out by other "survivors" to keep me just barely afloat while BioWare decides whether or not to throw us a life preserver (which may wind up having just as many holes as the ship itself).
As I told Drayfish, I may choose to make my own acceptable narrative, and may even convince myself that the uber-impressive graphics of my HD imagination are more detailed than the dross of the EC, should it fail to satisfy. I may choose to rewrite the code within my mind so that the Indoctrination Theory has more truth to me than the auto-dialog ending we are offered. All these exercises of mind are my true CHOICE, if I am denied one in-game.
That doesn't make the game less disappointing, and perhaps even moreso, since I will simultaneously be doing the heavy lifting of scene design and game mechanics I expect developers to carry, and trying to suspend the disbelief of my own imaginary story.
You argue any point in here that you want to. Ever since I read Piers Anthony's The Source of Magic in high school, I have thought that the best way to understand your beliefs is to argue against them; To be the Devil's Advocate, and see the symmetry and dissonance in both sides. I'll act as my own magic brain coral and attempt to fully debate against myself. It is a whole lot easier, however, to come here and argue against people who truly believe just as I do. To know yourself, you must also know what you are NOT, as we are just as defined by the infinity within us as we are by the infinity of that which is without.

[Hawk227]

@keyrlis

I agree, absolutely. About all of it. Incidentally, you've also stumbled on another reason I find IT compelling. The hope that I can have my cake and eat it too. That I can have this great discussion I wouldn't have otherwise had, but without the horrendous ending. Indeed with a pretty clever one. It isn't why I think it's true (or at least, plausible) but it's why I hope it is.

PS: I think I've stumbled on some of your contributions to a "short thread with short words and shorter tempers". They were pretty enjoyable as a third party observer.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Hawk227 wrote...

@CG Girl

I'm not sure I can answer that. We all have such different expectations. So many people want such different things. The more I discuss the ending (here and in other threads) the more I hate it. Every couple days I stumble on a new reason it's awful. Personally, I think it can only be saved with a full rewrite (everything after anderson dies scrubbed) or the indoctrination theory. I find the IT really compelling for a bunch of reasons. If that was the intent, I don't think it was executed quite well enough, but I really like the idea. That idea being that we are shepard, so in order to indoctrinate shepard, they have to indoctrinate us. Indoctrination is the most insidious weapon the Reapers have. Subverting the victim's own motives and tricking them into doing their bidding. Why was shepard never really exposed to that? Because s/he's just too awesome? I don't buy it. I like the idea of the ending being a meta-gaming experience where the player is exposed to indoctrination and likely didn't even know it. After all, neither Saren nor the illusive man knew they were indoctrinated.

So, for me, the best case scenario is if you picked destroy shepard wakes up in the rubble and we see (or preferably play) as he activates the crucible and finishes the fight. With homages to our choices, whether they are successful or not. But my big fear is that they'll cater to the popular clarity and closure over addressing the actual problems. That they'll just fill in the plot holes with cinematics of Shepard telling his crew to go back to the Normandy, and we'll get some epilogue telling us what happened to everyone. What you describe would be an improvement on that, but not enough for me to trust bioware again.

I have some problems with IT, and a lot of them are based on the fact that I have friends who... enjoyed the ending. Yeah, I know. One of them is even a writer! Arguably a more qualified one than me! He would never post text that contained any of this highly questionable grammar, for one!

All of these people took the ending choices at face value. I'm pretty sure they actually recieved the message that the people who wrote the scene were trying to put out there. One picked control and expressed that he was just going to pilot the Reapers into the sun anyway. One picked synthesis (I think) and shrugged off the implausibility  Two other friends of mine also said they enjoyed it on twitter, and I haven't asked them what they picked, but knowing them... I'd guess it's control or synthesis (I should check, but I can't think of a good way to ask them without risking spewing black bile on them. Figuratively!)

IT being completely validated invalidates all those positive experiences, and that's something I very much do not want to do.

Based on the totally unscientific method of "reading stuff in here" and "talking to people I know," I don't think that they're doing the clarity and closure thing because of its popularity. I don't think it's the most popular solution; I don't think that IT is either. I think that a new (or additional) gorram ending has always been the most desired option. My personal favorite has always been an additional ending, because it invalidates nobody's experience... the choices would still be there, ready to be taken at however much face value you wish... but there'd also be a fourth door where you could do a different thing.

I know the chances of that are slim to none at this point.

IT is very interesting, but as someone who has a degree of insight into how the game sausage gets made, I have to say that the chances of it being intentionally planned from the start are next to nil. Among my writer friends who work in the game industry, there's a pretty strong consensus about that, at least. I could write an essay about why, but right now I'm not coherent enough for it not to come out as a rant.

So for me, adopting IT now as the solution to their great PR debaucle feels... not right.

Given the choice between IT completely validated and confirmed and no real change in the endings, IT wins out for me by the tiniest of margins. But without substantial after-wake-up scenes it doesn't really fit together, and with substantial after-wake-up scenes it establishes one and only one choice as the correct one. Overall you get more upset people, just a different group of 'em. Sad.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 01 mai 2012 - 09:17 .

[Hawk227]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I have some problems with IT, and a lot of them are based on the fact that I have friends who... enjoyed the ending. Yeah, I know. One of them is even a writer! Arguably a more qualified one than me! He would never post text that contained any of this highly questionable grammar, for one!

All of these people took the ending choices at face value. I'm pretty sure they actually recieved the message that the people who wrote the scene were trying to put out there. One picked control and expressed that he was just going to pilot the Reapers into the sun anyway. One picked synthesis (I think) and shrugged off the implausibility  Two other friends of mine also said they enjoyed it on twitter, and I haven't asked them what they picked, but knowing them... I'd guess it's control or synthesis (I should check, but I can't think of a good way to ask them without risking spewing black bile on them. Figuratively!)

IT being completely validated invalidates all those positive experiences, and that's something I very much do not want to do.

Based on the totally unscientific method of "reading stuff in here" and "talking to people I know," I don't think that they're doing the clarity and closure thing because of its popularity. I don't think it's the most popular solution; I don't think that IT is either. I think that a new (or additional) gorram ending has always been the most desired option. My personal favorite has always been an additional ending, because it invalidates nobody's experience... the choices would still be there, ready to be taken at however much face value you wish... but there'd also be a fourth door where you could do a different thing.

I know the chances of that are slim to none at this point.

IT is very interesting, but as someone who has a degree of insight into how the game sausage gets made, I have to say that the chances of it being intentionally planned from the start are next to nil. Among my writer friends who work in the game industry, there's a pretty strong consensus about that, at least. I could write an essay about why, but right now I'm not coherent enough for it not to come out as a rant.

So for me, adopting IT now as the solution to their great PR debaucle feels... not right.

Given the choice between IT completely validated and confirmed and no real change in the endings, IT wins out for me by the tiniest of margins. But without substantial after-wake-up scenes it doesn't really fit together, and with substantial after-wake-up scenes it establishes one and only one choice as the correct one. Overall you get more upset people, just a different group of 'em. Sad.

Well, I would say your friends got indoctrinated! To me that's the beauty of it. There's a reason control and synthesis are so repulsive to so many people. They're Reaper solutions, embodied by TIM and Saren, respectively. I invision high level indoctrination as an unknowable change in motivation. Being persuaded to adopt the reaper worldview, without necessarily realizing you even did. We're led to believe that's what happened to Saren and TIM. And now that's what happened to some of us (if IT's true). . To me it's beautiful. It's an immersion into what your enemies faced. But I'm also on record as saying I would've preferred it be impossible to end the cycle over what we got...

I would add that there's a fair bit of foreshadowing against both control and synthesis. Every interaction with TIM, the Prothean VI on Thessia, and Javik all demonstrate the dangers of control. There's a few hints against synthesis, or at least the morality of it. Legion says that the Geth create their own future, not accept it given to them. I'm sure there's more, but it's late and I'm not thinking so clearly.

I see the choice as a test. How well were you paying attention? Did you see the Catalyst's logic was illogical? Did you realize that control = TIM and synthesis = Saren? Did you notice how lethargic and out of character shepard was? Did you notice how unpolished and dreamlike the last 2 scenes were? Then you stay true to what shepard's stated goal has always been and destroy them, thus denying the Reaper outlook.

I can certainly see why you and others feel that would invalidate others positive experiences, but I say they shouldn't have sided with the enemy 

My biggest issue has been reconciling whether they would attempt it. I can see the upside, and why they might consider it. But it's still a big gamble. Then again, the ending they gave us was a disaster and it shouldn't have been a big mystery that we would react this way. It's the debate between whether Bioware (or at least casey and mac) are super ambitious risk takers or just incompetent. That your writer friends don't think it was intended is kind of a downer though.

Modifié par Hawk227, 01 mai 2012 - 09:42 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

There's a great scene in Inception, where the wife is sitting on the ledge, saying "don't you see, if we just kill ourselves, we'll be out of the dream?" Then she jumps and dies. That's how I see IT... only it's worse, because it's not suicide if they're wrong, it's genocide.

A friend of mine once had an elaborate theory about Inception where the wife was right... every time Dom saw his wife, that was her trying to get him to wake up. All he had to do was kill himself one more time in the waking world, and he'd finally wake up and they'd be together again. In a lot of ways, the movie made more sense in her analysis. One of her lynchpins was this: the "real" world created by Christopher Nolan in the film was so stilted and unrealistic and blatantly allegorical that it had to be a dream. This is amusing because ha ha Nolan is a popular but controversial director who seems kind of obsessed with dead family members, and he is known for his heavily stylistic directing. But what if that heavily stylistic directing is all a trap, leading you not to realize that Dom's wife is right, and we should all kill ourselves to wake up!

I love my friend's analysis. I think it's witty and clever and very, very smart. I also think there's very little chance it's correct, but I'm not going to tell her to stop believing it.

If the original ending to ME3 was written without our current conception of IT in mind (and I'd say I think there's a 95%+ chance it was), then making IT the new "real" ending is yanking the rug out from under people who trusted you in good faith. All fiction requires some amount of suspension of disbelief and benefit of the doubt, and you are only punishing your most understanding and tolerant fans, the ones willing to go the extra mental mile to you. I don't think that's fair or wise.

If someone came up with a version of IT where Control or Synthesis weren't just "LOL you are dumb," (but simply resulted in a more difficult climb back, for instance) I'd buy that in a heartbeat.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 01 mai 2012 - 10:21 .

[Seijin8]

Just for sharing purposes, and cuz y'all asked (well, one of you anyway)...

- The ending ... emotionally void. Rather a sense of disbelief, "this can't be how it all ends". I assumed my first playthrough was somehow broken. Played multiplayer before my second to ensure the highest possible score, but by this time I had read enough online that I knew what was coming wasn't any better. A few aborted attempts at additional playthroughs, but knowing what awaits, I haven't had the motivation to see it through.
- I don't buy IT, but if they made it true, I'd be a fan.
- Male Shepard, have never completed a playthrough of any ME game with a FemShep. As previous posters have stated, it is hard to form that connection (being male).
- Devoted Talimancer. Wished the option had existed in ME1, and jumped on it when it showed up in ME2, never looked back (sorry, Liara). As such, was disappointed in the lack of a decent reveal and found the stock image to be "meh" long before I knew of its provenance. Says a lot that EA can't budget for what deviantartists provide free of charge and at a far higher quality.
- The feel of ME3 was overall disappointing in relation to the other games. It had some stellar moments in Tuchanka and Rannoch, and the time spent with old crew was heartwarming, but much of the rest was shallow by comparison.
- I don't mind the increased "action" elements, but during those sequences, the game has less emotional connection than Call of Duty, and given the demonstrated capabilities of this writing team, it is sorely disappointing.
- Liked Javik, and was glad I didn't have to pay extra for him (CE). Shameless cash-grab.
- I have (some) faith in the Extended Cut ONLY because: at some point the new EC writing team has to storyboard this, and I think budgetary constraints are going to require retcons. It is likely to require more hours of work to make some of the ending make sense (Normandy) than it will to rewrite them. Hopefully EA's greed is able to force those changes through. Also, as a public company, I never thought an admission of guilt was on the table. The closest we can hope for is a barely acknowledged retcon in the EC. Here's to hoping.
- Thanks to Dr. Dray for The infamous Tuchanka headbutt! Such a deliciously vivid surgical instrument for contrast to show how disconnected these endings really are. Your version of the Catalyst conversation (interrupt) is not only engrossing, but would mesh very well with the series as a whole. I don't know what would come next either, but I hope we get to find out. (Heck, even an immediate cut to the Destroy ending would work better than what we have).

This is easily the best thread on BSN right now. Thanks to everyone who has contributed their insights to it.

[Hawk227]

I think normally I would agree with that, but the way the end deviates from everything that came before it makes me feel differently. It kicked me out of my suspension of disbelief. For all the reasons so eloquently said in this thread.

If it had been straightforward and the catalyst had made sense, and the choices had made sense, and it hadn't been so egregiously unpolished (there is a low polygon pile of ME1 Ash/Kaidan textures melded together) I would think that's true. That the rug had been cruelly pulled out from under our feet. Without foreshadowing, the twist is unearned. But there's so much stuff that's out of place, that screams out that something is weird. The fade to white after harbingers blast is only seen in the Geth consensus and entering/exiting dreams. Legion even tells you that a Virtual Reality uses your memories to populate the environment, and much of that scene is oddly familiar (from things like LotSB, to Cronos Station, even to the Beam in london). All of this to me serves as an in-game warning that things are not as they seem. When I said earlier that I thought IT was poorly executed (if its real), I meant this "warning" was not sufficient. A lot of people didn't get it. Many still refute it. But I feel like it's there. I feel like it's an honest attempt. Maybe I've fully succumbed to wishful thinking, and Bioware messed up. I don't know.

If IT isn't true, I wouldn't say its genocide. I realize that Destroy ends in genocide, absolutely. But, personally, with the Catalyst scene in place and without IT, I am no longer invested in the choice. My choice from there on out is to turn the game off after Anderson dies. Or picking destroy and using my imagination. I don't think the final choices are worthy of acknowledgement. Obviously, that's just me and many people disagree. I'm not really sure how to reconcile my feelings with what may or may not satisfy everyone else.

EDIT: I'm going to bed. Thanks for chatting with me at this ungodly hour.

Modifié par Hawk227, 01 mai 2012 - 11:43 .

[Hawk227]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

If someone came up with a version of IT where Control or Synthesis weren't just "LOL you are dumb," (but simply resulted in a more difficult climb back, for instance) I'd buy that in a heartbeat.

Actually several variations of that have been proposed as a solution to the question of what to do with people who picked Control/Synthesis. I personally don't like it, because I think if you're indoctrinated there's no turning back (In IT, the idea is you aren't successfully indoctrinated until you pick Control/Synthesis). But I'm probably in the minority.

Also, I don't like the "LOL you are dumb" descriptor. I realize you were joking, and I'm being nitpick again, but from a gameplay mechanic it's so much more than that. The thing about indoctrination is it's so insidious, even for an elite spectre or famed Asari Matriarch. They were both long past turned when they finally realized that their minds, their own will had been corrupted. It isn't, "haha, you're dumb" but rather "This is what Saren faced, this is why it is such a powerful and scary weapon." It is an attempt at letting the player experience what Saren faced, what makes Reapers and indoctrination so menacing and sinister. It's that it is directed at the player, rather than just Shepard, that makes it so compelling to me.

Also, you say "came up with". I for one don't see this as a solution to be made after the fact, but an explanation. We're suspicious of all these discrepancies and we're trying to piece it all together. We might be dead on, we might be close, we might be completely wrong. Only Bioware knows. If BW never intended it, but adopted it now it as a means to save face, it would lose much of its brilliance.

Modifié par Hawk227, 01 mai 2012 - 12:21 .

[M.Erik.Sal]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Right now I'm trying to walk the line between sweeping thematic criticism and what my friends and I call "working on this screenplay for the Phantom Menace." It's a tough line to walk. The problem is that doing the latter is much easier.

...

I just wish there were a better way to convey suggestions and ideas without feeling so gorram hamstrung.

So, pretty much, this. And everything in between.

I'm actually a point now that I no longer care about Bioware fixing the ending (or other problems with ME3's narrative), it's such a monumental task that would basically require a completely and total reqwrite (from my perspective) that I just doesn't feel like a realistic goal or even something I particularly want to happen right now. All I really want at this point is for the writers to come out and admit that they screwed up. I don't want them admitting it because people keep telling them they have; I want them to actually get it, to see where, for whatever reason, the story they were writing went off the rails and turned into something sour in our mouths.

As an (amateur, unpublished) writer I know how absolutely terrifying this would be to me. But knowing that just make it more attractive, not because I want them to squirm and suffer for their mistakes, but because it would be such an act of bravery artistically speaking to expose themselves on that level and admit to such a huge mistake. That to me would be actual "artistic integrity", and furthermore would signal the desire to do better, to be better.

I can fix the ending all on my own, can turn the story from a turd to a gem (at least in my own head). What I can't do on my own is restore my trust that later on I'll get soemthing closer to the highlights (Tuchanka, Rannoch) instead of the low points (Priority: Earth, Catalyst).

[3DandBeyond]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

You wouldn't hear anything about the Freudian analysis of ME3 for two reasons: firstly, because Freudian psychology is actually a very limiting set of guidelines that is not applicable to every single thing, despite what its adherents would love us to believe, and secondly, because Freudian psychology is total bunk that was based on case studies of four (or was it six... whatever number it was, the sample size was ridiculously small) old women. Freudian analysis always had far more to do with Freud himself, and his own ego, than anything else.

Let's not get into psychosexual penetration/castration "symbology", that kind of stuff has no relevance here and is pathetically contrived in any case.

I don't think you have to go all Freudian to see some things in the endings.  A case can be made (though I botched an attempt at it) that from the point where Harbinger's beam hits Shepard it's about a mind dissembling.  Some could point to earlier points in the game where reality is suspended or where things are just not logical.  The choices could be his/her mind's last grasp for reality, but would only be effective if the strength or force of will was returned.  If indoctrination, then Shepard like Benezia should have that moment of clarity.  But it's denied.

The kid might be there as some kind of manifestation of some non-threatening appearance in order to appeal to a different part of Shepard's mind.  I have agreed with others that it would have had more impact if it had been the "ghost" of someone familiar to Shepard, but that might have been damaging to its intent.  Ok and I'd still hate everything it tries to promote, say, or get you to do.  But I think it just goes to show you that with no context and nothing concrete to point to, you can come up with any kind of theory you want.

I could set a microwave oven on a pile of bricks and tell people to discuss it and they could, but it doesn't mean the discussion has any meaning or relevance whatsoever.  My intent could be just to make them think the meaning is deep, when all it is is a microwave oven on a pile of bricks.

I could just as easily see that the kid is a metaphor for the blind choices we all make every day.  We put little thought into what the consequences are and don't protest when we should.  Or, the kid manifests Shepard's desire to control what has been a cascading series of harbingers of impending, unstoppable doom.  It's the fantasy creation of his/her mind trying to believe there still is a choice.  Or, the kid is really Shepard's desire to return or get to a more innocent time (which s/he never actually had as a child).  It's his/her attempt before dying or while dying to let the kid inside take over.  The fact that no choice is a good choice means there's no choice, but that doesn't matter.  Shepard is stripped down, the cuts are so deep that s/he has no more conscious will and becomes the child.

All of this is garbage.  None of it is exposed within the story and none of it is what I'd want in the ending of a game.  I don't want to have to create wild speculation from a few short sentences to make sense of something that mostly made sense all along.  I want ME reality returned to the game.

[Kalundume]

3DandBeyond wrote...

All of this is garbage.  None of it is exposed within the story and none of it is what I'd want in the ending of a game.  I don't want to have to create wild speculation from a few short sentences to make sense of something that mostly made sense all along.  I want ME reality returned to the game.

I would not be able to say it better ... Mass Effect was appealing, because it was so closely linked with real world, the ending kills all that immersion, as ME has never been about alegory, about symbolism, abstractionism or whatever, it followed more or less the realism.

Still we come back again and again to the same thing: after Marauder Shields the game becomes negative of itself, just like antimatter. When considered as a whole ME series + this antiME ending ... it all imploses in a terrible mindblowing blast leaving ... a void.

[Pattonesque]

One unintended consequence of the whole ending debacle is that it's generated some of the best game criticism I've ever read -- much of it centered in this thread. So like, uh, thanks for that.

I saw someone brought up the ending of ME2 a few pages back -- in particular, the final shot after the suicide mission of Shepard striding purposefully through the Normandy, checking on her crewmates. That resonated with me because of how the Normandy, which is nearly a character in and of itself (and by the second game IS a character, through EDI) is used so well in the endings of ME and ME2, but almost not at all in ME3.

In both of the first two games, the Normandy (SR-1 and SR-2) lives up to the description Hackett gives it in ME3 -- the "tip of the spear". It fires the final killshot on Sovereign after Shepard brings the Reaper's barriers down. It hurtles across the galaxy through the Omega-4 relay, dodging its way through the collected graveyard of millions of years of failed trips. It rips open (if you prepare correctly) the killer of its older brother. As Shepard is running away from yet another devastating explosion, the Normandy rises, wounded but still flying, with its pilot blazing away out of the port hatch, to welcome you back home.

Commander Shepard is an exceptional individual. It's only right that she should have an exceptional ship. While Shepard is off saving the galaxy, the Normandy is always there at the end to pull her out of the fire, in one way or another.

Except in Mass Effect 3.

We've already gone over how strange it was that Joker runs away from the final battle, but the thematic inconsistency of it gets me more than the logical inconsistency. I haven't played the ending since I finished it the first time (notably -- I took a second playthrough all the way to right before the final Earth assault, saved, and turned it off), but I don't recall the Normandy playing any role at all in the final battle, save for briefly punching through the lines to get your shuttle to Earth. That's pretty much the last we see of Shepard's glorious, gorgeous ship, at least until its retreat. No Joker dodging Harbinger's beams, no heading a wolfpack of frigates to tear out the throat of a wounded Reaper, no wounded Shepard staggering aboard screaming "Joker, get us out of here!" Just a brief appearance, lacking any reference to how much you tricked the damn thing out in ME2 (that Thanix cannon worked AWFUL WELL and we didn't see it once), and then it went the way of the little sister on "Family Matters", or Ritchie's brother on "Happy Days".

The Normandy has died twice -- both times coinciding with the death of its commander. The first time, it died fighting -- it never had a chance, but its pilot would have rather gone down with the ship than abandon the fight. The second time, it betrayed its own character -- its own spirit, you might say. That's a hell of a thing to do to the coolest ship in sci-fi.

Apologies if I'm misremembering the ship's role. I'd be thrilled to be corrected.

[3DandBeyond]

That is how I remember it as well. That's the way a lot of these amazing war assets are treated as well, but most glaringly the war assets Shepard would care about the most, teammates and the Normandy.

It isn't only logic that is removed or the integrity of the storyline. It's all these "little" (but not really little) things that are gone that removed the heart of the game from the ending. You are left unattached to a game right when you want to be involved the most. Victory or defeat seen with eyes on your people as well as the use of those things you worked hard to get. I mean really I let people die, get burned to death in ME2 just so I could get this ending. I want to see Joker kick some butt with the Normandy. That would draw me in.

[Grotaiche]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Given the parameters set forth so far, do you think it's possible that the EC will help more than a little?

Right
now the only thing I can see them doing that is productive is this: you
can challenge the Starkid on the idea that EDI and the Geth will die,
and if your EMS is high enough you'll be right and hurrah. This still
leaves us with two thematically revolting endings and the last one is
sort of a copout, but most people will be sort of OK with it.

Anyone have a different opinion? Speak comfort to me, friends.

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
[...]
IT being completely validated invalidates all those positive experiences, and that's something I very much do not want to do.

Based
on the totally unscientific method of "reading stuff in here" and
"talking to people I know," I don't think that they're doing the clarity
and closure thing because of its popularity. I don't think it's the
most popular solution; I don't think that IT is either. I think that a
new (or additional) gorram ending has always been the most desired
option. My personal favorite has always been an additional ending,
because it invalidates nobody's experience... the choices would still be
there, ready to be taken at however much face value you wish... but
there'd also be a fourth door where you could do a different thing.

I know the chances of that are slim to none at this point.

IT is
very interesting, but as someone who has a degree of insight into how
the game sausage gets made, I have to say that the chances of it being
intentionally planned from the start are next to nil. Among my writer
friends who work in the game industry, there's a pretty strong consensus
about that, at least. I could write an essay about why, but right now
I'm not coherent enough for it not to come out as a rant.

So for me, adopting IT now as the solution to their great PR debaucle feels... not right.

Given
the choice between IT completely validated and confirmed and no real
change in the endings, IT wins out for me by the tiniest of margins. But
without substantial after-wake-up scenes it doesn't really fit
together, and with substantial after-wake-up scenes it establishes one
and only one choice as the correct one. Overall you get more upset
people, just a different group of 'em. Sad.

(I cut the insomnia part here but I can totally relate to that ; my daughter will wake up in 5 hours and I'm still reading this topic. Haven't been able to sleep well since I finished ME3 last Friday. Oh well)

I am totally not sure about IT. It is very appealing as it explains what is wrong from the moment everybody runs to the Crucible (seriously ? I found that sequence pretty ridiculous at the time) until the Normandy crashes. This seems completely out-of-sync with the rest of the game (hell, even the rest of the trilogy). But IT looks very valid and very strong, my only issues with it being :

• if it's the answer and they will provide a "true" ending with EC, why did BioWare end the game in its current form ? Were they so cruel as to let the players wait up to 6 months (EC's release is still scheduled for this summer) before getting the "real" ending ? I don't think so, even if they wanted to make the ME franchise an absolute masterpiece. Which it already is, but that would propel it to a completely different level.
• the official reactions from BioWare leave very little room to doubt : they didn't expect such reactions from the fans. They might be performing an act in order to blast more people off when revealing the "true" ending but honestly, I don't think that's the case.

It's like you said, IT being valid is very improbable at Mass Effect's scale (budget, success, editor not being renowned for much risk taking, etc...).
I am not as bothered as you seem to be by disappointing the people who actually like the ending in its current form ; I think the artistic vision would be totally worth it. However, I do totally agree with you that an extra option (i.e. telling starchild to go to hell) would be a great answer. But unfortunately, this will probably not be the case.

My biggest issue here is that it's very likely that BioWare were lazy and/or incompetent with the ending. I hate thinking that way because I should thank them for what they've brought us with the whole Mass Effect franchise, but I can't help thinking that something went terribly wrong in the creative process. A part of me still hopes EC will knock my socks off and that I am completely wrong (I mean come one, we were used to much better than that from BioWare, weren't we ?).

But deep inside, I still feel revolted

[Sable Phoenix]

Pattonesque wrote...

One unintended consequence of the whole ending debacle is that it's generated some of the best game criticism I've ever read -- much of it centered in this thread. So like, uh, thanks for that.

I saw someone brought up the ending of ME2 a few pages back -- in particular, the final shot after the suicide mission of Shepard striding purposefully through the Normandy, checking on her crewmates. That resonated with me because of how the Normandy, which is nearly a character in and of itself (and by the second game IS a character, through EDI) is used so well in the endings of ME and ME2, but almost not at all in ME3.

In both of the first two games, the Normandy (SR-1 and SR-2) lives up to the description Hackett gives it in ME3 -- the "tip of the spear". It fires the final killshot on Sovereign after Shepard brings the Reaper's barriers down. It hurtles across the galaxy through the Omega-4 relay, dodging its way through the collected graveyard of millions of years of failed trips. It rips open (if you prepare correctly) the killer of its older brother. As Shepard is running away from yet another devastating explosion, the Normandy rises, wounded but still flying, with its pilot blazing away out of the port hatch, to welcome you back home.

Commander Shepard is an exceptional individual. It's only right that she should have an exceptional ship. While Shepard is off saving the galaxy, the Normandy is always there at the end to pull her out of the fire, in one way or another.

Except in Mass Effect 3.

We've already gone over how strange it was that Joker runs away from the final battle, but the thematic inconsistency of it gets me more than the logical inconsistency. I haven't played the ending since I finished it the first time (notably -- I took a second playthrough all the way to right before the final Earth assault, saved, and turned it off), but I don't recall the Normandy playing any role at all in the final battle, save for briefly punching through the lines to get your shuttle to Earth. That's pretty much the last we see of Shepard's glorious, gorgeous ship, at least until its retreat. No Joker dodging Harbinger's beams, no heading a wolfpack of frigates to tear out the throat of a wounded Reaper, no wounded Shepard staggering aboard screaming "Joker, get us out of here!" Just a brief appearance, lacking any reference to how much you tricked the damn thing out in ME2 (that Thanix cannon worked AWFUL WELL and we didn't see it once), and then it went the way of the little sister on "Family Matters", or Ritchie's brother on "Happy Days".

The Normandy has died twice -- both times coinciding with the death of its commander. The first time, it died fighting -- it never had a chance, but its pilot would have rather gone down with the ship than abandon the fight. The second time, it betrayed its own character -- its own spirit, you might say. That's a hell of a thing to do to the coolest ship in sci-fi.

Apologies if I'm misremembering the ship's role. I'd be thrilled to be corrected.

That's beautiful.  And no, I don't think you are misremembering the ship's role at all.  In all the best science fiction, a good ship is as much of a character as the cast members.

And in that light, the Normandy is a perfect metaphor for the series itself, especially at the end of the third game.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 02 mai 2012 - 03:04 .

[RollaWarden]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

Pattonesque wrote...

The Normandy has died twice -- both times coinciding with the death of its commander. The first time, it died fighting -- it never had a chance, but its pilot would have rather gone down with the ship than abandon the fight. The second time, it betrayed its own character -- its own spirit, you might say. That's a hell of a thing to do to the coolest ship in sci-fi.

That's beautiful.  And no, I don't think you are misremembering the ship's role at all.  In all the best science fiction, a good ship is as much of a character as the cast members.

And in that light, the Normandy is a perfect metaphor for the series itself, especially at the end of the third game.

Please allow me to concur with that beautifully-written passage.  Your thoughts about the Normandy really resonated with me, Pattonesque.

Shepard says something about the Normandy, doesn't he/she?  Close to the game's end.  Shepard's realized that the Normandy is home--really the only home she/he knows.  I remember thinking how much I liked the Normandy's retrofit for ME3; the cables draping the walls and ceiling, the "ready room," etc.  We spend so much time in the Normandy, talking to the crew, wandering about--it IS like home.  I remember on my one-and-only playthrough of ME3 how fitting it would be if, after the Reapers were defeated, should Shepard, LI, and crew survive, that they'd head out in the great beyond, together.  They had become a family, and family's stay together.  We'd get one last shot of a jump into...out there.  Then credits.  I dunno. 

Maybe that's a silly ending.  Probably not what others were thinking.  It's just that...the Normandy was so important.
Sigh.  Endings.  All I know now is that I've written about "what we thought we'd get" too much.  It's all just sand in the desert, right now.

And I don't think I'll ever forget that awful, empty feeling when the credits finally did role.  As Edgar says in King Lear, "Is this the promised end?"  And Albany replies, "Then fall, and cease."

Watching the Normandy a wreck, smashed, smoking and sparking.   I'll also never forget my last thought, before I turned of the game system:

"They just destroyed Shepard's home."

[drayfish]

Pattonesque wrote...

Commander Shepard is an exceptional individual. It's only right that she should have an exceptional ship. While Shepard is off saving the galaxy, the Normandy is always there at the end to pull her out of the fire, in one way or another.

The Normandy has died twice -- both times coinciding with the death of its commander. The first time, it died fighting -- it never had a chance, but its pilot would have rather gone down with the ship than abandon the fight. The second time, it betrayed its own character -- its own spirit, you might say. That's a hell of a thing to do to the coolest ship in sci-fi.

@ Pattonesque: I too could not agree more with your reading of the Normandy. Wonderfully put. Like the Enterprise, Millennium Falcon and Serenity before her, exploratory sci-fi is always been deeply tied to that Western motif of the rider and his horse. She is an extension of the hero him/herself, and is herself deserving of examination and praise. I know I'm not the only nerd who gasped in disbelief when she was blown up at the beginning of Mass Effect 2, and squirmed with glee when she was resurrected hours later...

Maybe as you say, Sable Phoenix, marooning her on a planet with no idea what's going on, or where-to from here, is (unintentional or not) a fitting reference to the current vagaries of Shepard's conclusion.

[drayfish]

RollaWarden wrote...

And I don't think I'll ever forget that awful, empty feeling when the credits finally did role.  As Edgar says in King Lear, "Is this the promised end?"  And Albany replies, "Then fall, and cease."

...And now a Lear reference?!  A Lear reference coupled to the Normandy?!?!  That's it, I am now officially in love with this thread.  I must marry it immediately. 

[frypan]

RollaWarden wrote...

"They just destroyed Shepard's home."

Yep, an ending written by someone who hadnt felt what it was like to play the game.

On another note, I've been lurking on this thread for a while, soaking up the brilliance of the discussion. Dont really have anything to add, but I'm a classics postgrad with an obsession for cataloguing sources. This has caused an obsessive compilation of as many of the major posts as possible. Hope that is ok with folks, especially CulturalGeekGirl, Drayfish, Skaldfish, and Strange Aeons to name a few. They are fully referenced should I footnote them in a later rant to friends!

Have this dreadful fear that the best thread on the BSN might get shut down and I lose all those fine posts. they have provided comfort and meaning during the post Me3 downer.  

My thesis in on Julius Caesar. ME3 makes me wonder how his supporters would have felt if someone had tacked  onto the end of the Civil Wars:

"....and then Caesar died and the state collapsed into more war"

[Seryl]

RollaWarden wrote...

Please allow me to concur with that beautifully-written passage.  Your thoughts about the Normandy really resonated with me, Pattonesque.

Shepard says something about the Normandy, doesn't he/she?  Close to the game's end.  Shepard's realized that the Normandy is home--really the only home she/he knows.  I remember thinking how much I liked the Normandy's retrofit for ME3; the cables draping the walls and ceiling, the "ready room," etc.  We spend so much time in the Normandy, talking to the crew, wandering about--it IS like home.  I remember on my one-and-only playthrough of ME3 how fitting it would be if, after the Reapers were defeated, should Shepard, LI, and crew survive, that they'd head out in the great beyond, together.  They had become a family, and family's stay together.  We'd get one last shot of a jump into...out there.  Then credits.  I dunno. 

I used to wonder if that was why they ended Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country with:
Chekov: "Course heading, Captain?"
Kirk: "Second star to the right and straight on 'til morning"

I really wanted for the crew to board the Normandy one last time at the end of the game.

*sigh* This ending sucks more the more I think about it.

[Keyrlis]

Pattonesque wrote...

One unintended consequence of the whole ending debacle is that it's generated some of the best game criticism I've ever read -- much of it centered in this thread. So like, uh, thanks for that.

I saw someone brought up the ending of ME2 a few pages back -- in particular, the final shot after the suicide mission of Shepard striding purposefully through the Normandy, checking on her crewmates. That resonated with me because of how the Normandy, which is nearly a character in and of itself (and by the second game IS a character, through EDI) is used so well in the endings of ME and ME2, but almost not at all in ME3.

In both of the first two games, the Normandy (SR-1 and SR-2) lives up to the description Hackett gives it in ME3 -- the "tip of the spear". It fires the final killshot on Sovereign after Shepard brings the Reaper's barriers down. It hurtles across the galaxy through the Omega-4 relay, dodging its way through the collected graveyard of millions of years of failed trips. It rips open (if you prepare correctly) the killer of its older brother. As Shepard is running away from yet another devastating explosion, the Normandy rises, wounded but still flying, with its pilot blazing away out of the port hatch, to welcome you back home.
<Various bits of Snippage>

The Normandy has died twice -- both times coinciding with the death of its commander. The first time, it died fighting -- it never had a chance, but its pilot would have rather gone down with the ship than abandon the fight. The second time, it betrayed its own character -- its own spirit, you might say. That's a hell of a thing to do to the coolest ship in sci-fi.

Apologies if I'm misremembering the ship's role. I'd be thrilled to be corrected.

I understand part of the reasoning behind the lessened role of the Normandy. It relates to a further development of the organic/synthetic dynamic in the games. First, a purely mechanical and electric machine, controlled by Joker in ME1 is allowed to evolve to a conciousness by the addition of an AI to the ship in ME2. EDI gains total control (and therefore a 'body') when the control locks are released later, and finally in the third game, "it" approaches even more to individuality when a (non-androgynous) android body is found that can allow [/i]HER to interact with the crew just as humans do. The shift supposes we will see her as distinctly separate from the ship, even though she herself points out the necessity of remaining close to her main processors. The Normandy no longer represents anything but a machine again; a space-based server farm for the mind of EDI. We are reminded of the link when Joker tells Shepard to take care of her down there in TIM's base, and he replies, "You, too."
Now, understanding the reasoning doesn't make it any more correct: Sure, EDI is a badass in her cold steel, hot curves body, but she is equally so in her flight system and weapons management. I had totally expected Dr. Eva's body to eventually rebel, from hidden Cerberus or Reaper code, or at least be destroyed so that we could mourn, and then be relieved when EDI came over the intercom reminding Joker (in tears) that she was still onboard, and had been just controlling the body. Joker's first love was the ship, and I thought it would have been even more emotional to realize that even without a body, he still loved her.

Grotaiche wrote more than just...

• if IT's
  the answer and they will provide a "true" ending with EC, why did
  BioWare end the game in its current form ? Were they so cruel as to let
  the players wait up to 6 months (EC's release is still scheduled for
  this summer) before getting the "real" ending ? I don't think so, even
  if they wanted to make the ME franchise an absolute masterpiece. Which
  it already is, but that would propel it to a completely different level.
• the official reactions from BioWare leave very little room to doubt : they
  didn't expect such reactions from the fans. They might be performing an
  act in order to blast more people off when revealing the "true" ending
  but honestly, I don't think that's the case.

My biggest
issue here is that it's very likely that BioWare were lazy and/or
incompetent with the ending. I hate thinking that way because I should
thank them for what they've brought us with the whole Mass Effect
franchise, but I can't help thinking that something went terribly wrong
in the creative process. A part of me still hopes EC will knock my socks
off and that I am completely wrong (I mean come one, we were used to
much better than that from BioWare, weren't we ?).

But deep inside, I still feel revolted [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/sad.png[/smilie]

Have you guys heard about the anger at Capcom over Asura's Wrath? Read about "Evil DLC" HERE.
It is the nature of these evil microtransactions that developers marketing groups are so supportive of. Eventually, some greedy producer was bound to bastardize Dickens-like serial writing with the hook of "alternate endings" we see in every DVD release these days. How do you insure that you get people to buy more of these microtansactions? Make them seem necessary.
What's more necessary than an ending? (A beginning, I guess?)
So Asura's Wrath finishes up, you feel all superior for beating a game, and then Capcom mentions, "Oh, yeah, that wasn't what REALLY happened, you need to buy the real ending here for only $7. What a deal, right?"
Done properly, I can see the uses of misleading ends: Had this been the end of ME2 (I always think of [i]Back to the Future 2 and it's questionable, but appropriate "To Be Continued" ending), I would be eagerly awaiting ME3 to know if Shepard had been indoctrinated or what had really happened. You better believe I would be waiting in line to pick up my preordered copy of ME3, just as IT followers were anxiously looking forward to "The Truth" DLC. When Bioware denied any plans to do such a thing, I was so disappointed at the loss of awesome. Because Asura's Wrath was just one game of 18 episodes, an ending DLC containing 4 episodes (almost a quarter of the game) seems like bait-and switch. With the trilogy of ME, the add-on characters and extra missions, the bonus weapons, the deeper challenges of Pinnacle Station, the new perspectives gained by Lair of the Shadow Broker, the harrowing race of The Arrival... all this led me to expect literal "game-changing" DLC. I would have been more than happy to buy an epilogue with the actual details of the ending, because the story was so much more immersive with such previously well-planned DLC.