5087 réponses à ce sujet

[Seryl]

@Keyrlis

The minute the game industry start demanding micro-payments for DLC to END THE GAME is the minute I stop supporting the game industry. These are LUXURY products. I don't need them to live. Thus, I can spend my discretionary income elsewhere.

[Keyrlis]

Seryl wrote...

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.

That's a reference to Peter Pan telling Wendy that Neverland is somewhere near the stars of the Milky Way.

It would have fit beautifully with my Shepard looking over the control board at the end, finally having no more duties to fulfill, no worlds to save, and no enemies to fight.

[drayfish]

* Engage speculation pants *
 
As I mentioned a-ways back in the thread, I would love to see Indoctrination Theory play out, as I would find it a really audacious play on the meta-fictional structure of the game. Movies and fiction can't do that – hold off on the release of the final scene of a film until the audience is good and invested in one reading, only to kick it up a notch with a later addition to the tale. It is one of the great benefits of the delivery system of the games medium, one that I would love to see people utilise in more experimental, expressive ways than simply: 'Hey guys, here's Sonic 4: part 1... Maybe you'll wanna try part 2, 'kay? '
 
I remember Stephen King experimented with that old-fashioned episodic form with the original publication of The Green Mile, and while I wasn't a huge fan of the book, it seemed to work quite well for him in ensuring that the true narrative wasn't spoiled. His rationale – drawing on the experience of his mother, who he said had a tendency to always flip to the back of a book and spoil the ending – was to ensure that no-one could leak the information before he was ready to reveal it, and that by doing this he was participating in a very focussed, specific engagement with his reading audience.
 
My dream – and I know that it is in fact a completely insubstantial hope – is that with time constraints pressing in, Bioware decided to give the audience the cold, hard-sci-fi conclusion that this franchise has always flirted with, intending always (with the freedom of extra time to work on the DLC) to release the soaring, but-heroism-and-unity-can-still-fight-back conclusion that has always (until the ending) triumphed over the rigidity of the Lovecraftian nightmare. Again, in such a case, the ending would have to be free (they would be rightly pilloried for trying to 'sell' the hopeful ending), and it would have to be handled delicately so as to not undermine the fans that have, quite rightly, invested in the conclusion as it stands.
 
Again I want to state, it would require the download to be free; and would arguably need to be handled with far more grace than the current company/consumer dialogue is being employed. As CulturalGeekGirl states, they would have to avoid posing this as a: 'Ha!  Ha! Gotcha!', but rather as a bold expression of the whole experience of indoctrination, binding the player's own experience to Shepard, to manifest the battle within.
 
Again, sadly I don't think that is what's happening, but man I would love if it were...
 
* Speculation pants erupt in flames and dissipate *

Modifié par drayfish, 02 mai 2012 - 06:33 .

[SkaldFish]

Grotaiche wrote...

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

EDIT: Wow - didn't realize this had become such a tl;dr -- I hope you consider it worth the investment...

When I read "creative process," it made me wonder if the ME team has -- or has ever had -- a role I'd call "story architect." I'm not sure they do, and that may be in large part the root cause of much of what we've been discussing here. As complex as the narrative branching can be across a trilogy, I'd think somebody's responsibility would be to walk all the branches and look for broken logic, out-of-character dialogue/actions, or orphaned branches.

Indulge me here and you'll see where I'm going shortly. One of my specializations in software architecture has been the design and development of process-oriented (BPM/Workflow) applications. The architecture of this type of application is in many ways analogous to that of games like the ME series. There's an underlying shared source of data, code is written for relatively atomic functions, and "business processes" (workflows) combine these units into working applications using a "workflow designer" environment. Each workflow is a branching, directed graph ("digraph"). A workflow engine "reads" these process definitions at runtime -- they become the logic that drives the application's behavior. Without them, the app is just a collection of functional pieces that don't even "know" about each other.

The advantages are many, but three are most important. First, they enable people to focus on what they do best. Database architects manage the shared data, programmers create the modules that do discrete units of work, and business analysts define how those modules are combined into meaningful business processes. Second, they facilitate flexibility and reuse. Workflows can be modified without recoding, and functional modules can be used from multiple workflows. Finally, because of the level of reuse, users across the business enjoy applications that provide them with consistent approaches to similar tasks.

One of the most important roles in an environment that leverages these kinds of applications is that of the process architect. As the number of workflows grows, it becomes apparent that the entire business can be seen as a metaprocess -- a "workflow of workflows." This brings the realization that someone needs to have an overall perspective that enables them to keep all the workflows coordinated so they don't diverge over time or duplicate existing functions. The process architect participates in workflow design to provide cross-process knowledge, and whenever a new workflow design is completed, s/he walks every branch prior to implementation, checking for consistency with other workflows and the overall business metaprocess, making sure there are no orphaned (abandoned) branches, and validating that what is being allowed at each branch is consistent with what has been done previously (referred to as "shared context state").

(Note that is NOT the same as Quality Assurance (QA). Most of the work of the process architect is performed before implementation, during the detailed design. While involving QA at this step is a best practice, the primary work of QA analysts occurs later against working software.)

If we look at a game framework like Mass Effect through this lens, we can see many similarities. The shared data is the codex and the shared context, the functional modules are the characters, objects, and level environments, and the workflows are the story matrices, all of which aggregate into the metaprocess -- the narrative arc of the entire trilogy. A mission like the Tuchanka Mission in ME3 is a single, branching process digraph that is "called" from the main story digraph when a player starts the mission. When the mission is over, control of flow is returned to that top-level digraph. The actual path the player took through the story -- all the decisions and other information specific to the current game -- is maintained as shared context used by the top-level story workflow as well as other subordinate workflows.

If no one is spending ALL his/her time managing this "story architecture," what happens? One of the key concepts behind process-oriented development is that context travels with execution. In the case of a branching narrative, this means that, as a player experiences an instance of the story, all actions / decisions are "saved" and accumulate as the story happens. When a subordinate story like a side mission is initiated, it is first given access to the current state of overall story context, because not all branches are exposed as decisions the player makes. Many, if not most, are driven by prior context and made automatically behind the scenes to determine what is or isn't offered to the player. The subordinate story then contributes to that context as the player experiences it. As the top-level story progresses, this accumulated context becomes massive, yet the semantic content associated with each choice in a branching node must be considered against everything that might have preceded it (and I say "might" because subordinate stories are usually unordered). This is made even more complex by what I'll call character profile permutations. Shepard can actually "be" 324 base characters in terms of possible story branching options that must be considered in addition to accumulated context. (Pre-service History X Psychological Profile X class X Paragon/Neutral/Renegade X Gender: 3 X 3 X 6 X 3 X 2).

BioWare has talked about how difficult this was (which is undoubtedly true), and apparently feel they have successfully managed all the accumulated choices that had to be imported into ME3. Unfortunately, what we actually experience indicates poor management of that context both holistically and specifically. Previous branches are orphaned, character development is contradicted, decisions are offered that are inconsistent with accumulated story context, and the top-level digraph ultimately fails to resolve context appropriately.

In a roughly equivalent, non-branching narrative like a fiction trilogy, the writer does most of this as part of story development, with a good editor (or editors) catching whatever might have been missed prior to publication. In a branching narrative, overall complexity makes it nearly impossible for individual writers to manage this. Even the lead writer, whose primary responsibility is the overall narrative arc, can't effectively manage the story architecture as an ancillary responsibility. Simply put, it's a full-time job. In the case of the ME trilogy, it either failed or wasn't recognized in the first place.

Incidentally, this also raises the question of whether a massive effort like Mass Effect can really be executed without establishing a fairly detailed narrative architecture up front, but I suppose that's a topic for another post. All I'll say here is that I'd think you'd have to know you have a workable, trilogy-sized story before you bet the farm on developing an RPG trilogy. I'm not sure the Lost / Fringe / Battlestar Galactica "serial" approach, in which you don't worry much about what the ending looks like until you know it's the final season, is the best formula for this medium.

Modifié par SkaldFish, 02 mai 2012 - 04:50 .

[Garlador]

Seryl wrote...

@Keyrlis

The minute the game industry start demanding micro-payments for DLC to END THE GAME is the minute I stop supporting the game industry. These are LUXURY products. I don't need them to live. Thus, I can spend my discretionary income elsewhere.

Capcom is doing that right now with Asura's Wrath. Want the "true" ending? Pay up.

[Seryl]

Keyrlis wrote...

Seryl wrote...

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.

That's a reference to Peter Pan telling Wendy that Neverland is somewhere near the stars of the Milky Way.

It would have fit beautifully with my Shepard looking over the control board at the end, finally having no more duties to fulfill, no worlds to save, and no enemies to fight.

I know it was from Peter Pan. After I found that out (a few years after I saw Star Trek 6; I am old enough to have seen Star Trek 6 in theatres), I actually liked it better. I thought it made sense as it showed Kirk's enthusiam for exploration.

I thought it would have ended Shepard's story perfectly. My Shepard would have done the same thing.

[Seryl]

Garlador wrote...

Seryl wrote...

@Keyrlis

The minute the game industry start demanding micro-payments for DLC to END THE GAME is the minute I stop supporting the game industry. These are LUXURY products. I don't need them to live. Thus, I can spend my discretionary income elsewhere.

Capcom is doing that right now with Asura's Wrath. Want the "true" ending? Pay up.

Then Capcom can go ^%$#$#%^^&*(*&^%$##@$#%^&&*(*()(* with a gnome. I won't reward that kind of behaviour. It basically means that Capcom titles are forever off my "To Buy" list.

[edisnooM]

About the Indoctrination Theory, I think that the amount of reasonable time for Bioware to use it has passed.

I know when I first beat the game, I was stunned, unsure what to make of what I had just witnessed. After running to Youtube and seeing that all the endings were essentially the same I sought solace in Google's all seeing eye. After reading some of Biowares cryptic responses and seeing the fan theories, a new thought entered my mind, Bioware couldn't have dropped the ball that badly. I know them to be some of the finest writers in the game industry, surely they had a plan.

I was certain that a reasonable amount of time after the game had released globally they would quietly put up a DLC, maybe make a subtle suggestion to take a look, and their master plan would be revealed in some form or another.

But as time passed, as I was further dismissed, derided, and even insulted for dissenting with their vision, I began to lose hope that there was any great plan at work. I'm not sure what happened behind the scenes, what led to such promise vanishing so horrifyingly, but it seems that this was what they intended to deliver. I'm just not sure what there is left to clarify.


P.S.

A side effect of the endings however is that I came onto the BSN. I have had an account since I bought ME2 but hadn't had much cause to come on. One of the most comforting things I found after the ending was the realization that I was not alone. There were others as upset as I, some disheartened, others vengeful, with all caps posts of pure internet rage decrying the injustice dealt them. All had endured what I had.

Regardless of your position on the spectrum of anger it is a comforting thought to know you are not alone.

[Keyrlis]

edisnooM wrote...

About the Indoctrination Theory, I think that the amount of reasonable time for Bioware to use it has passed.

I know when I first beat the game, I was stunned, unsure what to make of what I had just witnessed. After running to Youtube and seeing that all the endings were essentially the same I sought solace in Google's all seeing eye. After reading some of Biowares cryptic responses and seeing the fan theories, a new thought entered my mind, Bioware couldn't have dropped the ball that badly. I know them to be some of the finest writers in the game industry, surely they had a plan.

I was certain that a reasonable amount of time after the game had released globally they would quietly put up a DLC, maybe make a subtle suggestion to take a look, and their master plan would be revealed in some form or another.

But as time passed, as I was further dismissed, derided, and even insulted for dissenting with their vision, I began to lose hope that there was any great plan at work. I'm not sure what happened behind the scenes, what led to such promise vanishing so horrifyingly, but it seems that this was what they intended to deliver. I'm just not sure what there is left to clarify.


P.S.

A side effect of the endings however is that I came onto the BSN. I have had an account since I bought ME2 but hadn't had much cause to come on. One of the most comforting things I found after the ending was the realization that I was not alone. There were others as upset as I, some disheartened, others vengeful, with all caps posts of pure internet rage decrying the injustice dealt them. All had endured what I had.

Regardless of your position on the spectrum of anger it is a comforting thought to know you are not alone.

YES! This is exactly how it was for me, and is also a good measure of the disillusionment I am suffering as I watch BioWare not follow what seems to me to be the only reasonable plan for ME3.

All of you are the ONLY acceptable outcome of ME3

[delta_vee]

SkaldFish wrote...

When I read "creative process," it made me wonder if the ME team has -- or has ever had -- a role I'd call "story architect." I'm not sure they do, and that may be in large part the root cause of much of what we've been discussing here. As complex as the narrative branching can be across a trilogy, I'd think somebody's responsibility would be to walk all the branches and look for broken logic, out-of-character dialogue/actions, or orphaned branches.

[very reluctant snip]

In a roughly equivalent, non-branching narrative like a fiction trilogy, the writer does most of this as part of story development, with a good editor (or editors) catching whatever might have been missed prior to publication. In a branching narrative, overall complexity makes it nearly impossible for individual writers to manage this. Even the lead writer, whose primary responsibility is the overall narrative arc, can't effectively manage the story architecture as an ancillary responsibility. Simply put, it's a full-time job. In the case of the ME trilogy, it either failed or wasn't recognized in the first place.

Incidentally, this also raises the question of whether a massive effort like Mass Effect can really be executed without establishing a fairly detailed narrative architecture up front, but I suppose that's a topic for another post. All I'll say here is that I'd think you'd have to know you have a workable, trilogy-sized story before you bet the farm on developing an RPG trilogy. I'm not sure the Lost / Fringe / Battlestar Galactica "serial" approach, in which you don't worry much about what the ending looks like until you know it's the final season, is the best formula for this medium.

While I very much agree with what you're suggesting, the practical difficulties with that sort of approach vis-a-vis ME3 are multifarious. None of the Mass Effect games are true tree graphs; minor variations aside, the narrative path of each game is more of a zig-zag. Game development is inherently massively parallel, and ME3 especially wears that on its sleeve. Each plot-mission module is relatively self-contained as far as gameplay is concerned (as opposed to larger narrative implications). None have any real dependencies on the others. This was (most likely) done as a way to contain the permutations in a manner suited to parallel development and voiceover/animation production limits, which is understandable but contrary to the ambition of the narrative.

Primary plot missions in all three ME games are limited in their responsiveness to state within the current game as well, but whereas the first two had to cope with differing completion orders (with the attendant dampers on all but minor variations), the third had an entirely linear main mission set. I suspect this is due to the overhead of malleable state in production, as above, which (I believe) led to the abandonment of major branching early in development. (No, I don't think another six months would be sufficient to escape this structural limitation.)

As far as a "story architect" role goes, from what I've gleaned from the (excellent) Final Hours of ME3 app (seriously, those who haven't, go get it now), Hudson & Walters did a lot of that work in gluing modules together and managing overall flow. I don't think they did a particularly good job of it, mind you, but it was there. Given the fundamental linear structure of ME3 itself, though, I'm not surprised at the lack of a dedicated position. Most of that work would be done within each module, ensuring appropriate minor branching using a subset of the overall past state, and thus within the capabilities of the writing staff for each particular module.

And frankly, we all know (or should, by now) that between-game state preservation was a matter of recording everything, and leaving future teams to pick and choose relevant data when designing sub-branches and variants. The major plot beats were revised multiple times in the course of the development of all three games, occasionally (seemingly) schizophrenically. I agree that the serial approach hindered the long-term branching potential, but honestly such ambitious planning would have required to have been present in continuous form from the earliest stages of ME1 development. It wasn't, as the various unnecessary contrivances of ME2 showed (seriously, there wasn't any good damn reason to blow up the Normandy at the start of ME2, nor to require Shep to work for Cerberus), and thus a true tree structure was placed largely out of reach.

Tl;dr Casey Hudson didn't pull a JMS from the beginning, so he was doomed to pull an RDM at the end.

[Edit for redundant wording.]

Modifié par delta_vee, 02 mai 2012 - 06:11 .

[delta_vee]

Also, on the subject of IT:

No. Just, no. It would've been ludonarrative suicide, given the paucity of direct textual support in the game we received. And logistical suicide as well, given the reality of limited broadband and bandwidth caps, unless the content was on-disc and timelocked.

The closest precedent would be the much-lauded "would you kindly" moment in Bioshock, and despite the glowing praise from much of the critical establishment, it didn't have enough textual indication in the preceding gameplay. Yes, it was a somewhat clever lampshading of linear objectives provided by a voice in your ear, but each request was sufficiently justified on its own that the revelation of your avatar's mind control only made sense in retrospect given the new information provided in the reveal itself. Twists without proper foreshadowing (even if only obvious in retrospect) are typically received with confusion and/or apathy, especially if they overturn long-established gameplay mechanisms. (Or, in Bioshock's case, fail spectacularly at overturning them, thus rendering them moot.)

Similarly, Indoctrination Theory was a thoroughly post-facto and paratextual response to the dissociation of the ending. If one ending were to truly be favored over the others to the degree of substantial additional gameplay, sufficient information to discern the "true" ending would have to be far more deeply integrated than a codex entry and some screen-edge shadows. Mass Effect had never previously hidden (or even disguised) information crucial to gameplay - it just isn't that kind of game. There would be signposts along the way allowing for the possibility. And no, badly-done overwrought dream sequences don't count.

Modifié par delta_vee, 02 mai 2012 - 05:51 .

[edisnooM]

delta_vee wrote...

Also, on the subject of IT:

No. Just, no. It would've been ludonarrative suicide, given the paucity of direct textual support in the game we received. And logistical suicide as well, given the reality of limited broadband and bandwidth caps, unless the content was on-disc and timelocked.

The closest precedent would be the much-lauded "would you kindly" moment in Bioshock, and despite the glowing praise from much of the critical establishment, it didn't have enough textual indication in the preceding gameplay. Yes, it was a somewhat clever lampshading of linear objectives provided by a voice in your ear, but each request was sufficiently justified on its own that the revelation of your avatar's mind control only made sense in retrospect given the new information provided in the reveal itself. Twists without proper foreshadowing (even if only obvious in retrospect) are typically received with confusion and/or apathy, especially if they overturn long-established gameplay mechanisms. (Or, in Bioshock's case, fail spectacularly at overturning them, thus rendering them moot.)

Similarly, Indoctrination Theory was a thoroughly post-facto and paratextual response to the dissociation of the ending. If one ending were to truly be favored over the others to the degree of substantial additional gameplay, sufficient information to discern the "true" ending would have to be far more deeply integrated than a codex entry and some screen-edge shadows. Mass Effect had never previously hidden (or even disguised) information crucial to gameplay - it just isn't that kind of game. There would be signposts along the way allowing for the possibility. And no, badly-done overwrought dream sequences don't count.

Aye, but as the ship sinks we grasp at whatever we can. Though I think IT is probably out the window now. If they do use it now they'll be blasted for using a fan theory, even if it was their original plan.

[delta_vee]

edisnooM wrote...

Aye, but as the ship sinks we grasp at whatever we can. Though I think IT is probably out the window now. If they do use it now they'll be blasted for using a fan theory, even if it was their original plan.

IT was never in the cards, given the game we got. Don't get me wrong - I think it's a brilliant paratextual construction, but like most paratexts, it's derived from rather than inherent to the text.

[delta_vee]

Also, in response to your earlier post:

edisnooM wrote...

I was certain that a reasonable amount of time after the game had released globally they would quietly put up a DLC, maybe make a subtle suggestion to take a look, and their master plan would be revealed in some form or another.

There is absolutely no such thing as releasing DLC "quietly". Look at Bethesda in the last day or so - even so little as a title and an image of forthcoming DLC is a hotbed of speculation plastered on every gaming site.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

this thread still going?

[delta_vee]

DinoSteve wrote...

this thread still going?

Fusion-powered.

[edisnooM]

delta_vee wrote...

Also, in response to your earlier post:

edisnooM wrote...

I was certain that a reasonable amount of time after the game had released globally they would quietly put up a DLC, maybe make a subtle suggestion to take a look, and their master plan would be revealed in some form or another.

There is absolutely no such thing as releasing DLC "quietly". Look at Bethesda in the last day or so - even so little as a title and an image of forthcoming DLC is a hotbed of speculation plastered on every gaming site.

That's a fair point, but hope springs eternal.  

As I said though I hold no illusions about it anymore, and I think the EC will be all we get.

[edisnooM]

delta_vee wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

this thread still going?

Fusion-powered.

It's the Energizer Bunny of the BSN.

[drayfish]

delta_vee wrote...

Similarly, Indoctrination Theory was a thoroughly post-facto and paratextual response to the dissociation of the ending. If one ending were to truly be favored over the others to the degree of substantial additional gameplay, sufficient information to discern the "true" ending would have to be far more deeply integrated than a codex entry and some screen-edge shadows. Mass Effect had never previously hidden (or even disguised) information crucial to gameplay - it just isn't that kind of game. There would be signposts along the way allowing for the possibility. And no, badly-done overwrought dream sequences don't count.

While I'm (sadly) inclined to agree, delta_vee, I would love to believe in Indoctrination Theory just to see those dream sequences with the kid have some kind of relevance. As it was, my Shepard had no interest in that kid. Yes, I get that he's meant to be a deep emblem of all of the innocents she couldn't save – but really? Did we have to go to the obvious-well for our symbolism? I watch Mordin, a guy with whom I went to hell and back get kersploded and that night I'm dreaming of a random kid, running toward him in syrupy slow motion? 

(In fact, I'm wondering how these scenes play to the pure-Renegade Shepard's out there? Surely they don't align with many players' sense of character?)
 
Each time those dreams arose they jolted me out of my suspension of disbelief. But if they were a product of Harbinger's intrusion, if it were Shepard's brain that were likewise being invaded by this dead-eyed little brat, forcing its symbolism on her, regardless of what she otherwise might feel... I could buy that. That kind of meta-fictional prod I could get behind, as it would make the dreams a necessarily invasive manipulation of Shepard's psyche. We are forced to care about Space-Orphan because he has imprinted himself in spite of Shepard's own personality.

...But again, I must admit, when I return to the land of logical restraint, there is little else to support it, and my dreams of meta-narrative play dry up and scatter to the wind.

[delta_vee]

edisnooM wrote...
That's a fair point, but hope springs eternal.  

Hope was at the bottom of Pandora's box. Depending on the teller of the tale, it was supposed to be the counterbalance of all the evils contained therein, or the worst of them all.

[GuardianAngel470]

edisnooM wrote...

delta_vee wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

this thread still going?

Fusion-powered.

It's the Energizer Bunny of the BSN.

Totally worth it.

[GuardianAngel470]

delta_vee wrote...

edisnooM wrote...
That's a fair point, but hope springs eternal.  

Hope was at the bottom of Pandora's box. Depending on the teller of the tale, it was supposed to be the counterbalance of all the evils contained therein, or the worst of them all.

I like it being both. God knows enough suffering has occured in the name of hope yet its the thing that always brings you back.

[delta_vee]

drayfish wrote...

Did we have to go to the obvious-well for our symbolism? I watch Mordin, a guy with whom I went to hell and back get kersploded and that night I'm dreaming of a random kid, running toward him in syrupy slow motion? 

[...]

...But again, I must admit, when I return to the land of logical restraint, there is little else to support it, and my dreams of meta-narrative play dry up and scatter to the wind.

Oh, no, there was quite definitively a meta-fictional purpose behind those dream sequences: to prepare us for the heavy-handed, impressionistic symbolism of the ending. It didn't work for most of us, of course - we didn't allow ourselves to be indoctrinated by Hudson & Walters, esq.

[KitaSaturnyne]

The OP says everything I've ever wished to articulate about the ending to Mass Effect 3. There was once a time when I could write and communicate half as well as that. I miss those days.

From my first post regarding ME3's ending, I've said that the final choices undermine and invalidate everything Shepard has been fighting for. Why would it have ever been thought that we'd accept this?

I would love to hear your Lit professor's suggestions for a better ending. Would the choices be different? Would there be choices at all? What else would be different?

I always thought that Fallout 3's ending sequence had a structure that would have been useful as the ending to ME3. It had what I call a "modular" ending. If a certain task has been completed, a short blurb about it is inserted into the flow of the ending. If the aforementioned task is not completed, it's not part of the ending you recieve. Given the massive number of desicions we can make and tasks we can complete, it was my thought that this would be an effective way to end the game and trilogy.

On a side note, I'm a Shiala fan. I really wanted to see her again before the end of the game.

[edisnooM]

drayfish wrote...

(In fact, I'm wondering how these scenes play to the pure-Renegade Shepard's out there? Surely they don't align with many players' sense of character?)

I had actually thought this, to a pure-Paragon perhaps, but would a pure-Renegade care about a single child amid a world aflame?

And for that matter, my Shepard while Paragon is a "Earthborn" "Sole-Survivor" and no stranger to the horrors of war or life in general. The loss while tragic is something you think he could cope with.

Also as an interesting point I noticed that only Shepard interacts with the kid on Earth. Dun dun dun.