Guest_Opsrbest_*
Highlighting things are fun.Made Nightwing wrote...
So, my lit professor and I are nerds. I throw in 'but the prize' references on my essays about Odysseus and Achilles, he throws in Firefly references in his lectures, we get on great. Now, I've previously mentioned that he disliked the endings, but today he gave me a full rundown on what exactly he found displeasing about the endgame:
"I don't get it. You get a choice between control. I just shot The Illusive Man five minutes ago because I said that we weren't ready for that power. Why on Earth isn't there an option to express how faulty that choice is? And then Destroy? Dammit, I just saved the geth and quarians, they're working together as a re-united race. Why is genocide an option? WHY? And then Synthesis just completely mistakes everything about evolution. There is no apex of evolution, we continue to adapt and move forward or we die. Aside from that, I'm forcing a choice on the entire galaxy, without the option to tell the damn thing to go to hell! All three endings were so entirely removed from the themes of the whole series that they were completely unrecognisable! It's like Casey had just finished playing Deus Ex and Mac had just watcched teh season finale of BSG."
"If I'm going to speak about 'artistic integrity', I will be compelled to point out that the ending was in no way the artistic vision of the team. BW has already stated that the ending was thought up between Casey and Mac, without any part of the peer review process being consulted. It was not a product of the team, but individuals. Aside from that, saying that artistic integrity forbids them from changing the ending is ridiculous. Many novelists have re-written entire works because of negative feedback on them. Charles Dickens wrote Oliver Twist in chapters, publishing each one as they went, and each chapter would be based on the feedback that he got for that chapter. Conan Doyle brought Holmes back from the dead. Those are just wo examples, there are many more. BW broke their own artistic integrity when they allowed EA to set their deadline. Now there are many things that you can say about ME1, but you can never say that it was rushed. The graphics were glitchy, sure, but the characters and dialogue were finely polished."
"In conclusion, I must say again that all the endings were thematically revolting. It is absolutely critical in the name of good writing that the ending of a story must match the journey. Mass Effect has never been a story about the disparity between synthetics and organics. As a matter of fact, it has been quite the obvious. For three games, BW has hinted and pointed out that life could be so much more greater and mysterious than the organic perception. It's driven the point home, time and time again, that unity is possible. So why, then, at the very end of a series that has clearly been about unity and co-existence, would they end it with the point that different forms of life simply cannot co-exist unless their diversity is totally stripped away? It makes no sense. Furthermore, it is emotionally crushing that all this hope of co-existence that has been built up from the quarian-geth storyline (Geth Prime:...and then we will help you rebuild your world.) is suddenly yanked away at the last second. Good day."
Dr. C. Dray.
Anyone for the first highlight we have conformation that it was indeed a two man show and not just the rampant speculation based from a posting on Penny Arcade?
The second point while your proffesor has a point he is complete ignoring EA's right to set that date. Maybe he may not fully understand that relationship, between developer and publisher/owner, maybe he does and he has a valid point. I just find that an odd premiss for an eglish proffesor to hold and to form a bias on that by evidence isn't exactly a strong arguement.
As much as I want to agree or disagree with this statement I won't, more so that your proffesor isn't here to state his own opinions and ideas. I will simply say that in ME1 the dichotomy of the synthetic vs organic relationship in the galaxy isn't heavily noted but is presented in the game. ME2 has a more sustained tone of it but it isn't relatively noticable based on the precession of information the player recieves and when that information is given, say for example, when retrieving the Reaper IFF. And well, ME3 had a pretty heavy dose of it.
The italicized is done because thats an emotional response to an aspect of development. And isn't symbotic with the actual story of ME but rather a player generated choice.
Off topic:
Masking an opinion as a English Lit proffesor because it may or may not give your arguements some form of subsatnce is poor form. And I say that because if there was an actual English Lit masters degree behind the information you are posting you wouldn't be relying on information used evidentiary that is readibly and easily located on these forms by those that are "Anti-Enders".
Either way have a nice day.
Retour en haut
Their minds limit themselves to the constraints they imagine when creating the game. Similar to all artists and writers, when you create something you see it the way YOU see it and it's hard to step outside of the boundaries you create to facilitate that creation to see it in another light. It's an important skill to develop, but a hurdle that you can never entirely overcome. In video games, this also means it's hard to step outside of how you imagine the mechanics SHOULD work to see how they might be used in more, sometimes overly-effective (broken) ways.
