5087 réponses à ce sujet

[Sable Phoenix]

Paulomedi wrote...

Since this is a thread with a higher level of discussion I will leave this here:

www.ted.com/talks/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_experience_vs_memory.html

Enjoy!

Now that's supremely interesting.  It neatly explains why the finale of the third game can "ruin" the entire series for me.  Yeah, the experience while playing was fantastic.  But I can't feel very much about it now, since I the final memory I have of the series is that damn genocidal hologram.

[Hawk227]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

On the subject of elucidating me (I ask questions better than I answer them), I wanted to ask you all about the purpose of the little boy in Shepard's nightmares, both in terms of his purpose in the narrative and his importance to Shepard as a character.

I remember reading that the little boy dies as a narrative reminder of the innocence Shepard is fighting to preserve, so I imagine I'm missing something.

Character-wise, Shepard's made hard choices where his own friends, Ashley or Kaiden, have died. People he knew personally, just snuffed out like their lives were made of nothing. No indication of survivor's guilt. As I recall, whether you choose the Paragon or Renegade conversation options, Shepard chooses not to dwell on the tragedy of the matter, and instead decides to use it to fuel his determination to defeat his enemy.

And then I'm confused by the narrative meaning behind Shepard's final nightmare before the endgame - He chases the boy through the forest, only to see the boy run into the arms of another person, who turns out to be another Shepard. Then, this second Shepard and the boy start to burn together while our Shepard watches helplessly. What is the narrative meaning behind this dream? I'm really having trouble with this one.

I think it depends on how much stock you put into IT.

For a literal interpretation, they are a ham-fisted attempt to humanize Shepard. S/He isn't some super hero who shrugs off adversity and saves the day. After 3 years this war is starting to finally wear on him/her. It may also be an attempt to emotionally invest the player in Earth. That mean reaper shot down a shuttle with an innocent 7 year old blonde haired, blue eyed boy (hence the loss of innocense) so we know they're evil. The final dream would I guess show the futility of the fight. A foreshadowing of Shepard's fate.

This of course fails for the reasons you stated, we have no emotional connection to the child. We've seen him in two cutscenes and had 1 dialog option with him. The loss of him (even for my paragade Shepard) is insignificant amongst the scale of loss and destruction.

Within IT, the final dream sequence is a warning. Amongst ominous whispers and oily shadows, we now see that to side with the boy (later revealed as the catalyst) results in Shepard's doom.

ME1, in particular, talks about how Indoctrination starts with the wearing down of the victim's resolve. They are meant to feel that resistance is futile, that loss is inevitable. The initial dreams show Shepard's resolve slowly eroding with (uncharacteristic) survivor's guilt.

I find the IT interpretation more compelling, because the literal meaning is little more than clumsy and ineffective manipulation. But I readily concede it is one of the weaker points in IT.

Modifié par Hawk227, 07 mai 2012 - 04:04 .

[Hawk227]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

Paulomedi wrote...

Since this is a thread with a higher level of discussion I will leave this here:

www.ted.com/talks/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_experience_vs_memory.html

Enjoy!

Now that's supremely interesting.  It neatly explains why the finale of the third game can "ruin" the entire series for me.  Yeah, the experience while playing was fantastic.  But I can't feel very much about it now, since I the final memory I have of the series is that damn genocidal hologram.

For what it's worth, after my initial playthrough I went back and started a new one in ME1 and played through ME2. I was able to rediscover what drew me into the franchise in the first place. Now I'm starting my new ME3 playthrough and experiencing it through the lens of IT. IT has truly become my "headcannon" and so far so good. I've lost faith in BW (until they earn it back) but I'm trying not to let the ending ruin what has been my favorite franchise.

[edisnooM]

Hawk227 wrote...

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

On the subject of elucidating me (I ask questions better than I answer them), I wanted to ask you all about the purpose of the little boy in Shepard's nightmares, both in terms of his purpose in the narrative and his importance to Shepard as a character.

I remember reading that the little boy dies as a narrative reminder of the innocence Shepard is fighting to preserve, so I imagine I'm missing something.

Character-wise, Shepard's made hard choices where his own friends, Ashley or Kaiden, have died. People he knew personally, just snuffed out like their lives were made of nothing. No indication of survivor's guilt. As I recall, whether you choose the Paragon or Renegade conversation options, Shepard chooses not to dwell on the tragedy of the matter, and instead decides to use it to fuel his determination to defeat his enemy.

And then I'm confused by the narrative meaning behind Shepard's final nightmare before the endgame - He chases the boy through the forest, only to see the boy run into the arms of another person, who turns out to be another Shepard. Then, this second Shepard and the boy start to burn together while our Shepard watches helplessly. What is the narrative meaning behind this dream? I'm really having trouble with this one.

I think it depends on how much stock you put into IT.

For a literal interpretation, they are a ham-fisted attempt to humanize Shepard. S/He isn't some super hero who shrugs off adversity and saves the day. After 3 years this war is starting to finally wear on him/her. It may also be an attempt to emotionally invest the player in Earth. That mean reaper shot down a shuttle with an innocent 7 year old blonde haired, blue eyed boy (hence the loss of innocense) so we know they're evil. The final dream would I guess show the futility of the fight. A foreshadowing of Shepard's fate.

This of course fails for the reasons you stated, we have no emotional connection to the child. We've seen him in two cutscenes and had 1 dialog option with him. The loss of him (even for my paragade Shepard) is insignificant amongst the scale of loss and destruction.

Within IT, the final dream sequence is a warning. Amongst ominous whispers and oily shadows, we now see that to side with the boy (later revealed as the catalyst) results in Shepard's doom.

ME1, in particular, talks about how Indoctrination starts with the wearing down of the victim's resolve. They are meant to feel that resistance is futile, that loss is inevitable. The initial dreams show Shepard's resolve slowly eroding with (uncharacteristic) survivor's guilt.

I find the IT interpretation more compelling, because the literal meaning is little more than clumsy and ineffective manipulation. But I readily concede it is one of the weaker points in IT.

Within the context of IT the dreams do make a lot more sense, it seems rather odd to me that the same people that were able to make me care about all these characters, about Tuchanka, Rannoch, even Thessia, would create a character about whom I was supposed to care but instead felt quiet indifferent. Either poorly planned / executed, or excellently and intricately so.

It was perhaps sad at the moment the transport was shot down but the repeated dreams really failed to leave much impact.

Modifié par edisnooM, 07 mai 2012 - 04:25 .

[Sable Phoenix]

Hawk227 wrote...

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

On the subject of elucidating me (I ask questions better than I answer them), I wanted to ask you all about the purpose of the little boy in Shepard's nightmares, both in terms of his purpose in the narrative and his importance to Shepard as a character.

I remember reading that the little boy dies as a narrative reminder of the innocence Shepard is fighting to preserve, so I imagine I'm missing something.

Character-wise, Shepard's made hard choices where his own friends, Ashley or Kaiden, have died. People he knew personally, just snuffed out like their lives were made of nothing. No indication of survivor's guilt. As I recall, whether you choose the Paragon or Renegade conversation options, Shepard chooses not to dwell on the tragedy of the matter, and instead decides to use it to fuel his determination to defeat his enemy.

And then I'm confused by the narrative meaning behind Shepard's final nightmare before the endgame - He chases the boy through the forest, only to see the boy run into the arms of another person, who turns out to be another Shepard. Then, this second Shepard and the boy start to burn together while our Shepard watches helplessly. What is the narrative meaning behind this dream? I'm really having trouble with this one.

I think it depends on how much stock you put into IT.

For a literal interpretation, they are a ham-fisted attempt to humanize Shepard. S/He isn't some super hero who shrugs off adversity and saves the day. After 3 years this war is starting to finally wear on him/her. It may also be an attempt to emotionally invest the player in Earth. That mean reaper shot down a shuttle with an innocent 7 year old blonde haired, blue eyed boy (hence the loss of innocense) so we know they're evil. The final dream would I guess show the futility of the fight. A foreshadowing of Shepard's fate.

This of course fails for the reasons you stated, we have no emotional connection to the child. We've seen him in two cutscenes and had 1 dialog option with him. The loss of him (even for my paragade Shepard) is insignificant amongst the scale of loss and destruction.

Within IT, the final dream sequence is a warning. Amongst ominous whispers and oily shadows, we now see that to side with the boy (later revealed as the catalyst) results in Shepard's doom.

ME1, in particular, talks about how Indoctrination starts with the wearing down of the victim's resolve. They are meant to feel that resistance is futile, that loss is inevitable. The initial dreams show Shepard's resolve slowly eroding with (uncharacteristic) survivor's guilt.

I find the IT interpretation more compelling, because the literal meaning is little more than clumsy and ineffective manipulation. But I readily concede it is one of the weaker points in IT.

It makes more sense for Shepard to obsess over the little boy if he was an Indoctrination-induced hallucination from the start, and thus took undue hold on Shepard's psyche.  It's interesting that you see literal warning signs next to him every time he appears after the Reapers land.  Especially that wierd one with a lightning bolt going straight into a head, which is like no warning sign you ever see either in real life or in the game itself.

At least, it makes more sense than the boy being real, in my opinion.

[THX-1136]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

Paulomedi wrote...

Since this is a thread with a higher level of discussion I will leave this here:

www.ted.com/talks/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_experience_vs_memory.html

Enjoy!

Now that's supremely interesting.  It neatly explains why the finale of the third game can "ruin" the entire series for me.  Yeah, the experience while playing was fantastic.  But I can't feel very much about it now, since I the final memory I have of the series is that damn genocidal hologram.

The way I think about it is as a good joke. If the punchline isn't good then it's hard to rewatch the stand-up even when the set-up for the punchline is brilliant. There needs to be a payoff; if the payoff to the long and beautiful set-up is bad, it just kills it.

[KitaSaturnyne]

edisnooM wrote...

I know in the artbook that came with the N7 edition it says that the boy was supposed to be the face of all the people on Earth that Shepard could not save.

However it has been postulated previously that a pure Renegade would not care about one child. For myself Shepard was a Paragon, Earthborn, Sole-Survivor, who was no stranger to the horrors of war and life in general, so while the loss was tragic, I found myself wondering if it would really affect him as much as it was shown to. In fact when asked by Ashley back in ME1 after Virmire about how he got over losing his squad on Akuze I'm pretty sure he said that you don't forget but you move on and you swear to do better for it.

It has been mentioned by others previously that it was an attempt to shoehorn in emotional impact into the narrative, though I question its effectiveness as its reception is hardly universal to all Shepards.

As to the last part, it could have been an attempt to foreshadow that you cannot escape fate, that Shepard would not escape this war "unburned", that try though he might to save everyone there would be cost. I'm really not sure, and I'm positive there are better minds than I to tackle this issue.

I guess my confusion regarding the dreams stems mostly from the fact that I was partially trying to deconstruct the dreams themselves. Some believe in dream interpretation and some don't, as it can be difficult to identify which dreams contain symbolic messages from our subconscious, and which are just our mind entertaining itself while you sleep. That colored my experience with these sequences. I'd like to attempt a dream analysis, but this thread is more about the endings than Shepard's dreams.

[edisnooM]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

edisnooM wrote...

I know in the artbook that came with the N7 edition it says that the boy was supposed to be the face of all the people on Earth that Shepard could not save.

However it has been postulated previously that a pure Renegade would not care about one child. For myself Shepard was a Paragon, Earthborn, Sole-Survivor, who was no stranger to the horrors of war and life in general, so while the loss was tragic, I found myself wondering if it would really affect him as much as it was shown to. In fact when asked by Ashley back in ME1 after Virmire about how he got over losing his squad on Akuze I'm pretty sure he said that you don't forget but you move on and you swear to do better for it.

It has been mentioned by others previously that it was an attempt to shoehorn in emotional impact into the narrative, though I question its effectiveness as its reception is hardly universal to all Shepards.

As to the last part, it could have been an attempt to foreshadow that you cannot escape fate, that Shepard would not escape this war "unburned", that try though he might to save everyone there would be cost. I'm really not sure, and I'm positive there are better minds than I to tackle this issue.

I guess my confusion regarding the dreams stems mostly from the fact that I was partially trying to deconstruct the dreams themselves. Some believe in dream interpretation and some don't, as it can be difficult to identify which dreams contain symbolic messages from our subconscious, and which are just our mind entertaining itself while you sleep. That colored my experience with these sequences. I'd like to attempt a dream analysis, but this thread is more about the endings than Shepard's dreams.

For myself I'd say analyze away, perhaps it could shed further light on the endings. Besides this topic has diverted in several different ways than the endings alone, and in fact the dreams have come up a few times already so I imagine it would be fine.

[jbauck]

I think the dreams and the boy exist because of focus and scale. I was thinking about this the other day: can you really comprehend one trillion? I can't. That number is just too big, but that's the scale of this conflict. That's how many lives are at stake.

So the problem for the writers is, how do you convey something like that to the player, so that they really feel it, instead of just tossing out an impossibly large number that's too big to register? Enter little boy, who almost makes it, and then is killed by the Reapers. It's a death made all the more appalling by how casually the Reaper just kind of ... turns its beams to two fleeing ships, hammering home the idea that the Reapers are without mercy (in case anyone had missed that part ... ).

So the little boy serves as a focus for the conflict. Instead of trying to comprehend the vast scale, here's a little boy who represents what's at stake: everyone. It's not about Shepard's loss so much as what Shepard still has left to lose.

This is, as has been said many times, something of a miscalculation because so many people just didn't care and were annoyed that this little boy kept showing up, and he served as a distraction rather than a focus.

Personally, IT theory or no, I like the idea that the dreams represent Shepard losing it. Shepard and Joker have a nice little blow-up where the subject of just how much stress Shepard is under comes up - the dreams and the "losing it" interpretation dovetail nicely with my headcanon where Shepard's trying her best to just get things done, but she's starting to show some cracks. The fate of the whole galaxy is resting on her, after all.

[Hawk227]

jbauck wrote...

[...]

Personally, IT theory or no, I like the idea that the dreams represent Shepard losing it. Shepard and Joker have a nice little blow-up where the subject of just how much stress Shepard is under comes up - the dreams and the "losing it" interpretation dovetail nicely with my headcanon where Shepard's trying her best to just get things done, but she's starting to show some cracks. The fate of the whole galaxy is resting on her, after all.

I didn't mind that Shepard was "losing it" a little. He's been the galaxy's only real hope for 3 years now, I would expect it to wear on him. But I didn't like the dreams as the means of showing it. It was all a little cheesy. Every time a dream started up, I kind of rolled my eyes and said "Not this again".

Rather, I thought it was better demonstrated through conversation. The little bit of doubt Shepard shows in his conversations with Hackett and Anderson. The way he tells his LI that they're the one keeping him going. The way he responds to the crew and the Asari councilor after Thessia. Especially that conversation with Joker after Thessia. I really liked that moment.

Personally, without IT, the dreams detract from the story. I don't care about that kid. I don't even really care about Ashley, the space racist (the Virmire death is the main whisperer). The dreams feel manipulative and cheap, whereas the conversations feel organic to the narrative. The dreams only work for me if they are Shep losing it under the pressure of Indoctrination, his resolve eroding over events that normally he wouldn't let get to him.

On the topic of the kid being an emotional anchor to Earth, I don't need it. I may not care much about Earth (w/in the ME narrative) but I know that if Priority:Earth fails, the Reapers will destroy the places, people, and the things I do care about. I'm already invested in Priority: Earth simply because I'm invested in defeating the Reapers. The climactic battle could have been Priority: Khar'shan (the batarian homeworld) and I would've been invested.

Modifié par Hawk227, 07 mai 2012 - 06:16 .

[Sable Phoenix]

Hawk227 wrote...

>snip<

I don't care about that kid. I don't even really care about Ashley, the space racist (the Virmire death is the main whisperer).

I just have to say I hate when people trot this out.  Just because she doesn't trust aliens doesn't mean she hates them.  She's not a racist.

Of course, you are correct in that the dreams feel manipulative.  They are so out of place in what we've come to expect from the Mass Effect characters and their presentation that each time one hit, I was jolted out of the story completely and had to take a minute to get back into it.

[edisnooM]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

>snip<

I don't care about that kid. I don't even really care about Ashley, the space racist (the Virmire death is the main whisperer).

I just have to say I hate when people trot this out.  Just because she doesn't trust aliens doesn't mean she hates them.  She's not a racist.

I thought she said something to that effect on Horizon in ME2 though?

Edit: What she actually says is "She's no fan of aliens". I don't know though she always struck me as a bit Xenophobic.

Modifié par edisnooM, 07 mai 2012 - 06:54 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

jbauck wrote...

I think the dreams and the boy exist because of focus and scale. I was thinking about this the other day: can you really comprehend one trillion? I can't. That number is just too big, but that's the scale of this conflict. That's how many lives are at stake.

So the problem for the writers is, how do you convey something like that to the player, so that they really feel it, instead of just tossing out an impossibly large number that's too big to register? Enter little boy, who almost makes it, and then is killed by the Reapers. It's a death made all the more appalling by how casually the Reaper just kind of ... turns its beams to two fleeing ships, hammering home the idea that the Reapers are without mercy (in case anyone had missed that part ... ).

So the little boy serves as a focus for the conflict. Instead of trying to comprehend the vast scale, here's a little boy who represents what's at stake: everyone. It's not about Shepard's loss so much as what Shepard still has left to lose.

This is, as has been said many times, something of a miscalculation because so many people just didn't care and were annoyed that this little boy kept showing up, and he served as a distraction rather than a focus.

Personally, IT theory or no, I like the idea that the dreams represent Shepard losing it. Shepard and Joker have a nice little blow-up where the subject of just how much stress Shepard is under comes up - the dreams and the "losing it" interpretation dovetail nicely with my headcanon where Shepard's trying her best to just get things done, but she's starting to show some cracks. The fate of the whole galaxy is resting on her, after all.

That makes so much sense to me. I feel ashamed that I couldn't articulate it like that.

[Hawk227]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

>snip<

I don't care about that kid. I don't even really care about Ashley, the space racist (the Virmire death is the main whisperer).

I just have to say I hate when people trot this out.  Just because she doesn't trust aliens doesn't mean she hates them.  She's not a racist.

Of course, you are correct in that the dreams feel manipulative.  They are so out of place in what we've come to expect from the Mass Effect characters and their presentation that each time one hit, I was jolted out of the story completely and had to take a minute to get back into it.

But why doesn't she trust them? She doesn't distrust Garrus and Wrex because of something they did. She distrusts them because they are aliens. That reads like racist to me.

Not to mention how catty she always was to Liara.

I always killed her off on virmire, so I didn't get her later dialog. For all I know she had a change of heart like Navigator Pressley. But I always got the impression she was racist, and seeing so many other people call her "the space racist" has sort of validated that opinion, for better or worse.

[MrFob]

jbauck wrote...
Personally, IT theory or no, I like the idea that the dreams represent Shepard losing it. Shepard and Joker have a nice little blow-up where the subject of just how much stress Shepard is under comes up - the dreams and the "losing it" interpretation dovetail nicely with my headcanon where Shepard's trying her best to just get things done, but she's starting to show some cracks. The fate of the whole galaxy is resting on her, after all.

This was my interpretation exactly on my first playthrough. before I knew the endings, I did like the dream sequences although I started to wonder why the boy was in all of them instead of, say, dead squad mates and friends. IMO this would have been the perfect opportunity to use the vv (virmire victim) as opposed to the vs.
In any case, I liked the dreams just because they show that the whole ordeal s/he has been through during all his/her life and the last couple of years especially finally gets to him/her. Before LotSB, everyone was complaining that Shep is not emotional enough, never shows any signs that the event s/he lives through have an effect on his/her personality etc. Well, here it is, plain as day (albeit happening during the nights ). Long story short, there was room for improvement but the dreams by themselves were a great idea.
The problem starts - as it does so often - with the ending because if we take it at face value, the only conclusion can be that hep finally, in the deciding moment cracked under the pressure.
You can actually hear it in the voices of both male and female Shepard. When s/he answers to the star kid, s/he sounds... beaten ... broken. I mean, I probably wouldn't sound any better, mortally wounded, barely on my feet in a surreal environment conversing with a hologram the form of which represents all my feelings of loss, defeat and despair. But then, I am not Shepard. Until the very end I was waiting for that moment when Shep finally straightens up (yes, despite the wounds) gets his/her old confident tone of voice back and tells the star kid what's wrong with all its options. Only that never happened. Therefore, without IT and with the dreams in mind - although probably not intended by the writers as such - I can't help myself but to interpret this ending as Shepards ultimate defeat.

Not a happy analysis, I know but don't worry, I won't spread it around.

Modifié par MrFob, 07 mai 2012 - 02:15 .

[RainbowDazed]

delta_vee wrote...

I think the "dark energy" ending originally considered would have been utter nonsense as well, for the chief reason Sable Phoenix and Hawk227 mention:

Sable Phoenix wrote...

The Reapers cannot be redeemed. They have been presented throughout three games as the worst monsters in all of history. They have slaughtered uncountable hundreds of trillions of beings over the course of millions of years, and are utterly lacking in hesitation or remorse. They are genicodes a billion times over. The scale of slaughter that they have perpetrated on sentient beings is completely beyond our grasp. No matter what their reasons, from our perspective, there can be no justification for what they have done.

Hawk227 wrote...

I felt that the Reapers were the perfect Lovecraftian horror, come back to extinguish life simply because it could, and I was very happy with that interpretation. There is no justification for what they do.

And I agree fully. Attempting to backpedal on the Reapers' ultimate evil is like trying to take a plushie Cthulhu
seriously.

I personally liked the original thought for ending and the original explanation for the reapers. I loved Greg Bear's novel Blood Music when I was a teen, and the origin story Karpyshyn had in mind for  the reapers reminded me of that - creating a single living organism that assimilites everything alive into one. Maybe because of comparing the original ending to Greg Bear's thoughts in Blood Music (=assimilating a race into a reaper does not mean the end of all but a change of all) I felt that what the reapers did could in some way be symphatized with. This of course is just my interpertation of what I thought the original plotline could include.  

[KitaSaturnyne]

edisnooM wrote...

For myself I'd say analyze away, perhaps it could shed further light on the endings. Besides this topic has diverted in several different ways than the endings alone, and in fact the dreams have come up a few times already so I imagine it would be fine.

Alright, but I'd like it noted that this particular wall of text is your fault. I offered everyone a way out of this analysis. I'd also like to note that this analysis will be extremely flawed, so feel free to point out holes in my logic. I promise to take my beatings with quiet dignity. Well, maybe more like indignance. Here goes.

Please note that I use "he" in reference to Shepard for the sake of simplicity and flow.

First, it must be said that all dreams are open to such broad interpretations that to simply list them and say what they typically represent would be lacking in focus, and would in itself invalidate the interpretation of the dream. In order to interpret the dream effectively, we must know the dreamer, and also take stock in the circumstances surrounding that dreamer.

Getting to know the dreamer, Shepard, is a very difficult task. The Mass Effect trilogy allows players to create unique experiences throughout the games, and the variety of ways Shepard can be characterized by individual players is too large in scope for any particular analysis to account for. However, in Mass Effect 3, the following important points ring true for all versions of the character: 1) Shepard has never been part of an actual war before this. He is too young to have participated in the First Contact War, which was the last major skirmish to occur in the galaxy before the invasion of the Reapers. 2) Shepard has never seen death and destruction on this level before. Billions of people across the galaxy are dying in the span of a single day, a fact that would greatly strain the psyche of even the most powerful figures known in the universe. Even the Illusive Man, a strong symbol of emotional detachment, desparately seeks to control the Reapers as both a method to prevent Humanity's extinction and to secure its superiority throughout the galaxy. It is these factors that give way to Shepard's intense and sudden nightmares. The fact that these dreams jolt Shepard awake means that his subconscious is trying to send him a very urgent message about himself that needs immediate attention. In the course of the narrative, we never find out what this message is explicitly, though it may be possible to determine an implicit one. The components of the dreams lend themselves towards this purpose.

The first and most obvious component of these dreams is the forest. In dreams, forests can represent feeling lost within the self, such as losing one's sense of direction in regards to reaching a goal. The trees in the forest obscure that which lies beyond them. With that in mind, the forest represents Shepard's doubt over being able to unite the peoples of the galaxy, and by extension, his doubts and insecurities in regards to being able to win the war at all. Furthermore, Shepard is burdened with the task of uniting the disparate species of the galaxy. The presence of the forest indicates that Shepard has no idea how he's going to accomplish this goal; he has no clear path to follow as he has in the past, so he is lost. Hope lies outside this forest, the path to which is nowhere to be found. Since this isn't a verdant forest, it becomes apparent that these dreams are centered around the theme of death, which is especially important to note since Shepard typically has this dream after witnessing the deaths of those who are close to him. Seeing his former (and sometimes current) squadmates die has taken a toll on Shepard that he has apparently refused to acknowledge, but has nonetheless been compounding upon his sub-conscious. The seemingly unrelated concepts that the forest represents are able to reconcile each other through mutual inclusion - Shepard's doubts are growing in the face of death. This culminates after Thessia, where it seems that being given little more than a bloody nose by Kai Leng defeats him completely. The next major component of the dream is of course, the child.

Children in dreams are most often said to represent innocence, or the "inner child". Thus, it's easy to say that the child in the dream represents innocence, but it also acts as an avatar of guilt, reminding Shepard of all the lives he couldn't save from the Reapers. The first time we see the child, he's running around playing just as when we were first introduced to him in the narrative, and is the very model of innocence and playfulness. When Shepard gets close however, we hear the Reaper's characteristic blast, surrounding the child with red light. From this point on, in every subsequent dream, the child is afraid. This image of innocence is now being hunted, and Shepard believes he is the only one who can protect it, even thought he can't, which takes his conscience right to the very crux of guilt-induced logic: "I could have, therefore I should have". However, there is further symbolism to be found here. The child not only represents the innocence that Shepard's fighting to protect, it also becomes the very manifestation of peace and happiness. That Shepard pursues the scared, fleeing child doesn't mean that he is hunting the little boy, but rather that he longs for the peace and happiness that existed before the Reapers' arrival. Because of the Reaper invasion and the ensuing war, they are impossible concepts to Shepard now, always far out of reach. The child reacting in fear also serves to remind Shepard that the loss of these ideals is looming on the horizon and drawing closer with each passing moment. The human-shaped shadows, while not seemingly so, are also an important component to Shepard's dreams.

As the story progresses, and more of Shepard's friends die, the number of shadows in the dreams increases. There is a precedence to this symbolism within the narrative of a Playstation 2 game called Fatal Frame 3: The Tormented. The main character, Rei, suffers survivor's guilt like Shepard appears to, having survived a car accident that claimed the life of her fiance. More and more, Rei finds herself dreaming of an old mansion inhabited by malicious ghosts, each of whom is found to be suffering the same guilt as she. As the narrative progresses, Rei learns of a woman named Yoshino Takigawa. Through pieces of information found over time, we learn that Yoshino was the sole survivor of a plane crash that claimed her family and lover. When Rei encounters Yoshino's ghost throughout the game, she is represented as a woman surrounded by shadows looking down upon her. Yoshino believes she is being judged by the ghosts of the dead and found guilty, when in truth, the shadows casting their silent looks of judgement upon her are of her own design. In Shepard's case, the shadows increase in number as the narrative progresses, and they stand together in groups as if speaking quietly amongst one another. Since we know that Shepard experiences these dreams in the wake of someone's death, and that these dreams are certainly centered around the theme of death, it quickly becomes apparent that the shadows are manifestations of the "ghosts of the dead", all born of Shepard's profound sense of guilt. They've found him guilty for failing to save them. However, like Yoshino Takigawa, these ghosts are not really those of the dead, but manifestations of Shepard's own design. While they share the theme of guilt that has embodied much of the dream thus far, the shadows are immune to a common element of the dreams - Only the child is enveloped by fire.

Having already explored the symbolism behind the child, fire must be defined within the context of the dream and then applied to that of the child. Shepard spends his time in these dreams chasing this emblem of peace and happiness, only to have it run away from him, always out of reach. When it finally stops running, it looks Shepard in the eyes and starts to burn. A variation of this occurs during Shepard's final nightmare in the narrative: As Shepard gives chase, the child seeks comfort, security and assurance from another figure who is revealed to be a second, dreamed Shepard. The dreamed Shepard and the child look together at our Shepard, the dreamer, and begin to burn. The dreamer Shepard is only able to watch helplessly. Fire is a unique symbol in our society. When properly tamed, it can warm us, but one misstep, and fire can go so far as to destroy us. It is not simply light and warmth, it consumes that which fuels it. In the dream, it becomes apparent that the fire is harmful; Shepard cannot reach through it, and cannot get near as the child is consumed by the flames. The child engulfed by fire serves as a reminder to Shepard that these things he longs for - peace, happiness, innocence - are being destroyed and indeed consumed daily, and also serves as a call to action. When Shepard and the child are consumed by the flames together, it then becomes apparent that the message being conveyed to Shepard is more cautionary in nature: Be careful how you take action, or you will be consumed along with all that you are striving to protect.

After taking stock of both the dream, the dreamer, and the circumstances surrounding the dreamer, we gain a clearer picture of the meaning behind the dream's components. The message behind the dream is a warning to the dreamer, Shepard: He is being consumed by his guilt, and unless he takes steps to solve his issues with it, his guilt will destroy him before the war ever has a chance to. Through this, we are able to see that Shepard isn't the super hero we thought he was - he's just as flawed and human as anyone else. He experiences guilt over circumstances he has no control over, and we become aware that in the face of war and death, even the all-powerful Shepard can waver.

Modifié par KitaSaturnyne, 07 mai 2012 - 08:46 .

[edisnooM]

Wow, that's a pretty good analysis. Also I apologize if no one else wanted that wall of text, but I found it quiet interesting.

[drayfish]

I must say, if indeed the dreams are not enactments of some kind of invasive Indoctrination Process, I too was surprised that they went with the child as manifestation of Shepard's grief and lament. Like MrFob, I would have assumed that if they were trying to indicate survivor guilt, or the steady psychological pressure of all these losses and concessions to the enemy, it would have had more resonance to represent this with either Ashley or Kaiden, the first major soldier and friend you lost on Virmire; therefore the first real major casualty under your command.  (I am, of course, conveniently forgetting the red-shirt we lose on Eden Prime before meeting Ash in ME1 – honestly, what was that guy's name even?). At least then there would have been some genuine sense of owning the guilt – and since both remain fundamentally human, they would have still had the same symbolic presence for new players to the franchise who wouldn't  have the shared history, but can still feel the bipedal empathy I presume the text was going for. 
 
As I've mentioned earlier in the thread, for me Shepard was far more effected by the deaths of her fellow soldiers, her family, who were fighting and sacrificing all for those voiceless figures back on earth. There was little to nothing that Shepard could have done for that kid (yell at it or soothe it, the little scamp skitters off into the air ducts like the damned white rabbit), and aside from apparently being the only human child in the universe, there was little to distinguish him from the countless other millions being exterminated like bugs in front of her eyes.
 
(I do admit, however, that there is also the added hurdle of the child being momentarily depicted as playful and care-free, and what with my perpetual state of cynicism and self-loathing ('Get off my lawn', etc.), my natural inclination is to read this precociousness as a disease that must be eradicated with a pitiless fury.)
 
And KitaSaturnyne, for me walls of text are always welcome, particularly when so well crafted and elegantly considered. I like your means of putting these visions in the context of a form of seismic psychosomatic shock, with the forest as a kind of wild, lost space, in which Shepard hunts for definition and order. 
 
Your analysis actually reminded of a children's psychologist and literary analyst, Bruno Beetelheim (what a name!), who did a number of critical interpretations of fairy tales and fables in a book called The Uses of Enchantment. In the book, recurring motifs – wolves, the colour red, Evil Stepmothers, etc. –  were interpreted as recurring literary manifestations of cultural and psychological paranoias. Forests in such tales were – much as you describe in Shepard's psyche – places of exile into emotional and social wilderness, a place abstracted from civilisation in which the hero must forge an entirely new path, evolving into a fuller, more capable state of being:
 

'Since ancient times the near impenetrable forest in which we get lost has symbolized the dark, hidden, near-impenetrable world of our unconscious. If we have lost the framework which gave structure to our past life and must now find our way to become ourselves, and have entered this wilderness with an as yet undeveloped personality, when we succeed in finding our way out we shall emerge with a much more highly developed humanity.’

(It should be stated that Beetelheim drew much of his interpretation from the remains of now patchwork-discredited Freudian dream analysis – and his sexualised reading of the Red Riding Hood tale might well warrant caution – but that's not to say that there isn't still great value in exploring his proposed tropes.)
 
I still cling to my entirely unjustified loathing of the child, but my goodness, you make a compelling argument... I'm being drawn in... Indoctrinated you might say. 

 
...Or you might well not.

Modifié par drayfish, 07 mai 2012 - 02:18 .

[Xellith]

jbauck wrote...

Personally, IT theory or no, I like the idea that the dreams represent Shepard losing it. Shepard and Joker have a nice little blow-up where the subject of just how much stress Shepard is under comes up - the dreams and the "losing it" interpretation dovetail nicely with my headcanon where Shepard's trying her best to just get things done, but she's starting to show some cracks. The fate of the whole galaxy is resting on her, after all.

I disagree.  This was MY story.  Everything shepard did was because I made him say and do it.  Shepard wasnt losing it.  I am my shepard.  Bioware simply tried to take control of my emotions and they failed spectacularly.  (Some renegades especially wouldnt care about saving the galaxy as a whole as long as they saved themselves.)

My shepard was not losing it.  The entire thing is so contrived and it stinks of poor writing.   Like after Thessia and my shepard was throwing a tantrum.  Im just sitting there saying to my screen "chill bro".  Why is my shepard acting like a baby when I never chose that particular action?  I thought this was about choice?  I thought I was directing my story?

ME3 Fails spectacularly in almost every department.

Modifié par Xellith, 07 mai 2012 - 02:25 .

[JadedLibertine]

I must admit to having a certain prejudice against dream sequences and would gladly send that dead-eyed scalliwag back where he belongs, a remake of The Village of the Damned set in some particularly unsettling corner of the Uncanny Valley.

Overall though the opening sequence on Earth was poor, when the shuttle with the kid on it blew up that was a quietly effective moment. Admittedly it was somewhat marred by Shepard's facial expression, that type of (ahem) "acting" would be considered hammy and overdone in silent movies. However the writers did not have the confidence to believe they had achieved the required emotional impact and refused to leave it there, forgetting that Mass Effect works best when the player is allowed to draw their own conclusions and feel their own emotions.  

My Shepard is a calculating battlefield pragmatist and hardened battle scarred warrior but she is human. Considering the scale of the task she's facing and the consequences if she fails, doubts and fears are perfectly understandable and acknowledging them is quite rational. I agree with Hawk227, this should have been shown through dialogue. Quiet and reflective moments where Shepard can admit to feeling scared and anxious about the pressure she's under, then her closest friends and comrades in arms can reassure that she's not facing this alone and no matter what they'll always have her back.

Modifié par JadedLibertine, 07 mai 2012 - 04:12 .

[delta_vee]

 @RollaWarden:

Absolutely. The Mass Effect trods creatively--though we certainly can't say originally--through the "meaning of synthetic life" idea. That one's as old as scifi; we can trace it through Shelley and say, 100 years or so later, through Capek. And a motif/theme/characterization wavering unsteadily on the foalish legs of a first effort (aka ME1) is no crime; writers work through their creative hiccups all the time when just out of the gates.

Absolutely. Although I think Karel Capek had a much more interesting and thorough examination of many of the same issues in War With The Newts, which unfortunately graces far too few syllabi, than in RUR.

I'm willing to grant ME1 the same latitude as you, and was greatly heartened when they skillfully avoided many of the easy answers with Legion in ME2. I'm still minorly peeved he was introduced so late in the game (given the cut dialogue found, he was originally accessible much earlier - he has voice files for the Migrant Fleet, for example). In that vein I was...disappointed...when they hewed back towards sci-fi tradition on Rannoch.

Instead, my increasing dissatisfaction of ZW's blog really began with the explanation of literary criticism.  The argument that any old idea, if a reader can "find it in the text," is therefore valid, IS IN FACT adding 2+2 and getting 5.  Cherry-picking bits from a text to support a premise creates a kind of Jenga criticism; one piece pulled out of the tower causes it to collapse.  There's also a thinly-veiled contempt for criticism, which we might trace to an experience in what ZW calls "Big Boy college" (I'm guessing he's male--enlightened women writers rarely employ King James chauvinism) at the root of his micro-rant.  Actually, criticism's a lot more complicated than that, and a good deal of it has some pretty important rules that move far beyond ZW's simplistic assessment.  "You can't refute my opinion 'cause my opinion's in the text" isn't criticism.  It's an arrested state of intellectual development, somewhere along Perry's Relativism scale--early in Stage II of cognitive growth.

I think I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and peg him at stage 4 ("late multiplicity"). Otherwise, entirely agreed.

edisnooM wrote...

With Legion it first started back in ME2 where at first glance he is all logic and fact, rather like Data from TNG, but then through talking we discover he's not acting entirely consistant with logic. He states that he used Shepards armour because "There was a hole" but when pressed further as to why he used it specifically he replies with a quiet "No data available". This would seem to be his first step along the path to understanding organics and what it means to "feel" for lack of a better word.

Then later when in the Consensus he mentions that the sniper rifle used by the Agricultural Unit in the flashback is "An efficient model", which indicates additional sentimentality. Sidenote: if that unit was Legion, he was the cliched farmer rising up to be a hero.  

He also states that hope sustains organics through times of difficulty and that the Geth "Admire the concept". And finally when he sacrifices himself with "I must go to them", he has finally become an individual and I certainly felt like I had something in my eye there. 

Similarly EDI follows a path from a shipborn Artificial Intelligence with a penchant for somewhat macabre jokes, to a walking and feeling individual. Through talking with her throughout ME3 we can see her grow, contemplate her mortality, begin a relationship, declare her humanity and her willingness to fight and die for it, and at the end express fear. All of which I found quite compelling as a narrative.

I'm not saying it wasn't well-done for what it was (well, except for the handwave of why Legion had to sacrifice himself to distribute the code, which seemed a touch contrived to me). But along with the Frankenstein Complex which RollaWarden has discussed earlier, there's another element common to most sci-fi treatments of the robot question, which I'll call the Pinocchio Complex for lack of a better term: an (often unstated) assumption that human thought patterns, human emotions, and human ideas of individuality are automatically superior, foundationally aspirational, and inevitably desirable. Robots want to be real boys (or girls, in EDI's case).

Bioware seems highly influenced by Embodiment Theory in their treatment, with Legion developing human-like qualities as a consequence of a long time confined to a single platform, and EDI moving from SHODAN to squaddie using Eva's captured body. This contrasts with what I thought was the most interesting part of the depiction of the geth (and to a lesser extent, EDI), with their distributed, nebulous, shifting model of consciousness, difficult to understand and accept.

Like I said, it's not as if I think it were poorly done so much as a missed opportunity and a retreat from more fertile ground.

RainbowDazed wrote...

I personally liked the original thought for ending and the original explanation for the reapers. I loved Greg Bear's novel Blood Music when I was a teen, and the origin story Karpyshyn had in mind for  the reapers reminded me of that - creating a single living organism that assimilites everything alive into one. Maybe because of comparing the original ending to Greg Bear's thoughts in Blood Music (=assimilating a race into a reaper does not mean the end of all but a change of all) I felt that what the reapers did could in some way be symphatized with. This of course is just my interpertation of what I thought the original plotline could include.

I don't know about you, but that concept in Blood Music scared the s**t out of me. I see that element of the Reapers adding to their horror, not eliciting sympathy.

And the idea of that horrific transformation being required to...sit there and compute? That makes so little sense that I'd almost rather the bunk Synthetic Protection Squad explanation.

Hawk227 wrote...

I didn't mind that Shepard was "losing it" a little. He's been the galaxy's only real hope for 3 years now, I would expect it to wear on him. But I didn't like the dreams as the means of showing it. It was all a little cheesy. Every time a dream started up, I kind of rolled my eyes and said "Not this again".

Rather, I thought it was better demonstrated through conversation. The little bit of doubt Shepard shows in his conversations with Hackett and Anderson. The way he tells his LI that they're the one keeping him going. The way he responds to the crew and the Asari councilor after Thessia. Especially that conversation with Joker after Thessia. I really liked that moment.

Xellith wrote...

I disagree.  This was MY story.  Everything shepard did was because I made him say and do it.  Shepard wasnt losing it.  I am my shepard.  Bioware simply tried to take control of my emotions and they failed spectacularly.  (Some renegades especially wouldnt care about saving the galaxy as a whole as long as they saved themselves.)

My shepard was not losing it.  The entire thing is so contrived and it stinks of poor writing.   Like after Thessia and my shepard was throwing a tantrum.  Im just sitting there saying to my screen "chill bro".  Why is my shepard acting like a baby when I never chose that particular action?  I thought this was about choice?  I thought I was directing my story?

For what it's worth, outside of the dream sequences I was fine with my Shepard expressing more emotion, but I fully understand how many players felt artifically tugged along. I think Bioware needed to give the option to express emotion, but reserve its tone and timing for the player to decide.

The dream sequences themselves, however, I feel were a disaster for immersion. I was yanked right out of the story, literally saying to my television "Really? You're doing this for a dream sequence? Didn't you guys play Arkham Asylum?"

[Edited for formatting.]

Modifié par delta_vee, 07 mai 2012 - 04:45 .

[Grotaiche]

drayfish wrote...

<snip>
aside from apparently being the only human child in the universe

Sorry for the snip but I want to add that not only is he the only human child in the universe but also the only child we see in the entire Mass Effect series. Except for the biotic students (who are teenagers anyway), I don't recall meeting any child in the entire Mass Effect series. Or maybe I missed something ?
Sorry for the digression, but I have just realized that and it feels... weird.