5087 réponses à ce sujet

[KitaSaturnyne]

I think that's why Final Fantasy has been such a successful franchise. Some games have better stories than others, and they all, predictably, end with gigantic boss battles in the end, but it speaks volumes about how the gameplay needs to keep the same pace as the narrative itself in this medium.

[edisnooM]

Seijin8 wrote...

For me, the article highlighted the disproportionate degree of evolution and refinement between literature as an art form and video games as an art form. We have been mainly applying literature-based concepts to gaming, and that is probably the correct approach for a game with such heavy narrative elements as ME.

However, the link between player arousal states (no, not sexual... though not strictly *not* sexual either, I guess) and the story arc set off alarm bells for me. In hindsight, it is obvious that the player's level of excitement needs to match the story's pace, but I hadn't considered that linkage before.

I agree, and I liked his example of Bioshock. I enjoyed the game and the ending but I did find the final boss fight very unsatisfying, and I hadn't thought of it as being a disconnect between the narrative and the gameplay.

On the topic of unsatisyfing boss fights, don't fight Alduin at level 60. There are few things as depressing as defeating the World Eater in a few sword strikes.

Modifié par edisnooM, 11 mai 2012 - 08:00 .

[Seijin8]

edisnooM wrote...

On the topic of unsatisyfing boss fights, don't fight Alduin at level 60. There are few things as depressing as defeating the World Eater in a few sword strikes.

Too late.  Not sure what I needed the three heroes for, but whatever

EDIT:  Though in hindsight, Alduin's fly-overs as you walked through the mist really built the tension well.  At least for me.

Modifié par Seijin8, 11 mai 2012 - 08:06 .

[edisnooM]

Seijin8 wrote...

edisnooM wrote...

On the topic of unsatisyfing boss fights, don't fight Alduin at level 60. There are few things as depressing as defeating the World Eater in a few sword strikes.

Too late.  Not sure what I needed the three heroes for, but whatever

EDIT:  Though in hindsight, Alduin's fly-overs as you walked through the mist really built the tension well.  At least for me.

Oh absolutely. I tried attacking him to no avail, and I was certainly getting psyched up, but then in the battle proper my first sword strike and I was like: "Oh, you're at almost half health. Huh."

[Seijin8]

I'd been one-shotting things with my bow for so long that I was actually mildly peeved that it took three.

[edisnooM]

 Aw come on, these Daedric arrows are pricey.

Also the same guy who wrote that other article wrote another one yesterday: calitreview.com/25951, in which he tackles some of the "whys" around bad endings.

[Seijin8]

edisnooM wrote...

 Aw come on, these Daedric arrows are pricey.

Also the same guy who wrote that other article wrote another one yesterday: calitreview.com/25951, in which he tackles some of the "whys" around bad endings.

Used ebony if I recall correctly.

The thread I found the link in referred to that article, though I thought the one before it was more interesting for the purposes of this discussion.. I should have linked both, though.  Thanks for correcting that.

[edisnooM]

Seijin8 wrote...

edisnooM wrote...

 Aw come on, these Daedric arrows are pricey.

Also the same guy who wrote that other article wrote another one yesterday: calitreview.com/25951, in which he tackles some of the "whys" around bad endings.

Used ebony if I recall correctly.

The thread I found the link in referred to that article, though I thought the one before it was more interesting for the purposes of this discussion.. I should have linked both, though.  Thanks for correcting that.

Oh the other one was definitely more pertinent, but I'm a completionist. 

[NorDee65]

Grotaiche wrote...

NorDee65 wrote...

I don't know if I can answer that coherently, but I shall try as best I can.

The first time I finished ME2

You mean ME3, I am sure ;p

I felt massaccered, because the ending/s seemed totally removed from the rest of the game(s). It took me a long while to return to the game and I tried a second run (on a personal challenge to see exactly how many war assets I could gather, while still remaining true to "my" character, but that's another topic). As the endings of the first playthrough had me emotionally divorced from the game (well, not quite as I still had misty eyes on Tuchanka and Rannoch), I could look at the game and game mechanics and would notice things that were not adding up, the majority of those culminating in the last 15 minutes or so, but certainly not exclusively there. To me, the whole story and build-up if ME3 pretty much negated a lot of story-points of ME1 and to lesser degree of ME2. It created a sense that while ME1 and 2 were well thought out and produced games, ME3 seemed to have come from too many "parents" with totally different agendas.

If it had just been points in the story were alternatives could have been offered, it becomes a point of personal preference and is therefore subjective. But if so many plotholes, unanswered questions and contrivances come together in one game and especially in the last 15 minutes, criticism that is not just subjective (would that be "entitled whinery"?) is certainly valid.

Yes but had you been content with the ending, would you have payed the same attention to errors ? Strong emotional reactions will most of the time generate biases, especially in hindsight.
Just to be clear, I agree with you there are many issues with ME3's story and not only in the ending (my "favourite" being : what the **** happened to the Citadel ? So TIM can come up there with his squad, neutralize/kill everyone and move the Citadel to the Sol system ? Even though Cerberus has now diminished force and the Citadel is warned and prepared from the first coup a few days back ?). But I am not sure about most people's objectivity after huge emotional moments like deception.

Ah, different daytimes and all...

Whether I had been content with the ending would have depended on the ending . I very much doubt the EC will give me that. If they would have published ME3 with the EC in the first place, and supposing most plotholes etc. arising from that had never occured at all, still I would have been extremely unhappy. ME3 as it is or will be is a game completly divorced from ME1 and 2 concerning the main story arch. With "technological singularity" the Reapers come across as evil, creating the Mass Relay and the Citadel and everything else, just to return every 50.000 years to cull the technological advanced civilisations. Just because they can. Or are bored. Or whatever. (And no, I do not accept this flimsy theory "protecting organics from creating synthetics etc." as fact. Not. One. Moment!)

With "dark energy" everything makes more sense (at least to me...if I understand the original concept of the games). Every 50.000 years Dark Energy rises to dangerous levels and it needs a "valve" to not reach critical mass. So every 50.000 years the Reapers come, and release that valve, maybe simply by culling advanced civilisation (I don't know, we never got around to that part, yet). But they are also looking for a permanent solution, hence the creation of new Reapers. And it seems that humans could have been that solution (That was a bit sketchy, but..). This gives more depth to the Reapers. Their actions, while still reprehensible, become understandable. And imagine, if Shepard had never gone through the Omega 4 Relay, and the Collectors could have finished the human Reaper (at the price of human civilisation, of course), they could have achieved their goal and the rest of the Reapers could have stayed out in Dark Space. Forever. Humans no more, sad to state, but Quarians, Geth, Asari, Turians would never have known what they had missed.

As it stands, ME3 negates the main story arch of the previous games, while providing continuity to the secondary plotlines. But it would be better to call it ME Reloaded or some such, because it seems to be more of a stand alone game for newcomers, who probably will be content with EC, than the end of a great trilogy.

Modifié par NorDee65, 11 mai 2012 - 04:20 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

An interesting interview I came across that's pertinent.

http://www.ign.com/v...erous-precedent

Personally, I find Colin Moriarty (Not the proprietor of the saloon in Fallout 3) very ill-informed.

EDIT: Linkified.

Modifié par KitaSaturnyne, 11 mai 2012 - 07:26 .

[delta_vee]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

An interesting interview I came across that's pertinent.

[snipped link of doom]

Personally, I find Colin Moriarty (Not the proprietor of the saloon in Fallout 3) very ill-informed.

EDIT: Linkified.

Don't give that man any more hits. He's insufferable.

He also insists on fighting in hockey and thinks Game of Thrones has too many characters.

Modifié par delta_vee, 11 mai 2012 - 07:34 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

delta_vee wrote...

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

An interesting interview I came across that's pertinent.

[snipped link of doom]

Personally, I find Colin Moriarty (Not the proprietor of the saloon in Fallout 3) very ill-informed.

EDIT: Linkified.

Don't give that man any more hits. He's insufferable.

He also insists on fighting in hockey and thinks Game of Thrones has too many characters.

Hee hee. Link of doom.

Does he also think Aeris should have been resurrected?

[deliphicovenant42]

On my phone so forgive the crummy quote from Nordee65 above:
As it stands, ME3 negates the main story arch of the previous
games, while providing continuity to the secondary plotlines. But
it would be better to call it ME Reloaded or some such, because
it seems to be more of a stand alone game for newcomers, who
probably will be content with EC, than the end of a great trilogy.

I agree that the game disconnects from the prior two and alienates hard core fans more than newcomers, especially at the end. However, considering the extent to which the best parts of ME3 depend on emotional connections established in the prior games, i can't see it as a great for newcomers either. I'm reminded of an urban legend i heard a while back that captures how trying to please everyone ends up pleasing no one. The idea was that airline seats are so uncomfortable because they were designed for the average person...and since no one is actually average everyone is uncomfortable.

Modifié par deliphicovenant42, 11 mai 2012 - 07:49 .

[Hawk227]

NorDee65 wrote...

[snip]

With "dark energy" everything makes more sense (at least to me...if I understand the original concept of the games). Every 50.000 years Dark Energy rises to dangerous levels and it needs a "valve" to not reach critical mass. So every 50.000 years the Reapers come, and release that valve, maybe simply by culling advanced civilisation (I don't know, we never got around to that part, yet). But they are also looking for a permanent solution, hence the creation of new Reapers. And it seems that humans could have been that solution (That was a bit sketchy, but..). This gives more depth to the Reapers. Their actions, while still reprehensible, become understandable. And imagine, if Shepard had never gone through the Omega 4 Relay, and the Collectors could have finished the human Reaper (at the price of human civilisation, of course), they could have achieved their goal and the rest of the Reapers could have stayed out in Dark Space. Forever. Humans no more, sad to state, but Quarians, Geth, Asari, Turians would never have known what they had missed.

As it stands, ME3 negates the main story arch of the previous games, while providing continuity to the secondary plotlines. But it would be better to call it ME Reloaded or some such, because it seems to be more of a stand alone game for newcomers, who probably will be content with EC, than the end of a great trilogy.

That's kind of an interesting idea, by foiling the human proto-reaper, Shepard condemns the rest of the galaxy to Reaper attack. If only Harbinger had warned him.

Harbinger: "I am the Harbinger of Perfection. Keep Shepard's body if possible. Hope is irrelevant. This is true power. This hurts you."

Harbinger: "No, seriously, Shepard. We're just making one human Reaper to save the galaxy from dark energy. Then we'll go away. Won't you let us work in peace?  ...... This Hurts You!"

With that said, I never liked the Dark Energy explanation. How does making a Reaper stop dark energy? Are they like Dark Energy sponges? Does the liquification process run on dark energy?* How is a human reaper different than any other Reaper? Why would more "genetic diversity" mean that more dark energy is absorbed or negated or whatever? There's too much handwaving in this explanation for my tastes. I like the lovecraftian horror explanation, or the one made earlier (by TheMarshal? Sorry, it was Frypan) that they were a rogue AI that forcefully and torturously assimilated organic minds and Shepard could get the chance to sacrifice himself to free them from their enslavement.

Since I never bought into the Dark Energy plot (which I think had nothing to do with ME1, and was only hinted at in ME2) I didn't feel like ME3 deviated seriously from its predecessors. Playing ME1 I fully expected ME3 would involve a Reaper invasion and we'd have to unite the galaxy to ward it off. Consequently it played out similarly to how I expected. The Infamous Ten Minutes (as delta_vee calls them) were the only real exception. Of course, they were a BIG exception.

*Reaper Recipe: 1 part organic flesh, 1 part semiconductors, 2 parts dark energy. Stir until evenly mixed. Scale up as needed.

Modifié par Hawk227, 11 mai 2012 - 08:22 .

[edisnooM]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

An interesting interview I came across that's pertinent.

http://www.ign.com/v...erous-precedent

Personally, I find Colin Moriarty (Not the proprietor of the saloon in Fallout 3) very ill-informed.

EDIT: Linkified.

I have certainly lost respect for Colin Moriarty since the whole ME3 issue arose. I cannot believe he hasn't faced any sort of disciplinary action for his tirade at fans. He's an Editor for a large videogame news site but he acted in a completely unprofessional manner.

And his statements in this video are somewhat contradictory. He was satisfied with the ending, it put a smile on his face, but there were parts he was unhappy with? I would love for him to explain what exactly about the ending left him content. I also wonder how long they looked for someone who did support BioWares position.

Also on the topic of dangerous precedents I think he should read that California Literary Reveiw link posted by Seijin8.

Modifié par edisnooM, 11 mai 2012 - 08:23 .

[edisnooM]

Hawk227 wrote...

NorDee65 wrote...

[snip]

With "dark energy" everything makes more sense (at least to me...if I understand the original concept of the games). Every 50.000 years Dark Energy rises to dangerous levels and it needs a "valve" to not reach critical mass. So every 50.000 years the Reapers come, and release that valve, maybe simply by culling advanced civilisation (I don't know, we never got around to that part, yet). But they are also looking for a permanent solution, hence the creation of new Reapers. And it seems that humans could have been that solution (That was a bit sketchy, but..). This gives more depth to the Reapers. Their actions, while still reprehensible, become understandable. And imagine, if Shepard had never gone through the Omega 4 Relay, and the Collectors could have finished the human Reaper (at the price of human civilisation, of course), they could have achieved their goal and the rest of the Reapers could have stayed out in Dark Space. Forever. Humans no more, sad to state, but Quarians, Geth, Asari, Turians would never have known what they had missed.

As it stands, ME3 negates the main story arch of the previous games, while providing continuity to the secondary plotlines. But it would be better to call it ME Reloaded or some such, because it seems to be more of a stand alone game for newcomers, who probably will be content with EC, than the end of a great trilogy.

That's kind of an interesting idea, by foiling the human proto-reaper, Shepard condemns the rest of the galaxy to Reaper attack. If only Harbinger had warned him.

Harbinger: "I am the Harbinger of Perfection. Keep Shepard's body if possible. Hope is irrelevant. This is true power. This hurts you."

Harbinger: "No, seriously, Shepard. We're just making one human Reaper to save the galaxy from dark energy. Then we'll go away. Won't you let us work in peace?  ...... This Hurts You!"

With that said, I never liked the Dark Energy explanation. How does making a Reaper stop dark energy? Are they like Dark Energy sponges? Does the liquification process run on dark energy?* How is a human reaper different than any other Reaper? Why would more "genetic diversity" mean that more dark energy is absorbed or negated or whatever? There's too much handwaving in this explanation for my tastes. I like the lovecraftian horror explanation, or the one made earlier (by TheMarshal? Sorry, it was Frypan) that they were a rogue AI that forcefully and torturously assimilated organic minds and Shepard could get the chance to sacrifice himself to free them from their enslavement.

Since I never bought into the Dark Energy plot (which I think had nothing to do with ME1, and was only hinted at in ME2) I didn't feel like ME3 deviated seriously from its predecessors. Playing ME1 I fully expected ME3 would involve a Reaper invasion and we'd have to unite the galaxy to ward it off. Consequently it played out similarly to how I expected. The Infamous Ten Minutes (as delta_vee calls them) were the only real exception. Of course, they were a BIG exception.

*Reaper Recipe: 1 part organic flesh, 1 part semiconductors, 2 parts dark energy. Stir until evenly mixed. Scale up as needed.

I think the idea with the dark energy plot was that they were trying to come up with a solution to the excess dark energy, the Reapers were giant super-computers working on the problem, and I think humanity was somehow supposed to be the greatest chance at solving it.

Probably the Reapers saw too many episodes of MacGyver, and were like: "YES. THAT IS THE SPECIES WE NEED. THIS HURTS YOU."

Modifié par edisnooM, 11 mai 2012 - 08:34 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

edisnooM wrote...

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

An interesting interview I came across that's pertinent.

http://www.ign.com/v...erous-precedent

Personally, I find Colin Moriarty (Not the proprietor of the saloon in Fallout 3) very ill-informed.

EDIT: Linkified.

I have certainly lost respect for Colin Moriarty since the whole ME3 issue arose. I cannot believe he hasn't faced any sort of disciplinary action for his tirade at fans. He's an Editor for a large videogame news site but he acted in a completely unprofessional manner.

And his statements in this video are somewhat contradictory. He was satisfied with the ending, it put a smile on his face, but there were parts he was unhappy with? I would love for him to explain what exactly about the ending left him content. I also wonder how long they looked for someone who did support BioWares position.

Also on the topic of dangerous precedents I think he should read that California Literary Reveiw link posted by Seijin8.

Indeed, although it should be noted that the precedent for changing the ending to video game narratives reaches back farther than Fallout 3. Resident Evil: Code Veronica X precedes that by more than half a decade, and the "Gold" versions of many games (Thief, Tomb Raider, etc.) include endings that have been amended, as well as scenes added to other parts of their respective narratives.

Also of note are the many examples cited here about stories across different media such as novels and movies, now considered classics, that had to go back and amend parts of their narrative, sometimes even after being released for public consumption.

[andysdead]

Ugh, 78 pages I haven't read....

I'll just say that I appreciate the well thought-out critique of the ending of Mass Effect 3, I have encountered this same argument elsewhere, and it gives me pause.

I am personally inclined to suggest that the synthesis ending is actually constructed a lot better than most believe. It leaves us with a sort of posthumanist perspective. I do agree, however, that there have been inconsistencies in the logic leading up to these decisions and the whole "You die no matter what" thing bothers me. I would argue that the synthesis ending is the natural culmination of technology up until that point but it was poorly executed and the writers failed to account for the fact that "synthesis" or the transition into the posthuman was already occurring in the Mass Effect universe prior to the ending of the game. Why have some crazy machine go and suddenly change the universe if the universe is changing by itself? The ending is, in that sense, abrupt and harmful to the story thus far.

Perhaps a better solution might be to have the Catalyst act in a similar way to the Geth rewrite virus: it could transmit a signal to the Reapers that causes them to reconsider the logic behind their perceived notion that this cycle must continue. The Catalyst says it in the game, that the "solution" no longer works. If it has become unnecessary, why not simply have the Reapers come to understand that and shut themselves down? The galaxy would be left in peace, Shepard can live to see his friends again, the technology of the galaxy remains, and the advanced races of the galaxy continue on the path to synthesis (on which they have already been set). Radical change does not occur overnight, and it is this plot device that forces the change to occur overnight that is causing so much distress.

Also, it seems like this solution would still allow for the Catalyst to be used to either destroy or control, but would make those options more clearly worse than the middle path. It would give players a reason to max out their score in order to get what would be the best ending.

[Hawk227]

edisnooM wrote...

I think the idea with the dark energy plot was that they were trying to come up with a solution to the excess dark energy, the Reapers were giant super-computers working on the problem, and I think humanity was somehow supposed to be the greatest chance at solving it.

Probably the Reapers saw too many episodes of MacGyver, and were like: "YES. THAT IS THE SPECIES WE NEED. THIS HURTS YOU."

Yes, but how? What is the mechanism for abating dark energy? Is the mechanism simply handwaving? That's where my objection lies. I can't make the connection between reapers, humans, and curing dark energy.

Also, the part where they try and redeem the irredeemable.

[edisnooM]

andysdead wrote...

Ugh, 78 pages I haven't read....

I'll just say that I appreciate the well thought-out critique of the ending of Mass Effect 3, I have encountered this same argument elsewhere, and it gives me pause.

I am personally inclined to suggest that the synthesis ending is actually constructed a lot better than most believe. It leaves us with a sort of posthumanist perspective. I do agree, however, that there have been inconsistencies in the logic leading up to these decisions and the whole "You die no matter what" thing bothers me. I would argue that the synthesis ending is the natural culmination of technology up until that point but it was poorly executed and the writers failed to account for the fact that "synthesis" or the transition into the posthuman was already occurring in the Mass Effect universe prior to the ending of the game. Why have some crazy machine go and suddenly change the universe if the universe is changing by itself? The ending is, in that sense, abrupt and harmful to the story thus far.

Perhaps a better solution might be to have the Catalyst act in a similar way to the Geth rewrite virus: it could transmit a signal to the Reapers that causes them to reconsider the logic behind their perceived notion that this cycle must continue. The Catalyst says it in the game, that the "solution" no longer works. If it has become unnecessary, why not simply have the Reapers come to understand that and shut themselves down? The galaxy would be left in peace, Shepard can live to see his friends again, the technology of the galaxy remains, and the advanced races of the galaxy continue on the path to synthesis (on which they have already been set). Radical change does not occur overnight, and it is this plot device that forces the change to occur overnight that is causing so much distress.

Also, it seems like this solution would still allow for the Catalyst to be used to either destroy or control, but would make those options more clearly worse than the middle path. It would give players a reason to max out their score in order to get what would be the best ending.

Yeah I got in at 36 pages and that was an uphill slog, 78 is a bit intense. 

And that is interesting idea about rewriting the Reapers.

From some of the things that Mike Gamble has said on twitter it seems that they did not perceive synthesis in the manner that it has been by many fans. Though I can't see how they could have missed some of the glaring ramifications that have been pointed out. Overall though I think the way they presented the solutions, and also how they failed to really explain how they really solved anything, was a bit odd.

There was also the fact that quiet a few people rejected that there was a problem to solve in the first place.

[delta_vee]

andysdead wrote...

Ugh, 78 pages I haven't read....

I would heartily recommend doing so. There's some fantastic stuff in here.

andysdead wrote...

I am personally inclined to suggest that the synthesis ending is actually constructed a lot better than most believe.

I'm personally inclined to believe that the synthesis ending was conceived a lot better than it was constructed. What I imagine was supposed to be much as you describe, a jumpstart of the process which was already underway, was conveyed with so little buildup and so very little explanation of the (incredibly important) details that it could be mistaken for at least a half-dozen mutually-exclusive visions of posthumanity.

[edisnooM]

Hawk227 wrote...

edisnooM wrote...

I think the idea with the dark energy plot was that they were trying to come up with a solution to the excess dark energy, the Reapers were giant super-computers working on the problem, and I think humanity was somehow supposed to be the greatest chance at solving it.

Probably the Reapers saw too many episodes of MacGyver, and were like: "YES. THAT IS THE SPECIES WE NEED. THIS HURTS YOU."

Yes, but how? What is the mechanism for abating dark energy? Is the mechanism simply handwaving? That's where my objection lies. I can't make the connection between reapers, humans, and curing dark energy.

Also, the part where they try and redeem the irredeemable.

Yeah, I have no idea how that was going to work. If they had continued with that plotline they probably would have come up with some sort of explanation, but as it stands I have no idea. Maybe humans had the power of "Imagination"?

[Seijin8]

Hawk227 wrote...

edisnooM wrote...

I think the idea with the dark energy plot was that they were trying to come up with a solution to the excess dark energy, the Reapers were giant super-computers working on the problem, and I think humanity was somehow supposed to be the greatest chance at solving it.

Probably the Reapers saw too many episodes of MacGyver, and were like: "YES. THAT IS THE SPECIES WE NEED. THIS HURTS YOU."

Yes, but how? What is the mechanism for abating dark energy? Is the mechanism simply handwaving? That's where my objection lies. I can't make the connection between reapers, humans, and curing dark energy.

Also, the part where they try and redeem the irredeemable.

Pretty much, you're going to end up with the Crucible either way, just in this version, its the thing that lets a new Reaper absorb dark energy, or whatever other contrivance would be needed.  Doesn't come close to solving the fundamental issue that no ending where the Reapers aren't destroyed is really acceptable.  "A trillion souls liquified over a million years?  Best of intentions, though, so we'll let it slide..."

[andysdead]

delta_vee wrote...

andysdead wrote...

Ugh, 78 pages I haven't read....

I would heartily recommend doing so. There's some fantastic stuff in here.

andysdead wrote...

I am personally inclined to suggest that the synthesis ending is actually constructed a lot better than most believe.

I'm personally inclined to believe that the synthesis ending was conceived a lot better than it was constructed. What I imagine was supposed to be much as you describe, a jumpstart of the process which was already underway, was conveyed with so little buildup and so very little explanation of the (incredibly important) details that it could be mistaken for at least a half-dozen mutually-exclusive visions of posthumanity.

I get this...

I think the only reason I've been able to figure out this posthumanist theme is probably because I've taken graduate-level classes in Science and Technology Studies.

It could be incredibly problematic for Bioware to rewrite the entire series so as to clarify this theme for the audience, however. Maybe something in the extended cut could work for that purpose.

[delta_vee]

andysdead wrote...

I think the only reason I've been able to figure out this posthumanist theme is probably because I've taken graduate-level classes in Science and Technology Studies.

It could be incredibly problematic for Bioware to rewrite the entire series so as to clarify this theme for the audience, however. Maybe something in the extended cut could work for that purpose.

Exactly that difficulty is why the particular execution of this theme seems so glaringly shoehorned in. It's certainly not that the theme is incomprehensible nor unworthy, but merely that it's ill-suited to be the capstone of this particular work.