5087 réponses à ce sujet

[KitaSaturnyne]

Seijin8 wrote...

@KitaSaturnyne: Honestly, if BW/EA took a page from CD Projekt and next year we got "Mass Effect 3 Enhanced Edition", I'd be tickled, but it isn't going to happen. I doubt any DLC will do more than add elements to the story. What I would love to see, and may actually be possible via the EC, would be that our war assets make an appearance, possibly even affect some Priority: Earth missions, and that each DLC after the EC adds an additional asset or two with functional cutscenes/appearances in missions to constantly (and residually) expand Priority: Earth.

Well, I'm just saying I'd like these giant plot holes addressed, even if it's just some throw-away dialogue. "The Reapers didn't hit the Citadel first because reasons", "the Quarians couldn't just sit tight and wait until the Geth left Rannoch because this", "Harbinger chickens out of a face-to-face with Shepard because X".

Not a requirement or a necessity for me to enjoy the game, but would help a great deal, at least for me.

[MrFob]

Oh, I am glad this topic got back on it's feet (or rather in its usual top shape). I may have slid into some rather sarcastic comments there myself so sorry for that.

As for the matter at hand, I think this kind of production mode has been Drew Karpyshyn's specialty. If you look at KotOR, it follows the exact same pattern. You have your four planets, each with their fairly individual story lines that really don't have that much to do with the main plot other than finding the star chart at the end (and maybe some companions that come along). Everything that is really important happens at the beginning, the end or in the interludes between the planets.
The same goes for ME1. The threads that bind the Novaria, Feros and Therum plotlines to the actual story are very thin. As for Virmire, yes there is a it more there but in the end it is also mostly contained in the encounter with Sovereign that does not have that much to do with the mission itself.
However, in KotOR as well as ME1, the main plotline was very coherent and concise if you will. Every bit of (the usually rather short) main plot was interesting enough to keep you invested and the "side plots" on the planets had just enough threads to it in order to remind us what it was all about without sacrificing their individuality.
Without any specific knowledge myself, I will speculate that most of the planet stories were probably also the "pet projects" of certain writers but somewhere in the middle sits Drew(?) and knits it all together.
That was lost in ME2 where we had more side plots and almost all of them were totally removed from the main story. Remember how everyone complained that we didn't really get to see the collectors for long stretches at a time? How the main plot missions feel too far apart and in between we kind of loose track of what we were actually doing? That is because the team failed to apply that coherence, these binding threads to the "side plots".
At the time, I thought it was great that BioWare broke out of their long established writing form and tried something new and I thought the loss of cohesion for the main plot-line was a beginners mistake that would be ironed out as they go along. Unfortunately I was wrong.
ME3, though it goes back to the old style (even making it more linear) does not manage that cohesion at all (not only during the ending but throughout the whole game). As CGGirl said, it feels like the crucible is awkwardly stacked on top of the plot somehow. This perception comes from the fact tat - fetch quests aside - they establish it's existence in the beginning and then leave it alone right up until they need it at the end. They clearly lack the person (who I believe was Drew) that can take every mission and despite the fact that it stands on its own give it that thin thread that ties it to the main events.

Of course it doesn't help that at the same time they seem to abandon a lot of the lore and introduce rather obvious logical mistakes.

EDIT: By the way, it just occurred to me that this might explain an odd (oh, that word ) phenomenon I was contemplating for a while considering ME2's DLC. Fact is, I loved ME2's DLCs. Overlord, LotSB, even Kasumi, I thought they were really good and added great flavor to the game and went down unexpected paths. The fact is that the ME writing team is good. They can write wonderful emotional stories with great, deep characters and magic moments. In the DLCs this works perfectly because by definition we have these confined little story arcs that they do so well and nobody has to worry about a big picture.

Modifié par MrFob, 17 mai 2012 - 07:26 .

[Seijin8]

@MrFob: Good observation, and it may well be true. Unfortunately, if yours and CCGirl's assessments are right, then the EC may not be salvagable at all.  If it is the same team bringing the same problems with them, then it could well be a mess.  I hope that Patrick Weeke's infamous (not)post was correct.

Modifié par Seijin8, 17 mai 2012 - 06:33 .

[Sable Phoenix]

Hack Walters... sorry, Mac Walters... deserves all the criticism he's getting in this thread, in my opinion. We've all been lamenting the quality, or lack thereof, demonstrated by the main plotlines in the second and third games. As far as I'm concerned, the strength of the central plot took a mortal blow with the Lazarus Project (I could start another thread just like this one which would disassemble that particular travesty on thematic and literary grounds) and never recovered. It was all downhill from there, ending with the irredeemable trainwreck of the Infamous Ten Minutes.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 17 mai 2012 - 07:26 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

Well, he certainly deserves better than "F Mac Walters". I'll reiterate my dislike of his work in ME3 for the sake of convenience. He manipulates his audience into reacting emotionally to his scenes without realizing that there needs to be a basic narrative logic and meaning behind the actions carried out in them. The scenes that most people point to as tear-jerking or emotional are most often Mordin's sacrifice on Tuchanka, Thane's death, or reclaiming Rannoch for the Quarians.

First, the emotional payoffs for these particular scenes were the result of two games worth of setup, and can't be attributed to anything set forth in ME3.

Second, the logic behind these scenes seems to be nothing more than to have them happen, and to add an element of emotional manipulation. While Mordin's redemption is great for his character, his death is unnecessary. This scene also doesn't address the logic that if the Shard is exploding, it would greatly limit its functionality as a cure vector, never mind why a Reaper would be guarding an atmospheric restoration facility. We already knew Thane was dying. We didn't need him shot like Old Yeller. And, as I've pointed out far too many times, the Quarians had but to wait a little while, and they could have reclaimed Rannoch without a single shot fired. And we've all weighed in on the Cerberus coup attempt.

It comes off to me that Mac Walters was trying to get us feeling all emotional, during these scenes and others, to get us to overlook the logical flaws, as well as the lack of any meaning, narrative or otherwise. Maybe I'm being too hard on him. I actually look forward to being proven wrong.

[edisnooM]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

Well, he certainly deserves better than "F Mac Walters". I'll reiterate my dislike of his work in ME3 for the sake of convenience. He manipulates his audience into reacting emotionally to his scenes without realizing that there needs to be a basic narrative logic and meaning behind the actions carried out in them. The scenes that most people point to as tear-jerking or emotional are most often Mordin's sacrifice on Tuchanka, Thane's death, or reclaiming Rannoch for the Quarians.

First, the emotional payoffs for these particular scenes were the result of two games worth of setup, and can't be attributed to anything set forth in ME3.

Second, the logic behind these scenes seems to be nothing more than to have them happen, and to add an element of emotional manipulation. While Mordin's redemption is great for his character, his death is unnecessary. This scene also doesn't address the logic that if the Shard is exploding, it would greatly limit its functionality as a cure vector, never mind why a Reaper would be guarding an atmospheric restoration facility. We already knew Thane was dying. We didn't need him shot like Old Yeller. And, as I've pointed out far too many times, the Quarians had but to wait a little while, and they could have reclaimed Rannoch without a single shot fired. And we've all weighed in on the Cerberus coup attempt.

It comes off to me that Mac Walters was trying to get us feeling all emotional, during these scenes and others, to get us to overlook the logical flaws, as well as the lack of any meaning, narrative or otherwise. Maybe I'm being too hard on him. I actually look forward to being proven wrong.

I agree that some of the narrative choices emotion wise do leave something to be desired. I have seen it mentioned (might have been here) that they had the Illusive Man "kicking puppies" as a way to make him more villainous, which could also be added to the emotional manipulation you mentioned.

On the topic of the Reaper on Tuchanka, I think they did mention it was poisoning the atmosphere, but how and what effect it was having wasn't clear, it was sort of an off hand comment. If it was utilizing the Shroud it apparently didn't hinder it's performance though.

Modifié par edisnooM, 17 mai 2012 - 08:14 .

[drayfish]

@ MrFob:
 
I liked your summation of the structure of the first two games. 

I agree, there was an elegance to the segmentation of the plot threads in Mass Effect 1 that I miss, and I liked the way those lengthier narrative waypoints nicely slotted into the larger arc, nudging us organically toward the ending. 
 
But I must admit, personally, I really enjoyed the structure of Mass Effect 2 and it's more chaotic, almost rambling style. I thought it was a nice counterpoint to that more ordered first game, more like the flipside of their world-building. Suddenly we're on the outskirts, scrounging for clues, trying to build up a Dirty Dozen and win them to your cause. You're right though, the narrative spine of the Collectors certainly suffered, but I liked getting grubby in more of the rich tapestry of this universe, scrounging around in the metaphorical back alleys and underbellies of the more pristine environs we saw in ME1.  Suddenly you're just living in this world, trying to survive.
 
I always thought of it like being on vacation. ME1 is the first few days when you visit the museums; see the government buildings; become staggered by the grandeur of the scenery; and nod respectfully when people recount the history of the place, pretending you care about why that statue is humming.  All very ordered and sensible and buying-souvenir-fridge-magnety. ME2 is when you cut loose: dig into the nightlife; hang out in creepy raves; risk poisoning by bartenders; get hunted by sexual predators while you try to sleep with just about everyone you meet; listen to the chain-smoking tour guide with the weird eyes say racist things about everyone. ...Wait – no, sorry. I'm thinking of Disney World. That was Walt Disney.*
 
For ME3 they obviously had to tap back into a more linear progression of the narrative – with the universe ending it certainly sets a ticking clock in motion that's hard to ignore – but I couldn't help but feel a little claustrophobic with how rigid the three acts of the narrative play out. No matter how each of us played, we all had to help in order the Turians, then the Krogans, then the Quarians, then the Asari, then go meet Huckleberry-Reaper. That lovely sense of being able to (relatively) forge your own individual path seemed a little stifled, and choked that original enchanting sense of exploration. 

And that's even before the Crucible reveals its purpose...
 
(I know that's probably not a fair statement to make considering the variation within those scenarios; but I do miss that sense of being able to guide the order in which events were sequenced, something the previous two game so nicely engendered, even if they were still somewhat confined.)
 
 
* Ha! Take that, man who has filled millions of children's lives with wonder! ...Oh. Suddenly I don't feel so good about myself.
 

Modifié par drayfish, 17 mai 2012 - 11:28 .

[Seijin8]

Great stuff as always, Doc.

On a separate note: I am increasingly troubled by the notion that we are suppsed to take the catalyst ("Huckleberry-Reaper" LOL) at his word.

He lies to us before he has ever spoken, by taking a form and using a voice that aren't his. But someone in the writing shop thought "yeah, that sounds genuine". Like hell.

[drayfish]

@ Seijin8:

Yes, I've never understood that either.

How is penetrating our subconscious, then projecting in front of our face a symbol of what is (supposed to be) an emblem of our failure and regret meant to stimulate us to believe anything that this dude says? Surely a cursory glance at that premise by the developers would have registered that most people, confronted with such psychological invasion, would call 'needlessly creepy' on that (at least), or more likely, 'full blown bull-crap'.

Modifié par drayfish, 17 mai 2012 - 11:56 .

[Seijin8]

Brought to you by the people that made HK-47 an utterly likable character... you know, the terminator bot that hated all things organic. Loved him.

Something between then and now changed. And it isn't a *small* something...

EDIT for great justice:  

Modifié par Seijin8, 17 mai 2012 - 12:17 .

[MrFob]

@drayfish

I did enjoy the structure of ME2 as well, despite the fact that the main plot lay barren for long stretches of the game.
While ME1 always felt like a great movie to me, ME2 turned that movie into a tv series. I could leisurely play one or two missions a night, go to bed with a sense of achievement and closure for these particular plot-lines and know that there was still more to come next time. It was wonderful and the second part of the trilogy was the perfect moment to do it. I was happy for them to try something new.
Yet, I think it would have gained if these smaller missions would have had some rather loose ties to the main plot. That was really the only thing I was missing.

ME3 however was supposed to be a movie again, and an epic one at that. It was supposed to go back to it's roots and surpass them. In my opinion the single plot-lines of Tuchanka and Rannoch and maybe even Thessia achieved this but the cohesion fell short.
I don't even mind the linearity that much. If they feel that they need it to tell their story in the way they imagine than fine, I am ok with it. However, in this case, since the different acts are so independent, yes, even isolated from one another the linearity doesn't even seem to be necessary.

In any event, as Seijin8 said, it all does not bode well for the EC and the fact that they are facing a structural problem rather then an isolated shortcoming at the end adds to the difficulties. Still, I hope they will succeed somehow. I do want to like Mass Effect again.

BTW, I want to have your kind of vacations (I'll just swing by on the fourth day).

Modifié par MrFob, 17 mai 2012 - 01:55 .

[delta_vee]

 

Sable Phoenix wrote...

As far as I'm concerned, the strength of the central plot took a mortal blow with the Lazarus Project (I could start another thread just like this one which would disassemble that particular travesty on thematic and literary grounds) and never recovered. It was all downhill from there, ending with the irredeemable trainwreck of the Infamous Ten Minutes.

Agreed, and I see the seeds of the ITM disaster in that ill-advised reset button. It was so...unnecessary. Working for Cerberus at all was unnecessary, even if they wanted to keep its fleshing-out intact.

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

Second, the logic behind these scenes seems to be nothing more than to have them happen, and to add an element of emotional manipulation.

This is my problem with so much of ME3. It's easier to overlook in situ, but only with the constant promise of a payoff at the end. Since we didn't get that, well...

While Mordin's redemption is great for his character, his death is unnecessary.

As a redemption arc, it's generally expected. I think it would work just fine if there were some logical connection between his action of curing the genophage as his subsequent death - say, if he were shot by an STG sniper for betraying the salarian government (it's been well-established the salarians play dirty pool, and that they hold surprisingly long grudges for short-lived people). But the Shard exploding doesn't have that link, you're quite right, and despite the fantastic dialogue and performances the scene suffers for it.

MrFob wrote...

While ME1 always felt like a great movie to me, ME2 turned that movie into a tv series. I could leisurely play one or two missions a night, go to bed with a sense of achievement and closure for these particular plot-lines and know that there was still more to come next time. It was wonderful and the second part of the trilogy was the perfect moment to do it. I was happy for them to try something new.
Yet, I think it would have gained if these smaller missions would have had some rather loose ties to the main plot. That was really the only thing I was missing.

I'll second the television comparison for ME2, and add that it seems to have some characteristics of a picaresque, as well. As to the prominence of the larger plot, well, I think that for such an episodic game, too much emphasis on the main plotline restricts things, requires too much urgency baked in, and delegitimizes the sense of exploring the margins, poking around in the corners, and otherwise concentrating on the characters and setting which Bioware does so much better than overarching world-shaking plotlines.

Modifié par delta_vee, 17 mai 2012 - 03:44 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Nyoka wrote...

I'm sure you guys have already discussed this, but I can't find it. I was watching Javik's recruitment on youtube and once on the Normandy, he snorts at Shepard telling her that she still expects to win this war with her honor intact. Then, he says his famous line about asking trillions of ghosts if honor matters.

So maybe the point is that the ending is supposed to be thematically revolting and that you're disgusted by the consequences of whatever you decide is exactly what's expected of you. I think this makes sense in the light of the extended cut. They've said they are providing closure and wrapping up, not changing the endings. In other words, the actual RGB decision and Shepard's submissive, obedient attitude stays in the game as it is because its purpose is to disgust you; the closure aspects (Normandy, fleets, love interest) are getting clarified because they aren't really part of the decision, so they were not supposed to provoke a bad reaction, and that only is what they're fixing.

The problem with this is that there are a large portion of people for whom there is a final decision that is not compeltely disgusting, which vindicates their worldview.

A renegade or a xenophobe of a certain stripe DOES escape with everything they percieved as honor in tact, alive, with absolutely no negative consequences whatsoever.

If the point was to make everyone loose something important, they failed. When a story gives only one type of character a satisfying ending, that implies that that kind of character was "right."

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 17 mai 2012 - 06:52 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

If the point was to make everyone loose something important, they failed. When a story gives only one type of character a satisfying ending, that implies that that kind of character was "right."

Which in effect makes all of the different Shepards we've all constructed over the course of the games invalid as far as the narrative goes. Playing the character in any way but this one "right" one becomes pointless.

[bc525]

It all seems to lead back to Synthesis, that the writers botched the Synthesis choice. They intended for Synthesis to be their “feel good” ending, in which there’s galactic peace and everyone is standing arm-in-arm looking up at the sky and their “new’ reality. Shepard sacrificed everything for the galaxy to live happily ever after. Heck, even the Reapers might be redeemed in that final hour as they quietly return to their mysterious place, their bizarre mission accomplished. And we hear a grand chorus of voices singing in exultations. The war is over and everyone came out for the better.

The voices fade and Stargazer does his sappy little bit with his grandson. Oh, we all feel so happy.

Control was meant to be a trap. That choice was indoctrination packaged in a pretty blue wrapper, and it tickled the player’s ego. Just as surely as TIM and Saren could fall for the Master of the Universe ploy, so could Shepard. I think I.T. gets this right about the Control option. You, dear player, have fallen for indoctrination. Have a nice day.

Destroy was meant to present the down and dirty route, for the renegade crowd. It was always the most obvious choice, but in order to make it less appealing, the writers gave it some serious collateral damage. They added some blood (or Geth oil?) to the mix and said, okay player, you want to destroy the Reapers go right ahead. But you’re going to make a real mess of things doing it.

Everything tilted towards Synthesis, but when Synthesis turned ugly on them suddenly the writers had sent a vast majority of players down a dead end. I don’t think the ending was designed to be entirely disgusting, it just turned out that way for many many players.

[delta_vee]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

A renegade or a xenophobe of a certain stripe DOES escape with everything they percieved as honor in tact, alive, with absolutely no negative consequences whatsoever.

The relays blow up in all endings. The number of synthetic-hating renegades who resent the continued existence of the relays is a much-smaller subset, I'd think.

Dammit, I hate the strain of technophobia implicit in that. Hate with the fury of a thousand suns.

If the point was to make everyone loose something important, they failed. When a story gives only one type of character a satisfying ending, that implies that that kind of character was "right."

I think bc525's got the right idea, in that Synthesis was supposed to be the palatable ending for the rest of us. Its failure to be such has already been discussed at length, of course, but I believe the intent was there.

[Hawk227]

drayfish wrote...

[reluctant snip]
 
'I was walking through  LONDON  when I found a  GIANT LAZER  that sent me to  SPACE . It was here that I met  CREEPY GHOST  who made me feel  EXISTENTIAL NIHILISTIC ANGST  until I  BLEW UP  the  UNIVERSE  and went home for more  DLC .'
 
[reluctant snip]
 
And like frypan, I too hope that Hawk227 is still with us. Hawk227 your insight has been invaluable (and I cannot tell you the number of your posts I have wanted to call out as I've read my way up to date). Indeed, the most frustrating part about being kept away from the interwebnets for the past few days is now being unable to speak to all of the fantastic discourse that has already passed me by. 

That's very nice of you and frypan to say. I saw the direction the thread was headed, knew I had been complicit, and needed to step aside momentarily. The rest was regrettable melodrama made in a fit of... grumpiness.

I was highly tempted to quote this entire post, because I was laughing throughout. I opted to leave the madlibs bit because I thought it was utterly brilliant. 

MrFob wrote...

Remember how everyone complained that we didn't really get to see the collectors for long stretches at a time? How the main plot missions feel too far apart and in between we kind of loose track of what we were actually doing? That is because the team failed to apply that coherence, these binding threads to the "side plots". At the time, I thought it was great that BioWare broke out of their long established writing form and tried something new and I thought the loss of cohesion for the main plot-line was a beginners mistake that would be ironed out as they go along. Unfortunately I was wrong.

For what it's worth, I really liked the way ME2 played out, for reasons drayfish mentioned already. The strength of the Collectors as a villain was in their mysteriousness. They lived behind an impassable relay, coming out only when needed, and retreating back again. If we had seen them more frequently, that intrigue would have been lost. Instead of tense battles on giant dreadnoughts it would have been "Oh look, more Blue Suns Collectors to kill."

From the moment you get back from Freedom's Progress, the endgame is going through the Omega-4 relay, but the story itself was exploration and team building, the Collector's were just the hook to keep us going.

I think the one failure was the timing of the Collector Ship mission. We had 4 plot missions and then Horizon. Then we had 4ish Plot missions and the Collector Ship. Then we had the rest of the game until we saw Collectors again. The 1/4 mark was dilineated by Horizon, and the 1/2 mark was delineated by the Collector Ship, but there was no 3/4 Collector mission. We could get both mid-game Collector missions inside of 10-15 hours, and then had 15+ hours of story until we saw them again. I think adding one additional Collector mission towards the end, or just spreading out the two missions better would have improved things.

bc525 wrote....

It all seems to lead back to Synthesis, that the writers botched the Synthesis choice. They intended for Synthesis to be their “feel good” ending, in which there’s galactic peace and everyone is standing arm-in-arm looking up at the sky and their “new’ reality. Shepard sacrificed everything for the galaxy to live happily ever after. Heck, even the Reapers might be redeemed in that final hour as they quietly return to their mysterious place, their bizarre mission accomplished. And we hear a grand chorus of voices singing in exultations. The war is over and everyone came out for the better.

I think it's really interesting that what may well have been their "feel good ending" was the one that people found most repellant. We've seen a lot of people say that they dismissed synthesis immediately. For so many, it was the worst ending, and it's not hard to see why. For many reasons, it reminds people of Saren, the Collectors, and the Reapers.

Catalyst - "The chain reaction will combine all synthetic and organic life into a new framework, a new DNA.....Synthesis is the final evolution of life"

Sovereign - "We are eternal. The pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything."

Saren - "I'm forging an alliance between us and the Reapers, between organics and machines, and in doing so, I will save more lives than have ever existed."

Saren - "The relationship is symbiotic. Organic and Machine intertwined. A union of flesh and steel. The strength of both, the weaknesses of neither. I am a vision of the future, Shepard. The evolution of all organic life. This is our destiny. Join Sovereign, and experience a true rebirth.

Mordin - "No glands, replaced by tech. No digestive system, replaced by tech. No soul, replaced by tech. Whatever they were, gone forever."

Now, it's been said that Mordin was talking about the subjugation of the Collectors by the Reapers, and not what synthesis actually is. But synthesis is being offered, and advocated for, by the self-professed creator of the Reapers. By making him the messenger (instead of say, EDI), it taints the entire process.

@edisnooM

Reaperduction. "Wrong" or not, I like it.

Modifié par Hawk227, 17 mai 2012 - 09:09 .

[delta_vee]

@Hawk227:

Good to have you back.

I think the one failure was the timing of the Collector Ship mission. We had 4 plot missions and then Horizon. Then we had 4ish Plot missions and the Collector Ship. Then we had the rest of the game until we saw Collectors again. The 1/4 mark was dilineated by Horizon, and the 1/2 mark was delineated by the Collector Ship, but there was no 3/4 Collector mission. We could get both mid-game Collector missions inside of 10-15 hours, and then had 15+ hours of story until we saw them again. I think adding one additional Collector mission towards the end, or just spreading out the two missions better would have improved things.

I think part of that timing problem is the derelict Reaper mission served as that 3/4 mark, very roughly - and that mission had its own timing problems related to the crew abduction (which, while it was kinda neat to control Joker and have a weaponless survival sequence, didn't really make much sense).

The other problem, I think, was how small and straightforward the Collector missions were. ME1's key plot missions were few, but they were intended to be introductory (Fisk, Therum), sprawling collections of side missions and closed-choice loops (Feros, Noveria), or long, involved decision matrices (Virmire). Ilos was the railroad, but it was also the endgame.

The old adage "villains act, heroes react" applies better to the large-scale plot, not the smaller pieces. Mass Effect is, I think, best when Shepard is acting, not reacting. It gives more time to explore, to consider, to ask questions (the heart of ME, really), when the plot isn't demanding your urgent attention (even if you actually can take as much time as you want). Almost by definition ME3 cannot adhere to that structure on the larger scale, even when it manages to do so within smaller mission groups (Tuchanka and Rannoch), as it begins with the Reapers landing. I've come to believe that fundamental design choice limited everything else in some fashion.

I think it's really interesting that what may well have been their "feel good ending" was the one that people found most repellant. We've seen a lot of people say that they dismissed synthesis immediately. For so many, it was the worst ending, and it's not hard to see why. For many reasons, it reminds people of Saren, the Collectors, and the Reapers. [...]

The earlier leaked script referred to the option as "becoming one with the Reapers". I have no idea what to make of that - or rather, I have no idea why they'd think we'd think that was a good choice.

As is stands, there are quite a number of people who liked the ending precisely because of the Synthesis option, and in choosing it brought with them whatever concepts of transhumanism they already subscribed to. I personally found the lack of definition and void of information to undercut the whole thing - but I've been over that earlier, so I won't repeat myself (much) here.

Modifié par delta_vee, 17 mai 2012 - 10:55 .

[drayfish]

@ MrFob:
 
That's a great analogy: ME1 as the movie, ME2 as the TV series. I love it. That speaks to everything I loved about each game. The grandiosity of the first; the episodic vignettes and the makeshift-family character-propelled vibe of the second. Perfect. Too bad the third did stumble in that attempt to reclaim a singular cohesion. I know I've made this analogy previously, but the more I think about it, I get the sense they really did try to tap into the structure of the ancient epics, and The Odyssey in particular. They went for the drive and singularity of purpose in a quest narrative (keeping the mild tangential quality of each encounter on the way to the conclusion), but then forgot that the ending must be intimately, thematically bound to all that has preceded it. Otherwise it feels like you've been jolted out of one journey and into someone else's entirely different tale.
 
 
@ bc525:
 
I like those summations of the three endings; they feel like they really hit the intent of those conclusions perfectly, while revealing why (at least for me) they also fail so absolutely. As you say, I really suspect that they fundamentally misjudged Synthesis on every level – thinking it a symbol of unity and equality while misreading the ghastly implications of its being inflicted upon everyone and metaphorically (if not biologically) obliterating diversity.
 
 
@ hawk227:
 
I'm glad to see that you are still with us. You were missed. I very much like your proposed breakdown of ME2. While I agree that the vagaries of the Collector's threat was more than enough to keep me going in that plot, having more evenly dispersed engagements with them would have certainly propelled that intrigue more successfully, binding the A story and B story more elegantly.
 
 
And @ edisnooM:
 
'Reaperduction'. Ha. I missed that on my first read through the thread. That's perfect. I will be stealing that and pretending that I'm smart enough to have thought it up from now on.

[drayfish]

delta_vee wrote...

The old adage "villains act, heroes react" applies better to the large-scale plot, not the smaller pieces. Mass Effect is, I think, best when Shepard is acting, not reacting. It gives more time to explore, to consider, to ask questions (the heart of ME, really), when the plot isn't demanding your urgent attention (even if you actually can take as much time as you want). Almost by definition ME3 cannot adhere to that structure on the larger scale, even when it manages to do so within smaller mission groups (Tuchanka and Rannoch), as it begins with the Reapers landing. I've come to believe that fundamental design choice limited everything else in some fashion.

Sorry, I have nothing to add, delta_vee. That just perfectly sums up everything I wish I had said.

Modifié par drayfish, 17 mai 2012 - 11:31 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

drayfish wrote...

@ MrFob:
 
That's a great analogy: ME1 as the movie, ME2 as the TV series. I love it. That speaks to everything I loved about each game. The grandiosity of the first; the episodic vignettes and the makeshift-family character-propelled vibe of the second. Perfect. Too bad the third did stumble in that attempt to reclaim a singular cohesion. I know I've made this analogy previously, but the more I think about it, I get the sense they really did try to tap into the structure of the ancient epics, and The Odyssey in particular. They went for the drive and singularity of purpose in a quest narrative (keeping the mild tangential quality of each encounter on the way to the conclusion), but then forgot that the ending must be intimately, thematically bound to all that has preceded it. Otherwise it feels like you've been jolted out of one journey and into someone else's entirely different tale.

I choose to also take this as validation for my Moby Dick/ 1984 reference.

Modifié par KitaSaturnyne, 17 mai 2012 - 11:52 .

[Hawk227]

delta_vee wrote...

I think part of that timing problem is the derelict Reaper mission served as that 3/4 mark, very roughly[.....]

[snip]

The old adage "villains act, heroes react" applies better to the large-scale plot, not the smaller pieces. Mass Effect is, I think, best when Shepard is acting, not reacting. It gives more time to explore, to consider, to ask questions (the heart of ME, really), when the plot isn't demanding your urgent attention (even if you actually can take as much time as you want). Almost by definition ME3 cannot adhere to that structure on the larger scale, even when it manages to do so within smaller mission groups (Tuchanka and Rannoch), as it begins with the Reapers landing. I've come to believe that fundamental design choice limited everything else in some fashion.

Ugh, the Derelict Reaper mission. I rather dislike that mission. It was kind of creepy to be inside a Reaper, but otherwise the mission was rather boring, I thought. Getting Legion is the only upside to the whole thing.

To the second point, I think that illustrates why ME2 was so successful (at least for me). Having the Collectors in the periphery really took that urgency out of the story. I really liked the main plot missions in ME1 and they way they were structured, but the side missions seemed oddly irrelevant and wasteful. I enjoyed dicking around in the Mako, pacifying biotic cults, and investigating random Asari Matriarch writings, but in the back of my brain I was thinking "shouldn't I be going to Noveria instead?"

ME2 didn't have that same problem. The Collector's were slowly taking out colonies, but even though you spend all this time solving Jacob's daddy issues and investigating mercenary shenanigans, you only hear about one colony attack after Horizon (Ferris Fields). It takes the urgency out of it, and leaves the player free to explore the wonderful universe.*

I agree that ME3 could not accomplish this by leading with the Reaper invasion, but I'm not sure if that's really a bad thing. One of the things that made ME3 successful (until the ITM) was that forward momentum, that urgency. There was this constant sense of "I need to unite the galaxy now, or there will be nothing left of Earth". It added the tension that played such a big role in papering over some of the... exeptionally odd... choices.

Not that you haven't already said as much, I just felt it was worth repeating.

* Totally unrelated, but I've always thought it would be cool to have GTA style sandbox game based in Omega or Illium, where the entire game was based within a really detailed version of that location. You could play as an up-and-comer in the Blue Suns or Eclipse, or even one of the squad-mates in Garrus/Archangels Omega gang.

As is stands, there are quite a number of people who liked the ending precisely because of the Synthesis option, and in choosing it brought with them whatever concepts of transhumanism they already subscribed to. I personally found the lack of definition and void of information to undercut the whole thing - but I've been over that earlier, so I won't repeat myself (much) here.

You've talked about the game rewarding completionism, and players who are not completionist are playing it wrong. I realize this is an unfair judgement, but that's kind of how I feel about people that liked synthesis. I feel like they're engaging with the text... wrong*. I feel like there's a disconnect between what the game is telling them, and what they're hearing. The only parts of the text that relate even remotely to synthesis within the game are effectively arguments against it (Saren, etc.). Since the exposition provided by the catalyst is so vague, you have to incorporate your own notions and prejudices**. You almost have to actively replace stuff that is in the text, with stuff that is not in the text. Consequently, a lot of people were picking Synthesis for reasons that were completely separate from anything within the ME universe. That just seems inappropriate, I guess.


* - Again, I realize this is rather prescriptive and inappropriately judgemental of me.
** - And you have to trust the Catalyst implicity!

[delta_vee]

 

drayfish wrote...

I know I've made this analogy previously, but the more I think about it, I get the sense they really did try to tap into the structure of the ancient epics, and The Odyssey in particular. They went for the drive and singularity of purpose in a quest narrative (keeping the mild tangential quality of each encounter on the way to the conclusion), but then forgot that the ending must be intimately, thematically bound to all that has preceded it.

If only they had done so fully.

I believe they tried to marry the quest narrative, with its digressions and tangents and self-direction of the protagonist, to a war story, with its urgency and desperation and orders given from above. In most quests, the antagonist is already securely in place, and the hero sets out to take them on, to reverse their victory (and this applies even to the more abstract antagonists you could name, frankly). The villain will be there tomorrow - there is no need to force a confrontation today if the hero is not yet ready. In a war story, on the other hand, the larger conflict constantly propels the protagonist, perpetually defines the tempo of the story largely outside the protagonist's control. These two structures rarely play nicely together - and Mass Effect (like most RPGs) is rooted quite fundamentally in the former, so any attempt to overlay the latter is fraught with difficulty. We are not playing a galaxy-level strategy game, after all; we are walking around and talking to people and shooting at man-sized shambling horrors.

This tension is shown in the dissociation of Crucible and armada mentioned earlier, as well as the absurdity of the eavesdropped fedex quests, and the difficulty the writers seemed to have encountered constructing meaningful side missions. The bounds of the war story limit the quest to the detriment of both. We have so little of the freedom we found in the previous games, and at the end this game orders us into the heart of the enemy (both literally and metaphorically) and presents us with a conclusion more suited to Heart of Darkness than Gilgamesh*. 

Perhaps we should not be so surprised.

* As for Moby Dick versus 1984, Kita, I think the former possessed an air of inevitable tragedy which ME did not, and which 1984 would expound upon instead of replacing wholesale.

[drayfish]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

I choose to also take this as validation for my Moby Dick / 1984 reference.

Indeed, KitaSaturnyne; sadly yet another product of me being dislocated from the thread for too long.

And I'll see edisnooM's thought-police arresting Ahab and raise a:

'Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee. Sink all coffins and all hearses to one common pool! and since neither can be mine, let me then tow to pieces, while still chasing thee, though tied to thee, thou damned whale! Freedom is slavery! Ignorance is strength! Thus I give up the spear!'

...Aaaaand scene.

Modifié par drayfish, 18 mai 2012 - 12:28 .