Aller au contenu

Photo

How Could They Violate Basic Writing/Plot Structure?


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
116 réponses à ce sujet

#101
SolidisusSnake1

SolidisusSnake1
  • Members
  • 890 messages

optimistickied wrote...

Dyorgarel Inkin wrote...

It is a new way to tell a story. The old one was getting lame.

It is a stroke of genius! Even though, it does not make any sense.


Go read Naked Lunch? House of Leaves? Gravity's Rainbow?

Anyway, I don't think that is what people are saying. I think people are responding to the argument that stories must adhere to certain rules. Being critical of the ending is cool and stuff, but justifying your criticism by becoming an amateur Harold Bloom is kind of weird.



Again you seem to not understand no one is saying that every video game must adhered to the same basic plot structure. Dear Esther is a perfect example of a real game that has a totally ambiguous and interpretive narrative struture, its even unclear just who the hell you are playing as the whole game and even at the end your unsure. The reason that game works is because it is set up that way from the start and follows its structure and theme throughout the game it doesnt suddenly change genres at the end. ME has ALWAYS followed the basic 3 act plot structure as well as the Heros Journey, to suddenly abandon this theme at the end and turn into 2001 A Space Odyssey is wrong.

If they wanted ME to be 2001 then it should have been that way from the start and no one would have complained about the end. But ME is not 2001 it is a grand epic Space Opera and thus must operate within the rule structure of that genre.

#102
UnstableMongoose

UnstableMongoose
  • Members
  • 680 messages

SolidisusSnake1 wrote...

Again you seem to not understand no one is saying that every video game must adhered to the same basic plot structure. Dear Esther is a perfect example of a real game that has a totally ambiguous and interpretive narrative struture, its even unclear just who the hell you are playing as the whole game and even at the end your unsure. The reason that game works is because it is set up that way from the start and follows its structure and theme throughout the game it doesnt suddenly change genres at the end. ME has ALWAYS followed the basic 3 act plot structure as well as the Heros Journey, to suddenly abandon this theme at the end and turn into 2001 A Space Odyssey is wrong.

If they wanted ME to be 2001 then it should have been that way from the start and no one would have complained about the end. But ME is not 2001 it is a grand epic Space Opera and thus must operate within the rule structure of that genre.


The character dying and coming back from the dead and working with a bitter enemy against a common foe is not the middle portion of grand epic space opera. You have misidentified Mass Effect as a series as following this general story structure--it does not match, and I frankly don't see how people's analysis puts Mass Effect into this pidgeonhole so quickly; it's not an impossible position to justify, but it is not an immediately obvious or well-fitting one.

Each Mass Effect game follows its own narrative structure as a condensed piece of the story, and the overall story structure follows the increased adversity and hopelessness of the Reaper stituation, but lacks the characteristics necessary to categorize it into a certain class of story over the whole trilogy--the "grand epic Space Opera" went away between ME1 and ME2. The trilogy was never planned to follow such an arc as a whole, though such an arc is used to tell the story of Mass Effect 1.

Modifié par UnstableMongoose, 17 avril 2012 - 05:02 .


#103
macrocarl

macrocarl
  • Members
  • 1 762 messages

SolidisusSnake1 wrote...

macrocarl wrote...

I'm being serious when I ask this: Is it really the 'plot structure' being messed with that bugs you so much or is it that you just don't like it?


The plot structure being messed up is what makes people not like it. As I said its like watching a light hearted comedy that suddenly turns into a grotesque horror film, its not what you signed up for so you arent going to like it.


That's fair but I *did* like it. A lot. I'm also happy to get more closure of what happened in the up coming DLC. Do you think you might like it more if the extended cut actually explains the shoft in plot structure? Narrative-wise, that's plausible, yeah?

#104
M0keys

M0keys
  • Members
  • 1 297 messages

UnstableMongoose wrote...

SolidisusSnake1 wrote...

Again you seem to not understand no one is saying that every video game must adhered to the same basic plot structure. Dear Esther is a perfect example of a real game that has a totally ambiguous and interpretive narrative struture, its even unclear just who the hell you are playing as the whole game and even at the end your unsure. The reason that game works is because it is set up that way from the start and follows its structure and theme throughout the game it doesnt suddenly change genres at the end. ME has ALWAYS followed the basic 3 act plot structure as well as the Heros Journey, to suddenly abandon this theme at the end and turn into 2001 A Space Odyssey is wrong.

If they wanted ME to be 2001 then it should have been that way from the start and no one would have complained about the end. But ME is not 2001 it is a grand epic Space Opera and thus must operate within the rule structure of that genre.


The character dying and coming back from the dead and working with a bitter enemy against a common foe is not the middle portion of grand epic space opera. You have misidentified Mass Effect as a series as following this general story structure--it does not match, and I frankly don't see how people's analysis puts Mass Effect into this pidgeonhole so quickly; it's not an impossible position to justify, but it is not an immediately obvious or well-fitting one.


Aaaaactually, the character dying and coming back from the dead as something new is a part of general story structure, and specifically is a stage of the Hero's Journey called Belly of the Whale where the hero is forced to basically "die" and re-emerge from the belly of a beast, or in this case Cerberus. He comes out of it, seemingly reborn, and with new purpose. This was what ME2 represented. It might also be an homage to the beginning of Empire Strikes Back where Luke is attacked by the beast (Wampa) and later emerges from the Wampa's cave with brand new scars and must be retooled by machines in order to survive. And believe me when I say that pretty much no one follows the Hero's Journey better than Star wArs.

The real sacrifice where the hero willingly dies and comes back to life to change the external world happens later (would've happened in ME3, but.. I'm not so sure that happens in any of the endings. There's no clear visual structure to show that process happening.)

Special thanks to Grub for getting me into this Hero's Journey stuff btw. Joe campbell FTW

Modifié par M0keys, 17 avril 2012 - 06:02 .


#105
SolidisusSnake1

SolidisusSnake1
  • Members
  • 890 messages

M0keys wrote...

UnstableMongoose wrote...

SolidisusSnake1 wrote...

Again you seem to not understand no one is saying that every video game must adhered to the same basic plot structure. Dear Esther is a perfect example of a real game that has a totally ambiguous and interpretive narrative struture, its even unclear just who the hell you are playing as the whole game and even at the end your unsure. The reason that game works is because it is set up that way from the start and follows its structure and theme throughout the game it doesnt suddenly change genres at the end. ME has ALWAYS followed the basic 3 act plot structure as well as the Heros Journey, to suddenly abandon this theme at the end and turn into 2001 A Space Odyssey is wrong.

If they wanted ME to be 2001 then it should have been that way from the start and no one would have complained about the end. But ME is not 2001 it is a grand epic Space Opera and thus must operate within the rule structure of that genre.


The character dying and coming back from the dead and working with a bitter enemy against a common foe is not the middle portion of grand epic space opera. You have misidentified Mass Effect as a series as following this general story structure--it does not match, and I frankly don't see how people's analysis puts Mass Effect into this pidgeonhole so quickly; it's not an impossible position to justify, but it is not an immediately obvious or well-fitting one.


Aaaaactually, the character dying and coming back from the dead as something new is a part of general story structure, and specifically is a stage of the Hero's Journey called Belly of the Whale where the hero is forced to basically "die" and re-emerge from the belly of a beast, or in this case Cerberus. He comes out of it, seemingly reborn, and with new purpose. This was what ME2 represented. It might also be an homage to the beginning of Empire Strikes Back where Luke is attacked by the beast (Wampa) and later emerges from the Wampa's cave with brand new scars and must be retooled by machines in order to survive. And believe me when I say that pretty much no one follows the Hero's Journey better than Star wArs.

The real sacrifice where the hero willingly dies and comes back to life to change the external world happens later (would've happened in ME3, but.. I'm not so sure that happens in any of the endings. There's no clear visual structure to show that process happening.)

Special thanks to Grub for getting me into this Hero's Journey stuff btw. Joe campbell FTW


Exactly, ME2 followed the same general plot structure as well as the Heros Arc it did not abandon it themes at the end and was true to a classic "Space Opera". ME2 is damn near identical to the Empire Strikes Back even the last shot of Shepard looking out at the Galaxy is a homage to the end of Empire.

#106
SolidisusSnake1

SolidisusSnake1
  • Members
  • 890 messages

macrocarl wrote...

SolidisusSnake1 wrote...

macrocarl wrote...

I'm being serious when I ask this: Is it really the 'plot structure' being messed with that bugs you so much or is it that you just don't like it?


The plot structure being messed up is what makes people not like it. As I said its like watching a light hearted comedy that suddenly turns into a grotesque horror film, its not what you signed up for so you arent going to like it.


That's fair but I *did* like it. A lot. I'm also happy to get more closure of what happened in the up coming DLC. Do you think you might like it more if the extended cut actually explains the shoft in plot structure? Narrative-wise, that's plausible, yeah?


No because as I stated before it is essentially changing the theme of ME and introducing a new conflict at the very end where their should be resolution. You can try all you might to explain it and it could even make sense but it wouldnt work. Like I said its like watching a comedy that turns into a horror film, sure they can explain it all they want but it wouldnt work. You signed up for a comedy not a horror film.

#107
Garlador

Garlador
  • Members
  • 1 008 messages
It's just broken, bad story writing.

And, sadly, it happened at the ending of the game, where the most impact was felt and the last impressions were made.

#108
aj2070

aj2070
  • Members
  • 1 458 messages
Do I really have to say it? Okay, "Artistic Integrity".

#109
UnstableMongoose

UnstableMongoose
  • Members
  • 680 messages

SolidisusSnake1 wrote...

M0keys wrote...

UnstableMongoose wrote...

SolidisusSnake1 wrote...

Again you seem to not understand no one is saying that every video game must adhered to the same basic plot structure. Dear Esther is a perfect example of a real game that has a totally ambiguous and interpretive narrative struture, its even unclear just who the hell you are playing as the whole game and even at the end your unsure. The reason that game works is because it is set up that way from the start and follows its structure and theme throughout the game it doesnt suddenly change genres at the end. ME has ALWAYS followed the basic 3 act plot structure as well as the Heros Journey, to suddenly abandon this theme at the end and turn into 2001 A Space Odyssey is wrong.

If they wanted ME to be 2001 then it should have been that way from the start and no one would have complained about the end. But ME is not 2001 it is a grand epic Space Opera and thus must operate within the rule structure of that genre.


The character dying and coming back from the dead and working with a bitter enemy against a common foe is not the middle portion of grand epic space opera. You have misidentified Mass Effect as a series as following this general story structure--it does not match, and I frankly don't see how people's analysis puts Mass Effect into this pidgeonhole so quickly; it's not an impossible position to justify, but it is not an immediately obvious or well-fitting one.


Aaaaactually, the character dying and coming back from the dead as something new is a part of general story structure, and specifically is a stage of the Hero's Journey called Belly of the Whale where the hero is forced to basically "die" and re-emerge from the belly of a beast, or in this case Cerberus. He comes out of it, seemingly reborn, and with new purpose. This was what ME2 represented. It might also be an homage to the beginning of Empire Strikes Back where Luke is attacked by the beast (Wampa) and later emerges from the Wampa's cave with brand new scars and must be retooled by machines in order to survive. And believe me when I say that pretty much no one follows the Hero's Journey better than Star wArs.

The real sacrifice where the hero willingly dies and comes back to life to change the external world happens later (would've happened in ME3, but.. I'm not so sure that happens in any of the endings. There's no clear visual structure to show that process happening.)

Special thanks to Grub for getting me into this Hero's Journey stuff btw. Joe campbell FTW


Exactly, ME2 followed the same general plot structure as well as the Heros Arc it did not abandon it themes at the end and was true to a classic "Space Opera". ME2 is damn near identical to the Empire Strikes Back even the last shot of Shepard looking out at the Galaxy is a homage to the end of Empire.


Mass Effect is not the Hero's Journey. The protagonist and his origins, as well as the exposition of the story, are all wrong. ME2 only matches Empire if you stretch hard enough that you start hearing squeaky noises. Yes, there is a shot of Shepard that is a reference to the end of Empire. So? The way the story worked is completely different. Shepard never met some wise old man to train him in the arts of war. We're not going to call Mass Effect 3 an Aliens ripoff because Joker said something about "nuke it from orbit."

I'm going to borrow from somebody else on this, but Mass Effect is not the hero's journey because Shepard is already almost as big of a hero as it gets when ME1 starts. If you try to pidgeonhole hero's journey elements into Mass Effect, then the story arc of Mass Effect is a hero becoming a bigger hero, which is stupid.

#110
SolidisusSnake1

SolidisusSnake1
  • Members
  • 890 messages

UnstableMongoose wrote...
Mass Effect is not the Hero's Journey. The protagonist and his origins, as well as the exposition of the story, are all wrong. ME2 only matches Empire if you stretch hard enough that you start hearing squeaky noises. Yes, there is a shot of Shepard that is a reference to the end of Empire. So? The way the story worked is completely different. Shepard never met some wise old man to train him in the arts of war. We're not going to call Mass Effect 3 an Aliens ripoff because Joker said something about "nuke it from orbit."

I'm going to borrow from somebody else on this, but Mass Effect is not the hero's journey because Shepard is already almost as big of a hero as it gets when ME1 starts. If you try to pidgeonhole hero's journey elements into Mass Effect, then the story arc of Mass Effect is a hero becoming a bigger hero, which is stupid.


Mass Effect is and has always been the Heros Journey, I suggest you read this article:
http://jmstevenson.w...-mass-effect-3/

But to sum it short here is a brief summary of every ME game and how it follows the Joruney until the end of mE3:

1. Ordinary World - 
Mass Effect 1: Aboard the Normandy, briefing with Anderson
Mass Effect 2: Aboard the Normandy
Mass Effect 3: Earth
2. Call to Adventure
Mass Effect 1: Eden Prime mission, finding the Prothean Beacon
Mass Effect 2: Shepard’s Death/Rebirth, Cerberus station attack
Mass Effect 3: Reaper Attack on Earth
3. Refusing the Call
Mass Effect 1: The ending of the first Citadel Council meeting
Mass Effect 2: Shepard’s reluctance to work with Cerberus
Mass Effect 3: Shepard’s reluctance to leave Earth behind
4. Meeting the Mentor
Mass Effect 1: Meeting Anderson, and his giving you the leads to find evidence against Saren
Mass Effect 2: Meeting the Illusive Man, given mission to Freedom’s Progress
Mass Effect 3: Meeting Hackett, ordering you to Mars and to find allies
5. Crossing the Threshold
Mass Effect 1: Shepard becoming a Spectre, given command of the Normandy
Mass Effect 2: Mission to Freedom’s Progress
Mass Effect 3: Mars Mission
6. Tests, Allies, Enemies
Mass Effect 1: Missions to Noveria, Feros and find Liara T’Soni
Mass Effect 2: Dossier Missions
Mass Effect 3: Missions to Palaven, Tuchanka, Sur’Kesh
7. Approach
Mass Effect 1: Landing on Virmire
Mass Effect 2: Collector Ship
Mass Effect 3: Landing on Thessia
8. Ordeal, Death and Rebirth
Mass Effect 1: Attacking Saren’s Base, Sacrificing Kaidan/Ashley, Meeting Sovereign
Mass Effect 2: Attacking the Collectors, finding out Prothean’s fate
Mass Effect 3: Reaching Temple on Thessia, watching Thessia’s destruction
9. Seizing the Sword
Mass Effect 1: Illos mission, meeting the Prothean VI
Mass Effect 2: Reaper IFF mission
Mass Effect 3: Cerberus Base
10.  The Road Back
Mass Effect 1: The race to the Conduit
Mass Effect 2: Through the Omega 4 Relay
Mass Effect 3: Return to Earth, Sword Fleet Engagement
11. Resurrection
Mass Effect 1: Returning to the Citadel, Final battle with Saren/Sovereign
Mass Effect 2: Suicide Mission, Human Reaper fight
Mass Effect 3: Battle of London – Charge for the Beam, final Illusive Man confrontation
12. Return with the Elixir
Mass Effect 1: Foreknowledge of the Reaper Invasion
Mass Effect 2: Experienced Team and resources to fight Reapers, Collector Base if kept
Mass Effect 3: ????

You were saying?

Modifié par SolidisusSnake1, 17 avril 2012 - 08:37 .


#111
UnstableMongoose

UnstableMongoose
  • Members
  • 680 messages
@Solidus

They've listed twelve points. Sometimes, they have the arc progressing over the course of the three games. Other times, they have it repeating. In order for the hero's journey to progress across all three games, there would have to either be one or the other for all the points. If you try to single out any particular game or only allowed to look at the series as a hole using what you have posted here, there is no hero's journey. In essence, the author's argument here is self-defeating. The full hero's arc does not progress over the course of all three games and the chart more or less proves this for me.

That being said, I will go on to contest several of these specific examples, the linchpins that combined separate the Hero's Journey from other narrative forms that have some of the same elements:

1. Ordinary World is right out as a concept: Shepard is a highly-trained elite operative in one of the four most deadly military units in the entire galaxy; arguably, considering Shepard's defeat of matriarch Benezia and her commandos early on in his career, it seems likely that the N7 program could be considered the galaxy's most deadly military outfit. You start the game aboard a state-of-the-art stealth ship that is so crazily top-secret that the Admiral whose fleet was supposed to receive it has never even seen the craft. Yeah, sure, you happen to land on Eden Prime, which is a normal farming community; but you're a Space Marine, and not just a normal, everyday Space Marine either. This isn't even mentioning that fact that you don't see this "ordinary world" until after it's been invaded by crazed robots. You never see the "ordinary world" aspect of it at all. The protagonist and setting are all wrong. There is no possible backstory for Shepard that includes ordinary world concepts.

4. Just because these people gave you orders doesn't mean they really ever "mentored" you. It is implied that Anderson could be sort of a mentor-like figure to Shepard in the backstory, but the fact that Shepard has no wise and powerful mentor during the story arc itself makes this unwieldy. Not to mention that Shepard has the ability to completely reject the authority of any or all of these people. TIM and Hackett do not play a mentor's role to Shepard in a true sense anyway, even if you are completely cooperative with them. In a sense, it is quite possible that no mentoring happens across any of the three games.

8. The transition from working with the Alliance to Cerberus at the same time as the "rebirth" element happens should be seen as a cue that the hero's journey is not Mass Effect -- after his rebirth, the hero is supposed to be pure and upstanding, having gone through many trials and tribulations. After Shepard's rebirth, the moral choices that you make and the allies you have are much more morally grey. As Shepard consecutively follows this supposed cycle of going through adversity and coming out squeaky clean on the other side, he simply becomes less morally pure and lives in a less pure world. Also, I feel that I should mention that rebirth and resurrection happen way too early in ME2 for it to be considered a story following the hero's journey. I feel the author here also realized this and intentionally grabbed weaker elements than Shepard's literal resurrection to discuss.

9. Seizing the sword -- for any of these to be the mystic weapon is pretty much a stretch. The Prothean VI is more of a matter of revealing a secret. You could make cases for the Collector Base and Crucible being swords, but it's really odd that the Crucible was left off this chart, and the Prothean VI is right out. Furthermore, the Collector Base and Crucible are never really characterized as weapons attained by the hero. They fit significantly better with the elixir concept, as they are always attained for someone else and never directly used by Shepard. The Reaper IFF fits this description best, but it seems odd for the "sword" to basically be used as a trap that gets almost all of the heroe's allies captured a significant amount of time after the hero has returned with it. In ME1, which actually tends to follow the hero's journey, with a slight modification of the "ordinary world" start, the sword is much better defined as the Cipher.

12. This element is technically correct, but the way that it is used in Mass Effect is an indication that the hero's journey cycle is not being used. In ME1, Shepard returns with knowledge of the Reaper invasion, but does not return until an actual Reaper is ripping the CDF to shreds. In ME2, the morally correct decision is to blow the elixir sky high (counting the squadmates that may not survive as the elixir is a questionable concept). In ME3, the blogger has left a bunch of question marks to cast aspersions on the hero's quest being continued to the ending. If you were making an argument that hero's journey was being carried all throughout ME3, then the obvious thing to take as the elixir is the completed Crucible, brought back to Earth, which the writer claimed as the "normal world." Someone that took the time to do this missing that obvious element means that they probably left it off on purpose to make a cheap argumentative point about the ending of ME3 not following through with the last step of the hero's journey. So, this point 12 seems to be a cheap shot that is intentionally analyzed in a poor manner.

And all this is without getting into the lack of detail the blogger spent on the premise of making ME3 the hero's journey compared to how much detail was spent bashing the endings. This is a very serious indication that the writer is unsure I find it odd that the writer didn't realize how necessary a full establishment of Mass Effect as the hero's journey was for the rest of his points to actually stand. It's a rushed premise that more or less invalidates the rest of his analysis.

Modifié par UnstableMongoose, 17 avril 2012 - 09:39 .


#112
SolidisusSnake1

SolidisusSnake1
  • Members
  • 890 messages
@UnstableMongoose

It seems your disagreements over the use of the Heros Joruney is your lack of understanding of the terms, such as not understanding what the "Ordinary World" means or "The Mentor", so here is a description of each stage and you will see every ME game follows it:


1.       
THE ORDINARY WORLD.  The hero,
uneasy, uncomfortable or unaware, is introduced
sympathetically so the audience can identify with the
situation or dilemma.  The hero is shown against a
background of environment, heredity, and personal
history.  Some kind of polarity in the hero’s life is
pulling in different directions and causing stress.

ME1- The Normandy "just another routine mission"
ME2- The Normandy "just another routine mission" (Shepard state this again)
ME3- Earth
The Ordinary World may seem strange and new to you as the player but it is ordinary to the character.


2.       
THE CALL TO ADVENTURE. 
Something shakes up the situation, either from external
pressures or from something rising up from deep within,
so the hero must face the beginnings of change. 



3.       
REFUSAL OF THE CALL.  The hero
feels the fear of the unknown and tries to turn away
from the adventure, however briefly.  Alternately,
another character may express the uncertainty and danger
ahead.

4.       
MEETING WITH THE MENTOR.  The
hero comes across a seasoned traveler of the worlds who
gives him or her training, equipment, or advice that
will help on the journey.  Or the hero reaches within to
a source of courage and wisdom.

ME1 and actually the entire series- Anderson, BioWare has stated he is Shepards mentor so this cant be refuted.
ME2- TIM
ME3- Anderson again, with some Hackett
The mentor doesnt have to "mentor" them, he provides them with advice, knowledge, etc. even if it is later discovered to be to their detriment


5.       
CROSSING THE THRESHOLD.  At
the end of Act One, the hero commits to leaving the
Ordinary World and entering a new region or condition
with unfamiliar rules and values. 

6.       
TESTS, ALLIES AND ENEMIES. 
The hero is tested and sorts out allegiances in the
Special World.

7.       
APPROACH.  The hero and
newfound allies prepare for the major challenge in the
Special world.

8.       
THE ORDEAL.  Near the middle
of the story, the hero enters a central space in the
Special World and confronts death or faces his or her
greatest fear.  Out of the moment of death comes a new
life. 

ME1- Noveria
ME2- Attacking the Collector Ship, where we learn about the Collectors fate giving us new purpose. Mordin himself states that it makes him more committed now knowing the Protheans are "culturally dead".
ME3- Thessia


9.       
THE REWARD.  The hero takes
possession of the treasure won by facing death.  There
may be celebration, but there is also danger of losing
the treasure again.

ME1-Vigil and Learning about the Cipher, the reward does not have to be something physical it could simply be knowledge or a new found power the hero ahs always had such as The Force. The Cipher is the physical reward but it is Vigil who reveals its true purpose to us and the knowledge about the Reapers he is the true Rewards.
ME2- The Reaper IFF, just because it also caused the Collectors to find the Normandy does not mean it is not the reward.
ME3- Prothean VI, just like the Cipher the Crucible is not the true reward it is teh Catalyst (afterall we spend the whole game searching for it). The Prothean VI is the treasure everyone is after including Cerberus as it bestows upon them the knowledge of the Catalyst just like Vigil.


10.   
  THE ROAD BACK.  About
three-fourths of the way through the story, the hero is
driven to complete the adventure, leaving the Special
World to be sure the treasure is brought home.  Often a
chase scene signals the urgency and danger of the
mission.

ME1- Racing to the Conduit, chase scene
ME2- Going trhrough the Omega 4 relay. Your crew gets abducted and you follow. Chase scene
ME3- Going to Earth. Sword Fleet battle. Chase Scene.


11.   
 THE RESURRECTION.  At the
climax, the hero is severely tested once more on the
threshold of home.  He or she is purified by a last
sacrifice, another moment of death and rebirth, but on a
higher and more complete level.  By the hero’s action,
the polarities that were in conflict at the beginning
are finally resolved.

12.     
 RETURN WITH THE
ELIXIR.  The hero returns home or continues the journey,
bearing some element of the treasure that has the power
to transform the world as the hero has been transformed.

ME1- The knowledge of teh coming Reaper invasion
ME2- The Collector Base, there is not morally correct decision concerning the Collector base it is morally ambiguous. But what is more important is not the base itself but the knowledge learned from it "THEY ARE HARVESTING US!"
ME3- ??? At the point where Shepard is supposed to return with "The Elixir" and use his new found knowledge to better the world the story goes off the rails. Instead of Resolution and Denouement we are introduced to a new character, a new conflict, the "The Reward" suddenly changes, as well as "the Exlixir". It doesnt make sense and comes out of left field in a bad sort of way.
Oh and if you dont think each game follows the same pattern then why do you think every game starts off with Shepard being knocked out and in every game your "safe place" is attacked? (Citadel, Normandy, Citadel).

And if you dont believe the games follow the Heros Journey (which is pretty hard not to) then you can at least agree that each game adheres to the same 3 Act Plot Structure which is what this thread is about anyway. This thread isnt so much about The Heros Journey as it is the fact that it violates the basic three act structure that each game has followed. Hence why the end feels out of place, it foregoes resolution and instead introduces a new plot element right at the end for no reason.

Modifié par SolidisusSnake1, 18 avril 2012 - 12:03 .


#113
TJX2045

TJX2045
  • Members
  • 1 111 messages

SolidisusSnake1 wrote...

And if you dont believe the games follow the Heros Journey (which is pretty hard not to) then you cannot argue taht at least each game adheres to the same 3 Act Plot Structure which is what this htread is about not so much The Heros Journey. Hence why the end feels out of place it foregoes resolution with introducing a new plot element.

+1 Internets for your awesome post I just read through.

#114
SolidisusSnake1

SolidisusSnake1
  • Members
  • 890 messages

TJX2045 wrote...

SolidisusSnake1 wrote...

And if you dont believe the games follow the Heros Journey (which is pretty hard not to) then you cannot argue taht at least each game adheres to the same 3 Act Plot Structure which is what this htread is about not so much The Heros Journey. Hence why the end feels out of place it foregoes resolution with introducing a new plot element.

+1 Internets for your awesome post I just read through.


Man I was really tired when I wrote that so many typos and grammar errors. It's fixed now.

-_-

#115
krayt298

krayt298
  • Members
  • 129 messages

StElmo wrote...

this is why they will ultimately lose money. people don't like bad writing, this is why TDK raked it in and John Carter didn't



#116
UnstableMongoose

UnstableMongoose
  • Members
  • 680 messages
@Solidus again

I am aware that you can indeed take the elements of the hero's journey in such a context. My argument remains that the more liberties you take with the definition and implementation of these devices in the plotline, the less like the hero's journey it becomes. The sheer number of nonstandard ways in which these objects are used throughout the series (as I have mentioned, the themes of resurrection and rebirth do not result in the resolution of Shepard's problems or a purification of his character) means that stating flatly that all Mass Effect games follow the hero's journey and that any dissenting opinion is incorrect becomes a much less tenable statement. As you have eloquently stated, you can indeed make a case that Mass Effect follows the hero's journey. However, you have to continually stretch in order to make many of these characterizations a reality--not stretching so hard that it's unbelievable, just enough that its not a convenient fit. Shepard, as I have stated, doesn't really make a fantastic hero's journey type character, and some of the plot points that are required for the hero's journey to be complete can be subverted into a different form or flat-out avoided.based on the choices that you make.

#117
adembroski

adembroski
  • Members
  • 136 messages

Grimwick wrote...

It happened because they gave too much artistic license to idiots.


The people who did this, sadly, are NOT idiots. If they were, there'd be a lot more reason for it. They know waht they did, and that's the worst part of it.