858 réponses à ce sujet

[Kreid]

KingNothing125 wrote...

Interesting perspective, though I have to throw sections 3.7, 3.15 and 4.0 right out because they're just bad.

I was unfamiliar with these Type 0/I/II/III civilization categories, but a problem pops up early on and remains unexplained throughout their analysis.

How does a series of Type I civilizations create Type III technology?

Well, it's more like tons of type 1 civilizations through over a billion years put their best efforts in something that in the end turned to be a device in par of what a type3 civilization might create in scope (affects all the Galaxy)

I think the writer makes some assumptions and the article has a few weak spots but the first paragraphs are very important for anyone who wants to really know about the implicaions of the ME plot and any hard sci-fi plot in general, it should ring a few bells here and there, I just wonder why BioWare themselves assumed most people are familiar with astrobiology, tech singularity and this branch of scientific divulgation in general, they should have explained it better even if it was just codex entries.

Modifié par Creid-X, 19 avril 2012 - 10:14 .

[inko1nsiderate]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

AcesRedd wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

 If you hated/disliked/didn't understand/were let down by the ending, read this editorial.

http://galacticpillo...ffect-3-ending/

It really might make you look differently at not just the ending but the whole of ME3.  If you want to love the conclusion to the series but just can't, please give this a read.  It's long but worth it.  

The length of this article vs. the length of the craptacular ending reinforces the amount of fail in the ending.
I wish there was a mathematician/scientist guy that could lay out the formula for me, but I'll try my best to explain.

article + ending = more fail than article and ending put together

wait wait

article + ending < (article + ending) ?

damn I think what we need is a physicist in here? 

Instead of wasting time in endless threads about the same subjects, why not waste time reading something that's actually incredibly well thought out and could possibly make you look at the ending is a slightly positive way?  

Do you guys just WANT to hate everything Mass Effect now?

Just give it a chance.

Physicist here.  Mass Effect fields as described make no sense.  Reducing mass does not let you cheat Einstein, furthermore it has disturbing consequences for Quantum Field Theory (are we reducing the low energy mass, eg the mass we put into our theories before renormalization, or are we reducing the bare mass?  Either way, what does that actually mean?).  

Oh sorry, I am guessing you didn't want me to just spew random opinions about Mass Effect and how 'scientific' it really is...

The point is that if you have been well versed in sci-fi there is a chance many of the ideas and concepts in the article are familiar to you.  That doesn't mean the ending worked for you, but I am guessing it improves your chances of liking it. Afterall stories often draw elements from similar/recent/old stories in the same genre.  And that isn't always a bad thing.  If you weren't aware of these ideas before hand, it certainly can't hurt to read about them.  Being able to interpret a body of work after being familiar with other, similar, works can lead to a different perspective on a story.  And certainly gaining understanding on where the writers may have gone might make you understand where they went wrong better, and in the very least that will make your criticism more on point and actionable for the writers.

There was that tasteful nerdrage video that talked about how so many questions popped up in the end for him that the ending's narative cohession died.  The breaking of narative cohession has some level of subjectivity.  Some people might have felt dying and being brought back at the beginning of ME2 broke narative cohession (though I admit I had a hard time with this turn of events, I find it more plausible than Mass Effect fields).  

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 19 avril 2012 - 10:16 .

[Myrmedus]

Nobrandminda wrote...

The article seems to forget that Mass Effect is a work of fiction.  Real world concepts only apply if they are supported by the narrative.  

The only "rules" that apply to a fictional universe are the ones that are established in the narrative.  This is especially true in a science fiction or fantasy story where the laws of the real world may not apply.  Our idea of what is "normal" in this universe is shaped by the narrative.  

For example, if the main character of your series has an artificial lifeform as a crew member, and peacefully ends a war between a synthetic race and an organic race, that tells the audience that organic life and synthetic life can peacefully coexist.  That is the "rule" for the fictional universe.  As far as the audience is concerned, EDI and the Geth are typical examples of synthetic life because that is what the narrative tells them.

The audence will be confused, and rightfully so, when they are later told that "the created will always rebel against the creators."  In other words, synthetic life will inevitably destroy organic life if it is allowed to.  While there may be a real world concept to support this notion, the narrative argues against it.  

That's the problem with the ending.  It isn't consistant with the rest of the story, and the fact that it's consistant with real life speculative science doesn't matter.

Brilliant post.

This is the entire point: Mass Effect is a fictional narrative not a science paper. Just like science, there are certain rules or laws that you have to adhere to when constructing or ending a narrative: one of those laws is continuity.

The case of EDI and peace with the Geth is completely discontiguous with what the Catalyst tells you within the narrative. It requires considerable speculation and extrapolation for both to exist within the same universe, which is a tell-tale sign of poor narrative construction: you should not need to speculate or extrapolate for consistency, it should be plain as the eye can see.

I think your article is arguing down a completely different avenue of debate than the reasoning behind most people's dislike of the ending. It is a story first and foremost; things like sound science are a bonus not a substitution for constructing the narrative badly.

[Firesaber82]

Just like to post and say, altho the narrative is still a failure if the majority of the audience 'doesn't get it'. This article tho long (I actually did read the whole thing), was refreshing and does make me feel a little bit more positive about it all.

Really, the ending could and would have made more sense if the Earth bits (both prologue and ending chapter) didn't feel so 'rushed'. Actually the entire game feels rushed unfortunately   (auto dialogues and all that)

Modifié par Firesaber82, 19 avril 2012 - 10:24 .

[zarnk567]

Firesaber82 wrote...

Just like to post and say, altho the narrative is still a failure if the majority of the audience 'doesn't get it'. This article tho long (I actually did read the whole thing), was refreshing and does make me feel a little bit more positive about it all.

Really, the ending could and would have made more sense if the Earth bits (both prologue and ending chapter) didn't feel so 'rushed'. Actually the entire game feels rushed unfortunately

Once you hit thessia you can really feel the game being rushed, but thats just me.

Modifié par zarnk567, 19 avril 2012 - 10:24 .

[RockSW]

challenge denied

[Firesaber82]

zarnk567 wrote...

Firesaber82 wrote...

Just like to post and say, altho the narrative is still a failure if the majority of the audience 'doesn't get it'. This article tho long (I actually did read the whole thing), was refreshing and does make me feel a little bit more positive about it all.

Really, the ending could and would have made more sense if the Earth bits (both prologue and ending chapter) didn't feel so 'rushed'. Actually the entire game feels rushed unfortunately

Once you hit thessia you can really feel the game being rushed, but thats just me.

No, I totally agree.  It feels like alot of work went into Tuchunka and Rannoch for instance, and I'd bet those were worked on/finished first.  It kinda just all unravels from Thessia to the end. 

EDIT : Also, the prologue on Earth needed more 'this is how Earth is so you know what you're fighting for" and then we needed to revisit the same locations retaking Earth to see the devestation.

Modifié par Firesaber82, 19 avril 2012 - 10:28 .

[Zix13]

My take on the article:

Zix13 wrote...

fle6isnow wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

I have yet to see any of these that have even a semi-valid argument, could you shorten the list to the ones that aren't stupid or "I liked it, how dare you not like it" to save me the time of trying to find one?

The problem is, if you don't like the endings, NOTHING we can say will ever convince you. But to be in good faith, start with this one, and work your way through the other ones.

galacticpillow.com/2012/04/02/editorial-the-reapers-advocate-a-different-take-on-the-mass-effect-3-ending

Seems to me the premise of his argument concerning the inevitability of synthetic conflict is entirely speculation. Theoretical scientific estimations for an event with a sample size of zero. He has a semi-valid argument built upon that, but even with the questionable premise, his argument only adresses the whole synthetics will wipe out everyone logic, which the Geth have shown is not necessarily the case( Source material is definately a better premise). I realize he mentions this later, saying "The catalyst doesn't deny this, he denies the possibility of lasting peace" However, this is invalid since the starchild makes no mention of the geth conflict whatsoever, and thusly we have no idea what his opinion might be.

He addresses the rest of the problems with "suspend your disbelief" or "you are wrong because I know more about indoctrination that the game provides". He also doesn't address the inconsistancies with other games or the complete transistion to symbolic narrative from literal narrative and the myriad of other glaring fundamental problems with the narrative. Several of his points I can agree with however. The "killing organics so synthetics don't kill organics argument" almost makes sense, in a somewhat, fatalistic, futile way. Simply because not killing organics would allow created synthetics to advance to a point where the reapers would be unable to combat them.

Furthermore, baseless claims like:

Many have complained that in the end, the Crucible simply has no purpose. This is not correct. The Crucible forces the Catalyst to surrender, and it opens the renegade and synthesis options to Shepard.

are hardly compelling arguments that the crucible wasn't pointless. For example the catalyst could just lie to Shep, tell him it was all for naught, and Shep wouldn't know any better. Cycle continues, catalyst wins. It is not a valid argument, is not built on any premise whatsoever, and heavily damages the authors credibility.

That article does not have a single sound argument on any count, except perhaps the killing organics to save organics point.

No, nothing you can say will convince me to like the ending. I would like to be able to understand why someone would like the ending, which is why I bother looking at these things. I can understand why certain people like twilight, even if I think it's ridiculous. The ending to Mass Effect 3? Not so much.

[sp0ck 06]

zarnk567 wrote...

Firesaber82 wrote...

Just like to post and say, altho the narrative is still a failure if the majority of the audience 'doesn't get it'. This article tho long (I actually did read the whole thing), was refreshing and does make me feel a little bit more positive about it all.

Really, the ending could and would have made more sense if the Earth bits (both prologue and ending chapter) didn't feel so 'rushed'. Actually the entire game feels rushed unfortunately

Once you hit thessia you can really feel the game being rushed, but thats just me.

To me its really just London.  The Cerberus Base mission felt more like a last mission and IMO was very well done.  Questions answered, good fights, and some great moments (Shepard wondering "who am i" while listening to Lazarus logs was one of the best moments of the game I thought).

Thessia was good, but it felt like they spent who knows how long building this incredible environment and scenery and we only got 1 mission?  And a short one?  

[Myrmedus]

inko1nsiderate wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

AcesRedd wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

 If you hated/disliked/didn't understand/were let down by the ending, read this editorial.

http://galacticpillo...ffect-3-ending/

It really might make you look differently at not just the ending but the whole of ME3.  If you want to love the conclusion to the series but just can't, please give this a read.  It's long but worth it.  

The length of this article vs. the length of the craptacular ending reinforces the amount of fail in the ending.
I wish there was a mathematician/scientist guy that could lay out the formula for me, but I'll try my best to explain.

article + ending = more fail than article and ending put together

wait wait

article + ending < (article + ending) ?

damn I think what we need is a physicist in here? 

Instead of wasting time in endless threads about the same subjects, why not waste time reading something that's actually incredibly well thought out and could possibly make you look at the ending is a slightly positive way?  

Do you guys just WANT to hate everything Mass Effect now?

Just give it a chance.

Physicist here.  Mass Effect fields as described make no sense.  Reducing mass does not let you cheat Einstein, furthermore it has disturbing consequences for Quantum Field Theory (are we reducing the low energy mass, eg the mass we put into our theories before renormalization, or are we reducing the bare mass?  Either way, what does that actually mean?).  

Oh sorry, I am guessing you didn't want me to just spew random opinions about Mass Effect and how 'scientific' it really is...

The point is that if you have been well versed in sci-fi there is a chance many of the ideas and concepts in the article are familiar to you.  That doesn't mean the ending worked for you, but I am guessing it improves your chances of liking it. Afterall stories often draw elements from similar/recent/old stories in the same genre.  And that isn't always a bad thing.  If you weren't aware of these ideas before hand, it certainly can't hurt to read about them.  Being able to interpret a body of work after being familiar with other, similar, works can lead to a different perspective on a story.  And certainly gaining understanding on where the writers may have gone might make you understand where they went wrong better, and in the very least that will make your criticism more on point and actionable for the writers.

There was that tasteful nerdrage video that talked about how so many questions popped up in the end for him that the ending's narative cohession died.  The breaking of narative cohession has some level of subjectivity.  Some people might have felt dying and being brought back at the beginning of ME2 broke narative cohession (though I admit I had a hard time with this turn of events, I find it more plausible than Mass Effect fields).  

Exactly.

Though I do find the concept of mass effect fields an interesting idea, it is still ultimately Science Fiction and pretty much any abstract method you can think up of the effect occurring involves elements that are purely theoretical.

And to be honest, that's fine - why? Because it's a Sci-Fi story.

Which is the entire point: it's a story, it's a narrative. If I wanted science text book, I'd go buy one. I bought video-game largely buoyed by its story and so I expect a cohesive narrative above a cohesive science compendium.

[Firesaber82]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

zarnk567 wrote...

Firesaber82 wrote...

Just like to post and say, altho the narrative is still a failure if the majority of the audience 'doesn't get it'. This article tho long (I actually did read the whole thing), was refreshing and does make me feel a little bit more positive about it all.

Really, the ending could and would have made more sense if the Earth bits (both prologue and ending chapter) didn't feel so 'rushed'. Actually the entire game feels rushed unfortunately

Once you hit thessia you can really feel the game being rushed, but thats just me.

To me its really just London.  The Cerberus Base mission felt more like a last mission and IMO was very well done.  Questions answered, good fights, and some great moments (Shepard wondering "who am i" while listening to Lazarus logs was one of the best moments of the game I thought).

Thessia was good, but it felt like they spent who knows how long building this incredible environment and scenery and we only got 1 mission?  And a short one?  

Eh, the Kai Lang fight ends very abruptly without making much sense, but then if you hadn't read the books (i have not) the character itself is a waste of story time.  I don't care who he is at all, and the handling of that 'boss' fight is really sloppy.

[The Protheans]

I didn't read it but I imagine there is exactly 8095 words to it and the replies are almost as long.

I'm a strong believer in "if you can't get or point across in a couple of points then you have nothing to add".

You could even get it across in tl;dr
What is the too long didn't read?

[Myrmedus]

The Protheans wrote...

I didn't read it but I imagine there is exactly 8095 words to it and the replies are almost as long.

I'm a strong believer in "if you can't get or point across in a couple of points then you have nothing to add".

You could even get it across in tl;dr
What is the too long didn't read?

For me, any article like this - even if it's a good one - is actually just proving how bad the ending is because the necessity of its existence proves how poorly the ending got its message across.

And that's without even getting down to whether the message itself was a good one.

[Firesaber82]

Myrmedus wrote...

The Protheans wrote...

I didn't read it but I imagine there is exactly 8095 words to it and the replies are almost as long.

I'm a strong believer in "if you can't get or point across in a couple of points then you have nothing to add".

You could even get it across in tl;dr
What is the too long didn't read?

For me, any article like this - even if it's a good one - is actually just proving how bad the ending is because the necessity of its existence proves how poorly the ending got its message across.

And that's without even getting down to whether the message itself was a good one.

on that I think most of us should be able to agree. Even if your explination makes sense, if the majority of your audience 'doesn't get it' you have failed at narrative storytelling.

[notsoavragejoe]

Since when does yanking away the personality of a game make it good? Don't get me wrong, love the game, hate the ending. And the ending is a pretty big deal to us long time fans.

[japinthebox]

Nice, looks like the article exploded.

Looks like most people haven't read the whole thing though, and I don't blame them.

sistersafetypin wrote...

ppeters77 wrote...

Stopped reading after:
"The ending is very strongly foreshadowed throughout the whole series"

Can't be, the original ending was supposed to be built on dark energy. Also the label "esoteric" bothers me, especially when used in combination with a tech-heavy sci-fi scenario.

This. Just because you want to believe Bioware didn't truly f_ck up spectacularly doesn't make it so. They did, and no amount of literary wrangling will change that

Coachdongwiffle wrote...

the article is wrong. one of the first things it says is that the ending has been forshadowed since the begging but it's pretty well documented that this was not the original ending.

 


No, that ending was neither the first suggested nor the last. The article addresses it.

Bmandakilla wrote...

Nice read until the point where the text begins to argue that Shepard survives the the destruction in the renegade ending, which is actually the true paragon ending (indoc theory used here). The cutscene displayed concrete rubble, like London, not like the steel and synthetic materials of the citadel. All logic is defied and brain explodes.

 

Don't know that Shepard survives, but it's kind of irrelevant isn't it?

And yes, the whole thing is fiction, so you could argue that there's no point bringing in science. But the difference between science fiction and fantasy is that science fiction always upholds certain parts of science, and just completely disregards other parts. The important thing is that those choices are consistent.

The Reapers needed millions or billions of specimens just to build one reaper. That's incredulous enough, because the Reapers would obviously have figured out cloning and genetic analysis.

[Joush]

It's a well educated stupid reply, at least.

The idea that harnessing more energy allows for SPACE MAGIC is stupid. The citadel was never forshadowed as a magic wand that could rewrite the universe with a sweep of it's wand.

Also, even if you take everything the OP's link says.. it still adds up to an awful ending.

I understand the ending. I write science fiction. The ending was awful.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

read it, and tbh while it does help make sense of the ending, the ending is still badly written and the article does speculate alot about what the writers were thinking.

[WeAreLegionWTF]

that article was nothing more than a logic smoke screen. why waste all that time typing to when you still dont counter this meme?




Why dont the reapers just kill synthetics when they go bad? why galactic genocide, when the synthetics themselves were the first to join the reapers in me1?…

[japinthebox]

Joush wrote...

It's a well educated stupid reply, at least.

The idea that harnessing more energy allows for SPACE MAGIC is stupid. The citadel was never forshadowed as a magic wand that could rewrite the universe with a sweep of it's wand.

Also, even if you take everything the OP's link says.. it still adds up to an awful ending.

I understand the ending. I write science fiction. The ending was awful.

Again, I mention that in the article.

"It may
have made more sense if the Catalyst were not on the Citadel along with the
Keepers, but rather at some distance – like the Shadow Broker and his (her)
ship."

The Mass Effect 2 ending is just as stupid from a plot perspective as the "space magic" in Mass Effect 3. I don't see nearly as many people complaining about that, because that's really not the reason people were upset about the ME3 ending, and because people accepted the idea in Mass Effect 2 that the theme of the ending was more important than the plot.

[xsdob]

People just want to be ****s and jackasses about this.

Let it go and you'll feel much better, because arguing with a bunch of stuborn mules on the internet will only result in you, the person trying to use logic and reason instead of emotion and gut feelings, getting enraged and quitting for a while.

Every time I get worked up, I just take a five minute break, think of thoughts that help me become apathetic and uninterested towards all other posters here, and just go on with checking these forums for interesting opinion columns and news garbles.

[McAllyster]

When you have to make a huge list of real world scientific theories and answers to clarify an ending...

... then the ending is failed miserable.

When you have to clarify a joke to your audience, the joke was bad.

[japinthebox]

WeAreLegionWTF wrote...

that article was nothing more than a logic smoke screen. why waste all that time typing to when you still dont counter this meme?




Why dont the reapers just kill synthetics when they go bad? why galactic genocide, when the synthetics themselves were the first to join the reapers in me1?…

I was considering putting that in the article, but I figured it's just too stupid to respond to because the answer is right in the pudding.

The Reapers aren't all-powerful or omnipresent. They have no means to, for instance, destroy all information on how to create synthetics or to figure out how to destroy rogue synthetics. The Crucible offers a way to do this, but it took millions of years to build.

[ahandsomeshark]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

I read it, but like the author itself says in order for bioware to have thought this was a proper ending they must have assumed the fan base has some familiarity with these concepts. Which makes no sense. Especially since mass effect is a specific type of speculative science fiction which has always attempted to explicitly explain the science behind their speculations (i.e how eezo and mass effects work). So why all of a sudden would we think that they abandoned that to go with an ending where there's no scientific explanations (just theories) in or even out of the game? Along with that it's pretty much been debunked by the writers themselves that any sort of long-term outline existed so it's unlikely that any of the foreshadowing mentioned in the article is more than coincidence.

Basically to accept the authors theory as put forth you have to accept the idea that bioware DID have a long-game plan for the story and just opted not to foreshadow it. Which makes no sense within the context of what we know about bioware, including specific statements they have made themselves and the ways they set up the first game.

But most importantly the author puts this assertion forth:

"Otherwise life throughout the galaxy is in as much danger of extinction as we are here on earth."

and earlier implies that the danger of extinction would be from synthetics, but at NO point in the rest of that section, or even the rest of the paper does he/she ever give any justification for this assumption, which is kind of what his entire argument is based on. Without giving some sort of explanation as to why he's making that statement/assumption I don't see how any of the rest of his argument can be relevant.

[added] also there is no source provided for "Supposing it’ll take humanity another 1,000 years to develop AI and for humanity to be rendered obsolete" I read the linked articles around it and none referenced humanity becoming obsolete due to AI tech.

quoting for response from article writer

[circe]

I really think the author downplays just how badly the ending was executed a little too much. Other posters have mentioned that the genophage and geth/quarian arcs were really well done. Time and love went into those. Then you look at the ending and you wonder if it got slapped together the last few days funded with the change they found in the couch cushions. I particularly take issue with the suggestion that game developers will now be too afraid do anything daring or innovative. I think this is more a lesson that if you're going to do something unusual or 'artistic', you damn well better be prepared to put the time and effort into it! I do have a lot of problems with the ending itself from an emotional and storytelling aspect. But the greater issue for me is that Bioware, quite frankly, did a **** job with it and utterly failed in execution of the ending. And if poor quality work can hide behind innovation and artistry, give me that bubblegum cliche ending any day.