858 réponses à ce sujet

[Tleining]

japinthebox wrote...

Trust me, it's been a long time since I've read Shakespeare, but you have to ignore some plot holes even to enjoy something like Romeo and Juliet.

The point is that the plot holes are minor, and the rest of the story makes good sense. You can either throw out the plot holes and enjoy the rest of the game including the ending, or you can throw out the rest of the game and be furious about the plot holes in the end.

Your choice.

i have to disagree with this. Pretty much every book, movie, Game,.... has Plotholes, yes. But for the most Part they are small so they don't destroy the Immersion. If a Plothole is so obvious that you actually notice it, it's bad writing. And i don't mean reading a book looking for Plotholes, that's analyzing it.

The Plotholes in ME1 were minor. They didn't destroy my Immersion in the Game. In ME2 i had a few "uh, what?" Moments, but i could still enjoy the Game. In ME3 the Plotholes were bearable until the Priority: Earth Mission. But then the Immersion was completely destroyed.

[Hicks233]

Did it change my opinion of the ending/s? Yes. I hate them even more now.

I and many others played through three games, went on an emotional journey where actions had consequences, failure was possible just as success was, hope was something to be strived for. Then I get dumped into a dry and boring lecture for the last ten minutes devoid of emotional connection or satisfying outcome be it positive or negative or anywhere in between. Just a lecture.

There was a major disconnect between the ending/s of the story and the majority of what came before it. If Bioware wanted to make an interactive lecture on a highly specialised topic then why was it tacked onto the end of a character and emotion led story?

If it had been consistently through all three parts a stale lecture on astrobiology I could have saved myself the money and bought something else as I have no desire to sit through a lecture on a topic I'm not interested in. Not when I've played through an (up til the ending/s) emotive and involving character and theme led experience.

If you find the scientific theories interesting that's great. I couldn't give a monkeys about them. Especially when it is so out of character for the rest of the journey. In this instance science can take a very long walk off a very short pier. If you were to ask about Deus Ex Human Revolution and the issues of augmentation and how it was presented alongside an emotive and character led narrative then I'd say that was consistent, interesting and the strands complimented each other. In Mass Effect. It was a major brain fart.

Glad that this article was written though the more analysis there is over how Bioware quite so spectacularly dropped the ball the more I hope they'll learn their lesson in future.

[japinthebox]

Tleining wrote...

japinthebox wrote...

Trust me, it's been a long time since I've read Shakespeare, but you have to ignore some plot holes even to enjoy something like Romeo and Juliet.

The point is that the plot holes are minor, and the rest of the story makes good sense. You can either throw out the plot holes and enjoy the rest of the game including the ending, or you can throw out the rest of the game and be furious about the plot holes in the end.

Your choice.

i have to disagree with this. Pretty much every book, movie, Game,.... has Plotholes, yes. But for the most Part they are small so they don't destroy the Immersion. If a Plothole is so obvious that you actually notice it, it's bad writing. And i don't mean reading a book looking for Plotholes, that's analyzing it.

The Plotholes in ME1 were minor. They didn't destroy my Immersion in the Game. In ME2 i had a few "uh, what?" Moments, but i could still enjoy the Game. In ME3 the Plotholes were bearable until the Priority: Earth Mission. But then the Immersion was completely destroyed.

The idea at the end of ME2 that it takes millions or billions of specimens to create one reaper was enough to make me say more than "uh, what".

[MisterJB]

Tleining wrote...
uhm ME2? Harbinger? Turians were too primitive, Quarians immune System disqualified them, Salarians lifespan was too short......

Harbinger could have been selecting which race will be the Capital Reaper of this cycle and which will be Destroyers.

Realistically? Bioware probrably hadn't come up with the concept of Destroyers at the time.

Modifié par MisterJB, 20 avril 2012 - 12:16 .

[Kreid]

japinthebox wrote...

Tleining wrote...

japinthebox wrote...

Trust me, it's been a long time since I've read Shakespeare, but you have to ignore some plot holes even to enjoy something like Romeo and Juliet.

The point is that the plot holes are minor, and the rest of the story makes good sense. You can either throw out the plot holes and enjoy the rest of the game including the ending, or you can throw out the rest of the game and be furious about the plot holes in the end.

Your choice.

i have to disagree with this. Pretty much every book, movie, Game,.... has Plotholes, yes. But for the most Part they are small so they don't destroy the Immersion. If a Plothole is so obvious that you actually notice it, it's bad writing. And i don't mean reading a book looking for Plotholes, that's analyzing it.

The Plotholes in ME1 were minor. They didn't destroy my Immersion in the Game. In ME2 i had a few "uh, what?" Moments, but i could still enjoy the Game. In ME3 the Plotholes were bearable until the Priority: Earth Mission. But then the Immersion was completely destroyed.

The idea at the end of ME2 that it takes millions or billions of specimens to create one reaper was enough to make me say more than "uh, what".

Reapers are suppossed to contain the essence of the species, that's why they need so many different individuals to be formed, they are arks which harbour a gestalt mind, Legion implies this various times in ME2 and ME3, that's why cloning as you put in the article wouldn't work.

Modifié par Creid-X, 20 avril 2012 - 12:20 .

[pikey1969]

The OP's article is a fairly convoluted and drawn-out way of saying 'you just didn't get it man, it's actually deep'.

While that article may be applicable to some ending-haters, it still brings nothing new to the rest of us.

There are some serious flaws in the narrative styling, consistancy, and even in the 'science' that are introduced in the ending.

Modifié par pikey1969, 20 avril 2012 - 12:23 .

[Iconoclaste]

What's funny about this article is that almost all it states has already been covered here on the BSN, through may threads, by many very interesting and bright people. They mostly still came to the conclusion that, whatever the stretch of highly speculative scientific theories to make sense out of the endings, it still didn't make them either satisfying nor related to the whole series. And that is what this article is essentially demonstrating, with a lot of words and weird science.

[KillerHappyFace]

japinthebox wrote...

The godchild is my #1 issue with the ending. He's the reason why no amount of clarity will let me truly enjoy the end of the game.

Really? It's just an avatar for a computer. I'm completely indifferent on the choice to use the kid. There are tons of weird things like that throughout the game. I'm pretty sure there are bigger issues with the ending than that.

Coming in close second, I still feel that each of the ending choices were horribly out of line with the main themes of the series. The series is about self-determination. Not just protecting life in the galaxy, but protecting life's freedom to choose its own fate. I don't want to have to revoke that in 2/3 of the endings of the game.

I answered similarly earlier, but again, that's just one theme out of many. I don't see how that's thrown out either, except if you take the synthesis ending.

I explained why I disliked the godchild, but you kinda clipped it off there. Google up 'asspull' and 'deus ex machina'. He's both of these. Shepard did nothing to deserve a deus ex machina at this point; the writers just slapped him on to babble about something in the last moments of the game.

He didn't need to be there. He was incompetent at his purpose. He came completely out of left field. He was a brand new story element character added in after the climax and during the falling action.

Edit: if the writers really wanted to adequately explain the Reapers' purpose, they should have spread it throughout the plot instead of laying it on us all at once. This issue is compounded by the fact that the character shouldn't be there in any sane storytelling, and that the conversation is very badly done. Fourteen lines to explain what took the better half of an article online.

As for the "one theme out of many", yes. There's lot of themes in the game, good job at spotting that. Most stories have lots of themes. I was talking about the main theme of the game -- people choosing their own destiny. This is present at all times, unlike the theme of organic v synthetic struggle.
1) Control: Shepard forces his will on a group of sentient beings.
2) Synthesis: Shepard forces the entire galaxy to homogenize.
That's two out of three endings that betray this theme.

Modifié par KillerHappyFace, 20 avril 2012 - 12:30 .

[japinthebox]

Creid-X wrote...

japinthebox wrote...

Tleining wrote...

japinthebox wrote...

Trust me, it's been a long time since I've read Shakespeare, but you have to ignore some plot holes even to enjoy something like Romeo and Juliet.

The point is that the plot holes are minor, and the rest of the story makes good sense. You can either throw out the plot holes and enjoy the rest of the game including the ending, or you can throw out the rest of the game and be furious about the plot holes in the end.

Your choice.

i have to disagree with this. Pretty much every book, movie, Game,.... has Plotholes, yes. But for the most Part they are small so they don't destroy the Immersion. If a Plothole is so obvious that you actually notice it, it's bad writing. And i don't mean reading a book looking for Plotholes, that's analyzing it.

The Plotholes in ME1 were minor. They didn't destroy my Immersion in the Game. In ME2 i had a few "uh, what?" Moments, but i could still enjoy the Game. In ME3 the Plotholes were bearable until the Priority: Earth Mission. But then the Immersion was completely destroyed.

The idea at the end of ME2 that it takes millions or billions of specimens to create one reaper was enough to make me say more than "uh, what".

Reapers are suppossed to contain the essence of the species, that's why they need so many different individuals to be formed, they are arks formed by a gestalt mind, Legion implies this various times in ME2 and ME3, that's why cloning as you put in the article wouldn't work.

Oh, good point.

Nonetheless there are tons of examples of plot holes and inconsistencies throughout Mass Effect. It's just that not many people were so vicious about it until now -- as they shouldn't be.

[Kreid]

I'm really astonished at the number of people here who are surprised to find scientific theories in science fiction.

[Remus A]

Still doesn't explain how my teammates teleported themselves to the Normandy.

[TheWerdna]

Master Che wrote...

*pushes article aside*

If I have to be convinced that the ending is acceptable, then it probably wasn't that good of an ending.

^
this

[zarnk567]

japinthebox wrote...

Creid-X wrote...

japinthebox wrote...

Tleining wrote...

japinthebox wrote...

Trust me, it's been a long time since I've read Shakespeare, but you have to ignore some plot holes even to enjoy something like Romeo and Juliet.

The point is that the plot holes are minor, and the rest of the story makes good sense. You can either throw out the plot holes and enjoy the rest of the game including the ending, or you can throw out the rest of the game and be furious about the plot holes in the end.

Your choice.

i have to disagree with this. Pretty much every book, movie, Game,.... has Plotholes, yes. But for the most Part they are small so they don't destroy the Immersion. If a Plothole is so obvious that you actually notice it, it's bad writing. And i don't mean reading a book looking for Plotholes, that's analyzing it.

The Plotholes in ME1 were minor. They didn't destroy my Immersion in the Game. In ME2 i had a few "uh, what?" Moments, but i could still enjoy the Game. In ME3 the Plotholes were bearable until the Priority: Earth Mission. But then the Immersion was completely destroyed.

The idea at the end of ME2 that it takes millions or billions of specimens to create one reaper was enough to make me say more than "uh, what".

Reapers are suppossed to contain the essence of the species, that's why they need so many different individuals to be formed, they are arks formed by a gestalt mind, Legion implies this various times in ME2 and ME3, that's why cloning as you put in the article wouldn't work.

Oh, good point.

Nonetheless there are tons of examples of plot holes and inconsistencies throughout Mass Effect. It's just that not many people were so vicious about it until now -- as they shouldn't be.

People are only noticing all the other problems now because the ending broke the "suspesion of dis-belief" for many people. And when that happens people start seeing all the other "inconsistencies" much more than they normally would, which is why especially in a Sci-fi epic you should try and avoid this. Cause well.... this happens.

[Iconoclaste]

Creid-X wrote...

I'm really astonished at the number of people here who are surprised to find scientific theories in science fiction.

Well on that point, and since this article refers to Hawkings, let's not forget that he said for any theory to be sound, it has to result in the Universe that exists in reality. A theory resulting in some hypothetic Universe is a theory that needs serious adjustments.

[japinthebox]

KillerHappyFace wrote...

japinthebox wrote...

The godchild is my #1 issue with the ending. He's the reason why no amount of clarity will let me truly enjoy the end of the game.

Really? It's just an avatar for a computer. I'm completely indifferent on the choice to use the kid. There are tons of weird things like that throughout the game. I'm pretty sure there are bigger issues with the ending than that.

Coming in close second, I still feel that each of the ending choices were horribly out of line with the main themes of the series. The series is about self-determination. Not just protecting life in the galaxy, but protecting life's freedom to choose its own fate. I don't want to have to revoke that in 2/3 of the endings of the game.

I answered similarly earlier, but again, that's just one theme out of many. I don't see how that's thrown out either, except if you take the synthesis ending.

I explained why I disliked the godchild, but you kinda clipped it off there. Google up 'asspull' and 'deus ex machina'. He's both of these. Shepard did nothing to deserve a deus ex machina at this point; the writers just slapped him on to babble about something in the last moments of the game.

He didn't need to be there. He was incompetent at his purpose. He came completely out of left field. He was a brand new story element added in after the climax and during the falling action.

So if Harbinger took his role and came out at the end saying "all right, you got us with the Crucible, you win, now what do you want us to do", would you have been happy? Because that's more or less the same thing.

As for the "one theme out of many", yes. There's lot of themes in the game, good job at spotting that. Most stories have lots of themes. I was talking about the main theme of the game -- people choosing their own destiny. This is present at all times, unlike the theme of organic v synthetic struggle.
1) Control: Shepard forces his will on a group of sentient beings.
2) Synthesis: Shepard forces the entire galaxy to homogenize.
That's two out of three endings that betray this theme.

And when I say "lots of themes", I do mean many main themes. I don't see a problem with having multiple main themes.

Also, Bioware has said that the synthetic vs. organic struggle was present even before Mass Effect had a name:

"At first its repetitious annunciations were absurd and funny, but eventually the team began to think about its implications. Was Raymond Kurzweil right? Within 30 years could we really reach that point of singularity where man and machine are indistinguishable? If that crucible is forthcoming, the tension between organic and synthetic life could be an appropriate theme to frame the SFX (old Mass Effect code name) triology." 

Modifié par japinthebox, 20 avril 2012 - 12:33 .

[japinthebox]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Creid-X wrote...

I'm really astonished at the number of people here who are surprised to find scientific theories in science fiction.

Well on that point, and since this article refers to Hawkings, let's not forget that he said for any theory to be sound, it has to result in the Universe that exists in reality. A theory resulting in some hypothetic Universe is a theory that needs serious adjustments.

And that's why Hawkings is a fan of Star Trek. Seems legit.

[webhead921]

I don't hate the ending, but I thought the article was an enjoyable read.

Modifié par webhead921, 20 avril 2012 - 01:00 .

[Kreid]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Creid-X wrote...

I'm really astonished at the number of people here who are surprised to find scientific theories in science fiction.

Well on that point, and since this article refers to Hawkings, let's not forget that he said for any theory to be sound, it has to result in the Universe that exists in reality. A theory resulting in some hypothetic Universe is a theory that needs serious adjustments.

Yeah, but people forget that our universe is the foundation of the ME universe, aside from element zero and mass effect fields which allow most of the implausible things we see, the rest is based on our actual comprehension of physics and the universe, it shouldn't be so much of a stretch to think these theories are potentially valid in the ME universe as well. 

Modifié par Creid-X, 20 avril 2012 - 12:36 .

[Element Zero]

The very fact that this lengthy article exists proves that BioWare's ending was a failure. Articles theorizing about the ending should be unnecessary. I appreciate the author's take (until he gets on his moral soapbox), but I simply don't find his reasoning satisfying. The ending was, is, and apparently will remain, garbage.

As the author repeatedly drew on "Astrobiology" (nothing more than good-natured speculation and pseudo-science), I kept remembering the "faked" post on the PA forums by Patrick Weekes. It said, essentially, that Casey is a very smart guy who, at times, gets carried away in his own abstract musings (Astrobiology, anyone?), losing sight of grounded thinking.

If this article's author is correct in his belief that this was a  "Kardashev Scale-based" ending, this would be a perfect example of writers allowing their story and minds to get away from them in the final minutes of an otherwise epic, but grounded, story.

EDIT: Second paragraph sounded needlessly antagonistic.

Modifié par tallrickruush, 20 avril 2012 - 12:40 .

[thefallen2far]

japinthebox wrote...

I don't defend the plot holes that I already acknowledged. That'd be self-defeating. What I say is that the plot holes are easy to point out because they're inconsistent with the rest of the story, and if you leave them out, everything else makes a lot more sense.

Virtually all stories have plot holes. Even Shakespeare's works had tons. Except for the hecklers in the theatre, people usually don't have such a hard time looking past them.

----------------------

Comparing the ending to Shakespeare would be cruelest heckle. Ignoring certain plot holes that are "valid" [I guess you'll determine which ones they are] the end result is "why". Why ignore certain plots holes and not others? Why force the plot for it to make sense? Why use external concepts not introduced anywhere else in the story? Entertainment? The endin wasn't that entertaining. Inspiration? I'm inspired to avoid it. Introspection? I don't like the [fascist in Germany]s... if somone gave me definative proof that antisemitism is th right way to go, i'd still not like the [fascist in Germany]s, that's the only introspection I need.

You like the story... glad you like it. I don't, I hope they change it.

I like the corruption stuff too. But Mass Effect is 100+ hours long. It can have more than one theme. And according to interviews, the synthetics vs. organics theme has been pointed out since before Mass Effect even had a name.

Defying fate is easy in a game just because you can start from your last save point. A lot of game characters mention how lucky the protagonist is. That wasn't too interesting to me, though I wholeheartedly accept that you liked it.

Apparently you're having problems understanding the point..: Corruption and defiance was the appeal of the game for a lot of people. If you take away the corruption and the corruption and the defiance [especially at the end when he's presented with a fanatic idea like Eugenics,] I. Don't. Like. It.

Actually, something nearly identical happened to a Japanese series called Astro Boy 60 years ago. The character's now as widely recognized as Hello Kitty, and he's a mascot for several prestigious universities and companies.

Not saying that'll necessarily be the case for Mass Effect, but it could.

I don't understand your point. Are you saying "astro boy" was a series that had a "final chapter" that a controversial ending and a lot of people thought it was bad, but the whole last episode/comic/season was a resolution of all the different earlier plots in an abrupt way?

I wouldn't know. I was part of the "I am Farscape" thing they had years ago... I liked that ending.

It devalues the idea of a charity. A charity is something where you give something large to get back something smaller. It's not a fair trade, and the donor by definition gets the crap end of the stick because they're doing it on the principle that things will be better for someone else. It also brings awareness to the cause.

You get mad at them for giving money to charities. A charity that gives games to poor kids because it undercuts the "charity". Do you really not see how bitter you are about people not liking the ending that you're criticising adressing the frustration of not being able to do anything about expessing your frustration by giving to a charity that gives games to poor kids? That's funny to me.

Modifié par thefallen2far, 20 avril 2012 - 01:04 .

[RShara]

Piggytoes wrote...

 Let me preface this by saying that I read the article in its entirety, but not the entire thread following.  Maybe some/all of these points have been brought up already, but let me try to outline why I think the article missed the point of the ending dissatisfaction.

1)Much of the outrage about the endings comes from the fact that they appear to be a product of laziness and/or Bioware succumbing to pressure from EA.  From the multicolored cutscene, to the absence of war assets impacting anything about the final battle.  Even the geth and quarians which represent a major part of the story arc within ME3 are absent from the battle cutscenes except for during Hacket's speech.  Look at the scene where the combined fleet is arriving at earth, where are the geth and quarian ships? Look at the scenes of the ground battle, the war assets screen says that the geth have the largest cadre of troops in the galaxy, yet there is not a single geth seen partaking in the ground war.

2)Predictably, the endings also elicit significant anger from the community when compared to the statements from Bioware during the production of ME3.  It is certainly true that things change over the course of development in any game, but the disparity between what was promised and what was received just seems... inexcusable. Especially considering how spot-on ME3 was prior to the final mission, and how well-executed the endings for ME1 and ME2 were.

3) The article admits there are several incoherencies in the ending, but suggests that the player should suspend disbelief and ignore them.  This is not how suspension of disbelief (SoB) is supposed to work with a narrative.  SoB is applied to parts of the narrative which contradict facts or observations we take from reality.  For example, it is reasonable to expect the player to suspend disbelief when confronted with the idea of Element Zero producing a field which alters the mass of objects within it.  SoB doesn't apply to parts of a narrative which are internally inconsistent.

4) I understand the catalyst's 14 line exposition perfectly and the article does a good job of outlining the reasoning for anybody who is still unclear about it.  You don't need to know anything about astrobiology for the catalyst's solution to make sense.  However, making sense and providing a satisfying conclusion to a trilogy are two very different things.  The "solution" is far from foreshadowed anywhere in the previous two games except Harbinger's one line: "we are your salvation through destruction".  The "solution" is jarring and ill-received because it does not fit with all the previous information we have received throughout the trilogy.  It doesn't matter if it makes logical sense that the reapers are trying to prevent a technological singularity, this is simply not an issue that comes up anywhere else in the series.  In fact the only two pieces of empirical data that we have (EDI and the Geth) are able to coexist peacefully with organics.  Certainly, on the (for our purposes) infinite timescale of the galaxy a technological singularity is plausible, maybe even likely, it just fails as a plot device.

5.0) And here's the big one.  The absolute worst part of the ending is that after hundreds of hours of building emotional attachments to the characters, races, and galactic civilization, the ending throws it all out the window.  We are presented with an entirely new, unprecedented, god-like character which presents an entirely new conflict (tech singularity) which supercedes everything shepard has been fighting for and against.  Players wanted, were promised, and were expecting an ending which focused on the threat of the reapers, and the part shepard and his/her allies played in neutralizing that threat.  Players were also expecting to see the aftermath of the decisions Shepard made leading up to and during the end.  Instead the player is asked to forget about everything they care about, and suddenly care about organic life in abstract.

5.1) I feel that the tricolor ending is a non-choice when compared to the end choices of ME1 and ME2, and other choices throughout the trilogy.  If we accept the catalyst's words at face value as the choice is presented, there isn't a reason to choose Destroy over Control.  You die, the relays are destroyed, and the reapers are gone in both cases.  The only difference is that Destroy kills the geth and EDI.  The fact that after you make your decision you are possibly rewarded with shepard living in Destroy doesn't make the tricolor choice better, it makes it worse by raising more questions "did the catalyst lie?" "was shep being indoctrinated?" "how did shep survive the citadel's destruction?".  Synthesis is not explained well enough to really become part of any rational decision making process with respect to the end.  

5.2) Compare this to ME1 which made you choose between sacrificing humans to save the council, thereby earning the respect of the council races, or letting the council die and securing human dominance in the galactic government.  Compare this to ME2 which made you choose between preserving the collector base and trusting cerberus to not misuse its technology in the hopes that it will help you defeat the reapers, or destroying the base on principle and resolving to fight the reapers on your own terms.

I think this post is also a very worthwhile read.

Modifié par RShara, 20 avril 2012 - 12:39 .

[SLonergan]

Master Che wrote...

*pushes article aside*

If I have to be convinced that the ending is acceptable, then it probably wasn't that good of an ending.

That's exactly how I feel. 

If the ending was good, I would have liked it. I'm not going to read a ****ing thesis to convince myself that I like the ending.

[pikey1969]

Creid-X wrote...

I'm really astonished at the number of people here who are surprised to find scientific theories in science fiction.

By that logic, I should be surprised that yet another science fiction re-colors scientific theories with crayons.

Modifié par pikey1969, 20 avril 2012 - 12:40 .

[xsdob]

Proof is now proof that something has no proof and that it is guilty for needing proof to prove that it had proof.

Also, you are only allowed to look deeply into a game and analyze the points about it only if you are supported by the rule of the majority, any other form of research or extrapolation is forbidden and should be shunned by all here. Go back to over analyzing mass effect 1 and dragonage origins and all their divine glory like a good disciple should.

There, summed up this whole flamewar in about 2 short paragraphs, and I didn't even need to care to do it.

[Zolt51]

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.

That's bulls*t and everybody knows it. Drew K. himself confirmed it.