858 réponses à ce sujet

[EagleScoutDJB]

From a scientific standpoint I loved the whole thing, the people and the shows talked about are what I spend most of my time watching when I watch TV. As far as it applies to Mass Effect, worst thing I've ever read. If I need something that long to explain a video game it must be the worst game ever made.

[Iconoclaste]

Creid-X wrote...

I undestand what you're saying. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a pro-ender in fact I hate the ending in many ways for different reasons, but my point is that dismissing the points made in the article (the astrobiology theories) because they are not presented in the narrative is like dismissing gravity because it's not in the codex, the author is trying to get the point across that BioWare assumed their fans are familiar with those concepts and made a gamble that didn't pay off.

Well, some players were quite familiar with these highly speculative theories, and still don't see how they should have been inferred from the story, before the endings.

[japinthebox]

KillerHappyFace wrote...

japinthebox wrote...

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." 

Edit: full quote added.

Do you even read what you don't directly quote? Edit: cause what you left out of my first post was kinda the point of what I've been saying. You mostly seem to ignore my arguments so far. I'm beginning to consider that you're just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

Yes, Harbinger taking the place of starbrat is exactly the same thing. And I would still be unhappy. As I said, they'd still be trying to explain the supposedly incomprehensible motivation for the primary antagonists within a few meager lines. And it would still be an asspull -- creating a solution out of thin air without properly explaining it beforehand. My issue with the starbrat stems from what he represents and how he fails at the plot task he's given, not the form he takes.

ME1 resonated stongly with the threat of synthetic life. Yes, it was a primary theme of the game, right alongside freedom of choice. ME1 =/= ME 2 or ME3. That theme all but vanished until the last moments of the ME3: each and every synthetic you meet outside of ME1 is a reasonable being that wants to coexist. And suddenly they cannot be trusted at all. Great. So even the organics v synthetic theme (as it existed in ME2&3) was violated.

It was all about how synthetics are really no different from organics; its more of a civil rights debate than an end-of-the-universe threat (and it was really present to further the self-determination theme).

It's not an asspull. Throughout the whole story, Shepard consistently ignores the possibility of all life being destroyed by a small minority that could potentially emerge. He had to make a similar decision regarding data on the Genophage.

The ending pits the two big themes that you mention against one another -- extinction threats and self-determination. 
You're left with the choice of which to prioritize, depending on which of the three endings you take. Even until the very end when the Catalyst points out the problem in Shepard's reasoning, he firmly ignores the potential of galaxy-wide extinction. 

The difference between a synthetic and an organic is that synthetics have potentially infinite destructive power, whereas organics are limited, as evil or good as they may be.

[thefallen2far]

japinthebox wrote...


I said in the article that I liked the ending, but I didn't think it was absolutely spectacular. My problem is with the reception it got.

I also never compared Mass Effect to Shakespeare. You're putting words in my mouth. I just said that even good stories have plot holes -- many of them quite severe, as in Shakespeare's case.
 

OMG!  That's funny.  You're the one who brought up Shakespeare and you're so insecure about the quality of the ending that you shy away when comparing quality to Shakespeare.  He could afford to have the plot holes because.... he's pretty good.

Sure, I don't blame you.

I don't like Sonic because I don't like the idea of a bipedal hedgehog. I don't like country music because I just don't. Doesn't mean that's why 90% of the audience hated the ME ending. There are other factors.

No.... every focus poll of people who played the game said 90% didn't like the ending.  60 percent would change it if they could.  100% of my conversations with people about the game in real life start with "wow, that ending stunk."  If you want to bring up Country music, here's a fun fact I remember: Garth Brooks took on a fictional personality named Chris Gaines to sell a cd featuring pop music.... it almost ruined his lable.  That had an approval rating of 40%

Yes, because the way the money was given, many people actually insisted on having that money refunded to them.

$100,000 may seem like a large sum of money, but the bigger point of a charity is the principles and publicity that it carries. That's why Gabe of Child's Play was also upset about the situation.
 

So, you're saying that no money went to the charity?  I thought the money went to the charity.... if the money didn't go to the charity, where did it go then... oh wise one?

[Yorkston9152]

read it and i stand by my thought of "If you have to spend 10 min explaining why a bad joke is bad, you should of just spent 10 min telling a new joke"

The ending is never foreshadowed in any possible way. I knew from the moment ME 2 came out shep was most likely gonna die, and i was fine with that as long as it was a good death. Look at ME2. You can choose to live, die or have other people die. You dont hear people btching about that. In till the last 3 min, i had no thought what so ever going through my mind that i would be presented with a "sofia's choice" ending. Do this, you die. Do that, you die. Do this, you might live but these people die. Simply hiding behind "stories need to be dark to be deep" is utter lies and people who think other wise are just pessimists.

[japinthebox]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Creid-X wrote...

I undestand what you're saying. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a pro-ender in fact I hate the ending in many ways for different reasons, but my point is that dismissing the points made in the article (the astrobiology theories) because they are not presented in the narrative is like dismissing gravity because it's not in the codex, the author is trying to get the point across that BioWare assumed their fans are familiar with those concepts and made a gamble that didn't pay off.

Well, some players were quite familiar with these highly speculative theories, and still don't see how they should have been inferred from the story, before the endings.

Well, yeah, but not everyone who loves and studies music loves baroque or sees how punk relates to it. Or if they do, they don't think it's significant.

I'm okay with that.

[-WeAreLegion-]

I read the article, and while it certainly /tries/ to explain the ending, it fails predominantly because not only is it resorting to /considerably/ higher-level logic and science than this entire series has been based on in an attempt to basically say "all the problems are because of cutscene-based 'plot holes,' the ending is perfect, etc, but it is also, through doing so, grasping at straws as much as some IT-supporters were and are.

[japinthebox]

OMG!  That's funny.  You're the one who brought up Shakespeare and you're so insecure about the quality of the ending that you shy away when comparing quality to Shakespeare.  He could afford to have the plot holes because.... he's pretty good.

You think all of the "okay" and "good" and "pretty good" writers on par with the Mass Effect authors also make no mistakes in their plots?

No.... every focus poll of people who played the game said 90% didn't like the ending.  60 percent would change it if they could.  100% of my conversations with people about the game in real life start with "wow, that ending stunk."  If you want to bring up Country music, here's a fun fact I remember: Garth Brooks took on a fictional personality named Chris Gaines to sell a cd featuring pop music.... it almost ruined his lable.  That had an approval rating of 40%

Virtually no one liked the Astro Boy ending either -- yet Atom became one of the most iconic characters in Japanese fiction history.

So, you're saying that no money went to the charity?  I thought the money went to the charity.... if the money didn't go to the charity, where did it go then... oh wise one?

When did I say no money went to charity?

The point is that it's a bad way to raise money.

[Riion]

japinthebox wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

Creid-X wrote...

I undestand what you're saying. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a pro-ender in fact I hate the ending in many ways for different reasons, but my point is that dismissing the points made in the article (the astrobiology theories) because they are not presented in the narrative is like dismissing gravity because it's not in the codex, the author is trying to get the point across that BioWare assumed their fans are familiar with those concepts and made a gamble that didn't pay off.

Well, some players were quite familiar with these highly speculative theories, and still don't see how they should have been inferred from the story, before the endings.

Well, yeah, but not everyone who loves and studies music loves baroque or sees how punk relates to it. Or if they do, they don't think it's significant.

I'm okay with that.

Punk music is a joke, it's all really just baroque. 

[CronoDragoon]

Creid-X wrote....  

I undestand what you're saying. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a pro-ender in fact I hate the ending in many ways for different reasons, but my point is that dismissing the points made in the article (the astrobiology theories) because they are not presented in the narrative is like dismissing gravity because it's not in the codex, the author is trying to get the point across that BioWare assumed their fans are familiar with those concepts and made a gamble that didn't pay off.

If gravity had been the secret to solving the Reaper war or the driving logic behind the Catalyst, then it too would have needed immense foreshadowing and explanation throughout the game or series. Anything that is relevant to the plot development of your story - particularly its resolution - needs to follow this literary rule. If I misunderstood the point you were trying to make then I apologize.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 20 avril 2012 - 01:37 .

[japinthebox]

-WeAreLegion- wrote...

I read the article, and while it certainly /tries/ to explain the ending, it fails predominantly because not only is it resorting to /considerably/ higher-level logic and science than this entire series has been based on in an attempt to basically say "all the problems are because of cutscene-based 'plot holes,' the ending is perfect, etc, but it is also, through doing so, grasping at straws as much as some IT-supporters were and are.

Well that's the thing; I was speculating at first, but it turns out when you read The Final Hours that these themes had been planned since before Mass Effect was even called Mass Effect.

[Udalango]

The Endings are awful and no amount of "Science" will fix that.
In the Control Ending the brat says "Do you THINK you can control us" Kinda vague.
In Destroy you can live after he tells you that you could die because you are partly synthetic......Arent the Reapers also partly synthetic? So in theory the Reapers could live through the Destroy ending.
The Synthesis ending is ridiculous. Im not about to make everyone the same, plus it doesnt stop the Cycle. Eventually something will replace "Synthetics" as the big bad and the Reapers will come back with their idiotic way of solving things

[Kreid]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Creid-X wrote...

I undestand what you're saying. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a pro-ender in fact I hate the ending in many ways for different reasons, but my point is that dismissing the points made in the article (the astrobiology theories) because they are not presented in the narrative is like dismissing gravity because it's not in the codex, the author is trying to get the point across that BioWare assumed their fans are familiar with those concepts and made a gamble that didn't pay off.

Well, some players were quite familiar with these highly speculative theories, and still don't see how they should have been inferred from the story, before the endings.

There are several story-archs in Mass Effect, some deal with strenght through diversity, others with self-determination and never giving up, the themes presented at the end are in tehre too organics vs. synthetics is the very theme of the series (Shepard and the galaxy vs the Reapers) and we can see the Geth-Quarian conflict too. The ending is an elaboration of those ideas, the problem is that it's presented in a terrible way and IMO rusehd too.

Modifié par Creid-X, 20 avril 2012 - 01:41 .

[D_Dude1210]

The article basically tries to make sense of the ending by LOOSELY (VERY VERY LOOSELY) referencing scientific theories in an attempt to imply a level of advanced thinking being required in order to fully appreciate the ending as it is.

Well, I read the article, am also familiar with a lot of the theories he referenced. I am not convinced. I find the logic incorrect at many parts, insulting in some and downright dishonest in others (ME3 ending was deeply foreshadowed since ME1). I can't find a single point of logic he made that was actually explained in a thoroughly and logically enough way as to survive scrutiny.

Bottom line, he explained his point Anime-style. :-/

[mpgeist]

japinthebox wrote...

mpgeist wrote...

I've still not read anything that's convincing about why the Catalyst helps Shepard at the end. Just let him fumble in the dark and his cycle continues.

The Catalyst surrenders, because the Crucible forces it to.

The Catalyst's goals aren't entirely absurd, but they hold very little regard for galactic civilizations -- obviously. That's why when the Catalyst surrenders, it offers to let Shepard have his way.

I say this a few too many times in the article, something I've been meaning to fix...

After a time release elevator ride and Shep's convenient third wind (after literally being covered in blood). I just have a really hard time buying it. It's like if Hitler decided to surrender after Operation Valkyrie failed. "Well you tried something different and got closer to stopping me than anything else, guess I'll just give up now. Here are the keys to the Eagle's Nest."

[Iconoclaste]

Creid-X wrote...

There are several story-archs in Mass Effect, some deal with strenght through diversity, others with self-determination and never giving up, the themes presented at the end are in tehre too organics vs. synthetics is the very theme of the series (Shepard and the galaxy vs the Reapers) and we can see the Geth-Quarian
conflict too. The ending is an elaboration of those ideas, the problem is that it's presented in a terrible way and IMO rusehd too.

I think "suspension of disbelief" is a good concept to illustrate the points not to be crossed in storytelling, even if the themes are an open Pandora's box into scientific miracles.

The technological singularity is just an hypothesis today, trying to explain the fact that we did not yet make contact with any other sentient life form. We could expect that for the Mass Effect Universe, this theory would have been "updated" to fit the context, since its purpose is extinct in its present form.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 20 avril 2012 - 01:44 .

[Kreid]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Creid-X wrote....  

I undestand what you're saying. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a pro-ender in fact I hate the ending in many ways for different reasons, but my point is that dismissing the points made in the article (the astrobiology theories) because they are not presented in the narrative is like dismissing gravity because it's not in the codex, the author is trying to get the point across that BioWare assumed their fans are familiar with those concepts and made a gamble that didn't pay off.

If gravity had been the secret to solving the Reaper war or the driving logic behind the Catalyst, then it too would have needed immense foreshadowing and explanation throughout the game or series. Anything that is relevant to the plot development of your story - particularly its resolution - needs to follow this literary rule. If I misunderstood the point you were trying to make then I apologize.

You didn't misunderstood my point at all, in fact you're right. I'm not arguing that it is a complete debacle in terms of narrative (and that's just one part of why the ending is quite bad) but that the theories the author of the article presented are in fact part of the themes introduced in the ending, which BioWare seemed to assume the fans were familiar with, only they were not, and thus even more confusion was created.

[CronoDragoon]

Creid-X wrote...
There are several story-archs in Mass Effect, some deal with strenght through diversity, others with self-determination and never giving up, the themes presented at the end are in tehre too organics vs. synthetics is the very theme of the series (Shepard and the galaxy vs the Reapers) and we can see the Geth-Quarian conflict too. The ending is an elaboration of those ideas, the problem is that it's presented in a terrible way and IMO rusehd too.

Mass Effect 2 changed the idea that Shepard/galaxy vs. the Reapers is an organic/synthetic thing. First, you find out the Reapers are organic/synthetic hybrids, and then you get synthetics to join you fighting the Reapers. Generalizing the Reaper war into organics vs. synthetics forfeits all nuance and subtlety built during ME2 and pre-ending ME3.

I might agree that as of Mass Effect 1, organics vs. synthetics might have been the strongest theme, since the narrative seemed to be a Dune-esque group of all-powerful machines trying to destroy organics, and the diversity/unity themes had not yet been crystallized.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 20 avril 2012 - 01:46 .

[Hjelsao]

Creid-X wrote...

Hjelsao wrote...

Creid-X wrote...

Hjelsao wrote...

A well written piece, but I feel it attacks the problem from the wrong angle. NoBrandMinda describes this problem perfectly in the comments section: "You seem 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."

You can be as scientifically sound as you want; it doesn't matter if it doesn't enter into the internal logic of the fictional universe.

The codex explains mass effect fields but it doesn't explain gravity or Einstein's field equations, should I assume they don't apply/exist in the ME universe?

I know little of Einstein's field equations, but I do know a few things about fiction. Yes, gravity exists in the ME universe, because you see it occuring. And as far as I know, certain of Einstein's key theories are directly contradicted by the existence of faster than light travel. That's why you have to be careful about the world you present, especially in an unnatural world as the ones we see in science fiction.

The claim that the events of the endings are supported by all these astrobiological theories is completely irrelevant, because they are never presented in the narrative. Maybe it's scientifically sound, but it is a narrative failure.  

I undestand what you're saying. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a pro-ender in fact I hate the ending in many ways for different reasons, but my point is that dismissing the points made in the article (the astrobiology theories) because they are not presented in the narrative is like dismissing gravity because it's not in the codex, the author is trying to get the point across that BioWare assumed their fans are familiar with those concepts and made a gamble that didn't pay off.

It's still just a theory on his part, what they were thinking people were familiar with it. It is what he had extrapolated based on his (apparently) extensive scientific knowledge. He makes alot of assumptions in his article, including that there are actual mistakes made in the cinematics.

As for your gravity/astrobiology point; I believe that those two notions operate on different planes, because one is far more known and understood than the other. Gravity is something we relate to every day. The Drake equation and  the Kardashev scale are not. If you shovel them into the foundation of your story, you have to make damn sure you adress them. Because the way it is explained in the story; the kid telling you that it is inevitable that the synthetic created will wipe out their creators, even though you have just resolved the only situation in the story that could fit into that category, is nothing short of narrative failure.

In my humble opinion.   

[LadyWench]

*sigh* Another "the ending was so deep, if you hate it you're just too stupid to get it" angle. No, no. I'm smart enough to know poor story points, multiple plot holes, and an abhorrent failure to follow proper climax/resolution structure when I see them.

Modifié par LadyWench, 20 avril 2012 - 01:46 .

[Eralrik]

The article was good an I enjoyed it but the ending still sucks and is garbage, if I wanted a Deus ex ending i would go play Dues Ex.
Since Bioware isn't going to change the ending and is adding on to an already crappy ending with an Extended cut dlc for free isn't going to change my mind in getting it to see better explained garbage. When the DLC launches these forums may be on fire yet again!
Me I'm done with Mass Effect the ending crushed and depressed me into never loading the game backup, I've clicked to start it get to the load screen and then I hit exit cause it's just to depressing to hit play.
Bioware isn't the same company that promoted that they listen to fans and use what fans suggest it's all about corporate greed and alienating the fan base for Artistic Integrity <which Bioware of old wouldn't have dropped that word and would have actually listened to the fans and sent out Survey's to the fans to get an understanding of what was wrong or right.>
The Ball is in this new Bioware's court, since the old Bioware we loved and cherished to put out games with meaningful story's is a thing of the past.
But this is just my two cents on the subject and I'm not putting Bioware down, but it feels like Shepard is <Bioware> and Starchild is <EA> with no real choices but to go along with the guys in charge or else loose your funding.
I doubt any of the moderators would even read my post so I shall blend back into the wall and disappear.

[someone else]

OP hasn't been around for hours...trollololo...

[japinthebox]

someone else wrote...

OP hasn't been around for hours...trollololo...

No, but the author of the article has. Hi.

[Iconoclaste]

japinthebox wrote...

someone else wrote...

OP hasn't been around for hours...trollololo...

No, but the author of the article has. Hi.

Greetings!

[DarkShadow]

japinthebox wrote...

I fail to see how the story about the quarian/geth, the genophage/mordin/krogan, and everything else that matters could have possibly fit in an epilogue. The choices you make throughout the game are so numerous that there's simply no way it would fit.

It's not ideal, of course, but then again, nothing's ideal for a 100+ hour game.

Keep in mind this is one of the few games out there that retain your saves over a hundred hour period.

You could read my "the ending we want" thread, or "My ME3 ending", but I'll just give some examples. The thing here is, actually its NOT that many stuff that needs to be adressed in the ending. The thing is, this stuff doesn't need to be that long, a good example here is DA:O.

For quarian/geth, show a small scene of the quarians and/or geth rebuilding their home on Rannoch.

For Krogan, show a scene where the krogan are shown breeding again (yeah, not the "act" itself). You could also show the result of the breeding, namely new children, or the realization that they have been betrayed.

For Turian, you can show Victus leading the rebuild of their fleet (showing their military focus).

Obviously, these things can also be done in some nicely designed textboxes. It's work, but its a reasonable amount of work.

All in all, my estimation would be 20-30 minutes for everything. Ingame scenes or CGI for the more important stuff (Shepard, LI, squadmates) and textboxes for the less important stuff (crewmembers, npcs (e.g. Kirrahe), species, galaxy). I'd say a 100+ hours story deserves a ending of that scope. And the japanese developers show that this can be done (MGS-series, FF-series).

japinthebox wrote...
I can't say that the story "stops" or that the central conflict is replaced in any way. It's framed in a new way, sure, but it doesn't stop.

By the way, I'm human, and I know of a lot of stories that end with a sudden "stop" and an epiphany at the end.

You may have a point though -- all the examples I can think of are Japanese -- Tezuka and Hagio Motoo's works, Akira... It could be a cultural thing.

Central conflict up to elevator: "We need to stop the reapers before they kill us all".
Conflict after the elevator/catalyst: "We need to find a solution to the metaphysical conflict between organics and synthetics".

Sounds quite different to me. The first one kinda being solved by the solution of the second one doesn't really work.

And once again. I know that you're human, and seeing this different doesn't make you a weirdo or freak, it just shows that you have some different look at things, or different knowledge which makes you respond differently to the ME3 ending in this case. You kinda said that yourself.

My problem here is, the ME series always followed the plot structure of "The Hero's Journey" aka "Monomyth" by the book, ME3 simply "jumps out" in the last stage.

Not completely following this structure CAN work for the majority, but you'd need a hell of a story and a hell of a writing team for that. And Bioware just didn't have that.

Modifié par DarkShadow, 20 avril 2012 - 01:54 .