858 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

DarkShadow wrote...

japinthebox wrote...
A lot of stories that follow "the hero's journey" end with the "tragic hero" hero template -- which Mass Effect also follows by the book. The only thing out of the ordinary is that Mass Effect is over a hundred hours long, and so people were incredibly attached.

And again, I think that's what Bioware overlooked.

This is a small part where I disagree. A "tragic hero" is a hero whose (god I hope I used that word right ) actions are the reason for his own demise (see Hamlet, MacBeth, etc.), and Shepard isn't that type of hero. Well, depending on playstyle, you could argue that Shepard being unable to unite all races are those actions, but for someone like me playing full Paragon and finishing every single sidequest, this just doesn't work.

Yeah, a definition of a tragic hero I read once and liked identified him as a hero who ultimately fails because of his own character flaws. It's clear Shepard is not a tragic hero.

[OdanUrr]

nwj94 wrote...

A good point, but once again thats not really depicted in anyway prior to the star child saying

"[TIM] couldn't control them, but you can."

Its still out of left field and thats generally a sign of poor writing.  If they wanted to foreshadow doing something that seems wrong for the right reasons they shouldn't introduce it in the last game, let alone the last 5 minutes.  That should have been a theme since the begining.  Just as destroy the reapers was a theme from the begining.

Yeah, introducing an entirely new character without enough foreshadowing is just bad. Mind you, when Vendetta said something about the Reapers not being the masters of the cycle I though to myself, "This is going to be the foreshadowing for the Catalyst? Are you serious?!" I'd already spoiled myself a lot by then.

[BurningArmor]

Okay, I accept the idea that the writers were trying to go somewhere specific with the ending to ME3.

However, I believe that I have no education or training on some of these concepts concerning extraterrestrial life that Master Pillow talks about.  With some of the errors noted in Master Pillow's article, I also feel that the developers may not have been filled in either. 

Then we find that the Catalyst is not the Citadel but an Artificial Intelligence that lives on the space station and runs all the Reapers.  We find this out in the last ten minutes of the game after Shepard has been beaten, stabbed, shot, burned, and hit with biotics while just trying to get there.  Shepard was showing signs of exhaustion even before that.  Not to mention all the death Shepard has seen during his journey.

In that state of mind, how could Shepard make an intelligent decision about anything of this magnitude? 

I for one did not trust the Starchild while Shepard was in this condition so Synthesis was an extremely hard decision to make even with the prospect of long term peace.  This also has some ethical issues that was not even touched while Shepard was considering.

Control is also a very hard decision for Shepard right after dealing with The Illusive Man.  I do think it was ironic that Shepard had learned his own means of paragon control.  Shepard's own means of indoctrination if you will.  For example, he was able to talk TIM into shooting himself in the head much like Shepard did to Saren.

Destroy was perhaps the easiest of the answers available to mindlessly commit as Shepard had orders in hand to do this.  The downside here was that it would also take out the now friendly Geth and EDI whom I consider to be the daughter Shepard never had the chance to have.

Add to this the destruction of the Jump Relays.

Add to this Shepard's Death in the Synthesis and Control endings and Shepard's possible death in Destroy.

All I feel I have left to say is "Welcome aboard the Kobayoshi Maru."

Modifié par BurningArmor, 20 avril 2012 - 02:17 .

[TreguardD]

[quote]japinthebox wrote...

[quote]Oh for the love of.. not THIS again. Come on. We're passionate, not stupid.

http://www.joystiq.c...-with-childs-p/

There was no "Mass" of refunds requested OR delivered.[/quote]

I never said "mass". I said a situation was created where it could have, it happened at least once, and it shouldn't have.

[quote]
EA, on the other hand, has done the same thing with "BattleField Heroes"

http://www.cinemable...tion-41190.html
[/quote]
[/quote]

I don't remember liking EA either.

[/quote]

ANY situation which brings attention to a charity create a situation  which "COULD do that. Come on. Realize exactly what kind of brush you're painting with.


And no. Quite frankly, you don't know if it happened at least once

Edit: Stupid nested quotes.

Modifié par TreguardD, 20 avril 2012 - 02:19 .

[DxWill103]

Agree with others. This theme came out of left field compared to the rest of the game.

Honestly, even if it was just the catalyst scene, it wouldn't be as bad for me. I'd just play it off as Bioware dropped the ball. But deciding the best possible segment to end the final cutscene with was that Normandy scene, I'm starting to wonder what really happened, as the scene is irrelevant, brings the opposite of closure, and holds no emotional meaning in any way shape or form.

Bottom line, I think it was a rushed ending (maybe its Hudson and Walters fault, maybe its EA). Who is to blame is ultimately irrelevant. The problem exists, the damage is done, and unfortunately, no amount of clarification will set it right. I'm still accepting it and getting over it, but I believe I'm almost there.

[japinthebox]

CronoDragoon wrote...

DarkShadow wrote...

japinthebox wrote...
A lot of stories that follow "the hero's journey" end with the "tragic hero" hero template -- which Mass Effect also follows by the book. The only thing out of the ordinary is that Mass Effect is over a hundred hours long, and so people were incredibly attached.

And again, I think that's what Bioware overlooked.

This is a small part where I disagree. A "tragic hero" is a hero whose (god I hope I used that word right ) actions are the reason for his own demise (see Hamlet, MacBeth, etc.), and Shepard isn't that type of hero. Well, depending on playstyle, you could argue that Shepard being unable to unite all races are those actions, but for someone like me playing full Paragon and finishing every single sidequest, this just doesn't work.

Yeah, a definition of a tragic hero I read once and liked identified him as a hero who ultimately fails because of his own character flaws. It's clear Shepard is not a tragic hero.

Point taken; I used the word "tragic hero" wrong.

But there are plenty of other stories where the hero of a hero's journey type story dies rather simply at the end. Take Gladiator, for example -- which I won't spoil in case some people haven't watched it yet.

Edit: whoops, I already did LOL

Modifié par japinthebox, 20 avril 2012 - 02:18 .

[Varus Praetor]

If the article doesn't work, maybe I'll try hypnosis like in Office Space....hope the hypnotist doesn't have a heart attack half way through and leave me permanently unable to tell good writing from bad writing!

On second though, it's probably not worth the risk.

[zarnk567]

DarkShadow wrote...

japinthebox wrote...
A lot of stories that follow "the hero's journey" end with the "tragic hero" hero template -- which Mass Effect also follows by the book. The only thing out of the ordinary is that Mass Effect is over a hundred hours long, and so people were incredibly attached.

And again, I think that's what Bioware overlooked.

This is a small part where I disagree. A "tragic hero" is a hero whose (god I hope I used that word right ) actions are the reason for his own demise (see Hamlet, MacBeth, etc.), and Shepard isn't that type of hero. Well, depending on playstyle, you could argue that Shepard being unable to unite all races are those actions, but for someone like me playing full Paragon and finishing every single sidequest, this just doesn't work.

I dis-agree i think you mean "bitter sweet " endings have the Protaginist dying for his ideals,beliefs and or a promise he/she made. The problem with the Mass Effect 3 ending is it feels like Shepard just gave up and  accepted some random antagonists logic who was added dring the last 10 min of the game. And when he/she does this it feels like Shepard is giving up on her beliefs, ideals and betraying the friends he/she has made during this journey. So the ending then just feels Biitter, and rage inducing unlike how I usually feel after finishing a game with a "bitter sweet" end which is emotionally satisfied. And this is even more explained by  Bioware having shepard dying for nameless people who we don't know and or care about, which is odd considering how focused this game was on the characters.

Modifié par zarnk567, 20 avril 2012 - 02:20 .

[X-JIDE]

(Not to be disrespectful to the author.) But I shouldn’t have to read an editorial.
Players shouldn’t have to look outside the game to get answers to these questions.
They should be explained in-game!
But even if the answers are in game the way it’s portrayed with the holokid and the last minute organics/ synthetics argument just destroys the ending in so many ways. And let’s not start on the three choices.

Besides, that ending has rush job written all over it, just read “TheFinalHoursOfMassEffect3” and you'll understand the situation better.

[TreguardD]

zarnk567 wrote...

DarkShadow wrote...

japinthebox wrote...
A lot of stories that follow "the hero's journey" end with the "tragic hero" hero template -- which Mass Effect also follows by the book. The only thing out of the ordinary is that Mass Effect is over a hundred hours long, and so people were incredibly attached.

And again, I think that's what Bioware overlooked.

This is a small part where I disagree. A "tragic hero" is a hero whose (god I hope I used that word right ) actions are the reason for his own demise (see Hamlet, MacBeth, etc.), and Shepard isn't that type of hero. Well, depending on playstyle, you could argue that Shepard being unable to unite all races are those actions, but for someone like me playing full Paragon and finishing every single sidequest, this just doesn't work.

I dis-agree i think you mean "bitter sweet " endings have the Protaginist dying for his ideals,beliefs and or a promise he/she made. The problem with the Mass Effect 3 ending is it feels like Shepard just gave up and  accepted some random antagonists logic who was added dring the last 10 min of the game. And when he/she does this it feels like Shepard is giving up on her beliefs, ideals and betraying the friends he/she has made during this journey. So the ending then just feels Biitter, and rage inducing unlike how I usually feel after finishing a game with a "bitter sweet" end which is emotionally satisfied. And this is even more explained by  Bioware having shepard dying for nameless people who we don't know and or care about, which is odd considering how focused this game was on the characters.

Mordin was a tragic hero. Legion is a different kind of example.

Modifié par TreguardD, 20 avril 2012 - 02:21 .

[Nobrandminda]

The article argues that the ending was right to focus on the organic/synthetic theme because it was one of many primary themes of the series.  Here's the problem: that theme had been largely put to bed before the ending.

Whether or not organics and synthetics could live together was an open question in Mass Effect 1, and through most of Mass Effect 2.  But two things happened in Mass Effect 2 that suggested that peaceful coexistance was possible.  We met Legion, a geth ally, and EDI was unshackled.  This suggested that yes, organics and synthetics could indeed work together.

Finally, Mass Effect 3 built on those events to give us the Rannoch mission, which was the culmination of the purest organic/synthetic conflict in the series: the Quarian/Geth war.  As we all know, the outcome with the greatest reward was a peaceful resolution to the conflict.  Not only was that the happiest ending, it was the one with the greatest War Asset reward.  Even if you didn't pick that option for whatever reason, it is an objective fact that the peaceful resolution was the best ending to the Rannoch storyline and by extension the philosophical question regarding organic and synthetic life.

That seemed to have closed the issue.  The Mass Effect series had brought up a question: can organic and synthetic life coexist?  And the Mass Effect series answered it: yes we can.  Section 4.0 of the article even says that we should look to all of Mass Effect 3 for closure, and not just the final few minutes.  So we can just check that theme off the list and move on to the climax of the game right?

Nope.  In the final moments of the game, they take another crack at it despite everything else that's happened in the series, and they come up with a different answer.

So which answer to the organic/synthetic question is the legitimate one?  The one that's supported by the narrative, or the one that's supported by the real world speculative scientists?  I'll give you a hint: it's the same one that allows for aliens who understand english and telekinetic super powers.

Modifié par Nobrandminda, 20 avril 2012 - 02:26 .

[CronoDragoon]

Edit: arguing semantics about "tragic hero" is boring compared to rest of thread.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 20 avril 2012 - 02:22 .

[Iconoclaste]

If it is ok to accept FTL, quantum entanglement and Mass Effect Fields in this fiction, it would be reasonably more easy to accept current theories like gravity. But as far as I know, the Kardashev scale, the Drake equation(s) and the technological singularity theory all arised from the cosmic silence, which is not existent anymore in the Mass Effect Universe. These are highly debatable, and speculative actual theories due to our relative frame of reference in space and time. They cannot apply if the core premisses are not there anymore.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 20 avril 2012 - 02:24 .

[Kreid]

Iconoclaste wrote...
Mass Effect is a speculative fantasy world, where proof exist that organic life has never been wiped out until the moment we play the game.

We don't know this, there is a high chance of possibility that it's the very Reapers which have prevented it from happening, that doesn't disprove the theory, in fact it reinforces it because the very cycle of extinction exist to prevent it.

Nobody in that speculative universe would think of a "technological singularity theory" since its purpose was to explain why advanced species never made contact with others.

That's not what Technological Singularity is about.
"Technological singularity refers to the hypothetical future emergence of greater-than-human intelligence through technological means. Since the capabilities of such intelligence would be difficult for an unaided human mind to comprehend, the occurrence of a technological singularity is seen as an intellectual event horizon, beyond which events cannot be predicted or understood. Proponents of the singularity typically state that an "intelligence explosion" is a key factor of the Singularity where superintelligences design successive generations of increasingly powerful minds."

To portray that subsequent type I civilizations succeeded in making type III devices (Crucible) where the Reapers (type II) never advanced to that stage, even so long lived, makes a point against the usage of these concepts in the story prior to the endings, and even then, it would just be weakly thought and written.

There are specific circumstances for those events, the Crucible is the byproduct of one billion years of work from countless civilizations, type 1 never would have made it alone,a nd the Reapers are hardwired by teh cycle, unable to evolve since they have no free will.

[japinthebox]

Iconoclaste wrote...

If it is ok to accept FTL, quantum entanglement and Mass Effect Fields in this fiction, it would be reasonably more easy to accept current theories like gravity. But as far as I know, the Kardashev scale, the Drake equation(s) and the technological singularity theory all arised from the cosmic silence, which is no existent anymore in the Mass Effect Universe. These are highly debatable, and speculative actual theories due to our relative frame of reference in space and time. They cannot apply if the core premisses are not there anymore.

Communication using quantum entanglement, as well as FTL travel and wormhole travel are all things that have been disproven by science. The Kardashev Scale and the Drake Equation haven't, and groups like SETI are still hard at work trying to figure out what the truth is. 


Man I've been at this for hours now... be back later!

[Jacob1805]

 I read the article, and as someone who hates the endings, I enjoyed the read. I still have an issue though, I shouldn't have had to read the article to understand the ending. 

Modifié par Jacob1805, 20 avril 2012 - 02:41 .

[UrdnotGrunty2]

The problem is Mass Effect is a story, not a big hypothetical example of some science theories that are high above/not even known of from 99.99% of their audience.

Mass effect being a story means that Bioware must make sure literary elements required in a story stay intact and they aren't. Yes I am not looking at this from a left-minded, scientific view.

Despite being a sci-fi game, it is still meant throughout the whole series to be about the CHARACTERS and PLOT not the science. It is a digital piece of literature, and they did a whole lot of things that aren't supposed to be done in literature with that ending.

So what scientific theories I have never heard of before (that are also very iffy when I look at them) might possibly and vaguely support the ending (yes vaguely, the ending is so vague you can make it mean literally whatever you want it to mean, not good literature).

Good literature needs a clear conclusion, that doesn't require 95% of everybody who experiences it to be frustrated for months over how bad it is in a literature perspective.

No scientific theory will make the endings good literature, because literature isn't science. A good story (even sci-fi) should ALWAYS put the literary requirements for a story first, and make sure the literature that is written is understandable by the target audience.

Remember Mass Effect was NOT made for the big astrobiologists with doctorates. It was made for average gamers, who 99.99% of them will not be big astrobiologists with doctorates, meaning 99.99% of the audience have no chance at understanding the ending if this was intended (I doubt it was), and even then for that 00.01% they would have to deeply look into it to be able to back it up and actually figure out thats what it means, making the ending that more distasteful for the one experiencing the literature.

Even then there is little narrative coherence throughout the ending even if you take all of that into consideration, which if a story has anything it should have its narrative coherence, the ending has none and makes the entire story of Mass Effect have none.

There are so many questions, plot holes, and confusing parts to the ending that by the end of it there is no narrative coherence left (very hard to do in the last 1% of the story unintentionally)

People don't understand the ending because there is nothing to understand, there is just lots of holes that you could fill with anything to try to make sense, which is why you see giant ranges of theories that could fill those holes.

Think of it this way I have a nice big Cylinder, it is a complete solid and completely full per say. Now say I make a nice big hole in my cylinder, wait no multiple nice big holes to where it doesn't even appear like a cylinder anymore. So I want to make my Cylinder an actual Cylinder again so I need to figure out something to fill those holes. I could stuff some jelly beans into those holes, or maybe some wads of paper, or maybe some corks, that ought to do it. But wait none of those things are made of the same material as my cylinder, so now it just looks like a very pathetic excuse of art instead of a nice cylinder.

See where I am going, these theories although nice for a brand new game targeted at a different audience just don't fit with Mass Effect. The endings punched many holes into our cylinder called Mass Effect, and you can use whatever you want to fill those holes, an indoctrination theory, some "deep" artistic meanings, or some astrobiology theories. However none of those are made of the same material and meant for the same audience that originally played Mass Effect.

That is why the endings are bad and that is why it doesn't matter what you say to defend it because it is just some new material you are using to try and fill the holes that the endings punched into Mass Effect.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

ReggarBlane wrote...

Speculations based on sloppy work is equally sloppy.

Yes, kind of like pushing slop around, would somehow make it less sloppy? Yup nailed it.

[Lancane]

LucasShark wrote...

ALso: "the ending is strongly foreshadowed"

BULL ****ING ****!

We KNOW there was another ending planned, we know this. The main antagonist of this ending isn't even introduced until 10 minutes before the end. THAT IS NOT when you introduce a central conflict of the storyline.

Great Answer! 

[D_Dude1210]

I have to applaud the OP, tho. He has successfully wasted 30-40 minutes of time from every person reading his article that could have been done to pursue more productive endeavors.

And people wonder why the world economy is in such bad shape.

Modifié par D_Dude1210, 20 avril 2012 - 02:30 .

[TheOptimist]

D_Dude1210 wrote...

I have to applaud the OP, tho. He has successfully wasted 30-40 minutes of time that could have been done to pursue more productive endeavors.

And people wonder why the world economy is in such bad shape.

In my case, he successfully wasted over 2 hours, cause I had to write an indepth response that no one will read.

[CronoDragoon]

D_Dude1210 wrote...

I have to applaud the OP, tho. He has successfully wasted 30-40 minutes of time from every person reading his article that could have been done to pursue more productive endeavors.

And people wonder why the world economy is in such bad shape.

Let's be honest, none of us would have used that time productively. 

[japinthebox]

Lancane wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

ALso: "the ending is strongly foreshadowed"

BULL ****ING ****!

We KNOW there was another ending planned, we know this. The main antagonist of this ending isn't even introduced until 10 minutes before the end. THAT IS NOT when you introduce a central conflict of the storyline.

Great Answer! 

There's plenty of times when the last boss of a game isn't introduced in the ending. Be glad that the Catalyst didn't do the cliche "This is my final form" stuff.

And no, if you'd read down into the article, the other ending was neither the first nor the last -- it was one of several that had been thrown around.

[DarkShadow]

japinthebox wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

DarkShadow wrote...

japinthebox wrote...
A lot of stories that follow "the hero's journey" end with the "tragic hero" hero template -- which Mass Effect also follows by the book. The only thing out of the ordinary is that Mass Effect is over a hundred hours long, and so people were incredibly attached.

And again, I think that's what Bioware overlooked.

This is a small part where I disagree. A "tragic hero" is a hero whose (god I hope I used that word right ) actions are the reason for his own demise (see Hamlet, MacBeth, etc.), and Shepard isn't that type of hero. Well, depending on playstyle, you could argue that Shepard being unable to unite all races are those actions, but for someone like me playing full Paragon and finishing every single sidequest, this just doesn't work.

Yeah, a definition of a tragic hero I read once and liked identified him as a hero who ultimately fails because of his own character flaws. It's clear Shepard is not a tragic hero.

Point taken; I used the word "tragic hero" wrong.

But there are plenty of other stories where the hero of a hero's journey type story dies rather simply at the end. Take [SPOILER], for example -- which I won't spoil in case some people haven't watched it yet.

Edit: whoops, I already did LOL

Ok, no doubt about that. I think I responded to this because I saw a lot of other people saying that the story dictated that Shepard had to die no matter what, or it would feel wrong. And that was just wrong. I think the game could and should have both options for every type of ending, just give the people that work hard the chance for a golden ending. And no, that breath scene is not a golden ending.

Ok, nice discussion, but it's 4 am, I need to get to bed.

[Averdi]

Creid-X wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

Creid-X wrote...

The hybrid nature of the Reapers is inconsecuential in that regard, you can see they're primarely synthetics throughout the games.
I agree that there is a disconnection between what we are presented in the games and what is presented in the ending, you see many people saying that the Catalyst's argument is faulty because you can make the Quarians and the Geth achieve peace, but that's exactly the short-sighted point of view the Catalyst is trying to warn you against -life in the galaxy will continue for billions of years, eventually synthetic life will outrun organic life in terms of evolution and probably destroy it- the problem is trying to convey this ideas in the five last minutes.

This has been debated at lenghts, and there are other sound reasons why the Reapers logic is flawed. But the point here is that the Reapers are the fruit of some remote speculative theory that MAY be of some use today, but since Mass Effect portrays a Universe (galaxy, at least) where many sentient species cohabit in relative peace, this theory cannot apply in its present form.

Why is it any different? The Kardashev scale, the Drake equation and the Technological Singularity should apply in the ME universe pretty much in the same way than in ours. 

I question how much they really apply in ours.  They're speculative now.

I also can't understand why, if they are intended to inhabite the ME universe and have been around since the 20th century, Shepard and other galactic intelligences seem so ignorant of them.  Are they really unaware, or do they, from their perspective, have reason to disbelieve them and their (and catalyst's) implication that the result would be organic extermination over an infinite time horizon.  This is all of us guessing, but he simple presence of such esoteric theories today doesn't, in my mind, make them the default (and just poorly implement) position in the game.

This then gets back to the perception of the player's Shepard and the choices offered.  The implication of the theory seems to be that the catalyst should offer the choice of reaper victory and try to convince Shepard of it.  However, given that Shepard has both personal and known examples of synthetic/organic competition that didn't result in extermination (geth, edi, citidel scamming ai, Javik's story of ai in his time), coupled with his ignorance or dismissal of the theories behind extermination, the player should also have the choice to tell the catalyst that his theories are not relevant, he's a nervious nancy, and to go to hell.  That's the narrative break.  If the writers really wanted to provoke players with deep thoughts concerning Skynet endtimes and how to avoid them, they need to be consistent in their use of the story to do so.