197 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

There however a great many who are and are willing to offer mature feedback, which is what I've been trying to do in some capacity. I'm not very successful but I feel better doing something.

I'm trying my best to be level with everything but I alas cannot but I can offer the art-critique that Bioware deserves. I don't go into more detail because all ever do is frustrate people.

[Baa Baa]

Even though I tend to grow tired of mainstream endings, I imagine a mainstream ending being satisfying for ME3

[Taboo]

Baa Baa wrote...

Even though I tend to grow tired of mainstream endings, I imagine a mainstream ending being satisfying for ME3

Happy endings are not necessarily mainstream. Anyone who tells you this is not aware that happy endings exists everywhere in every art form.

It would be an appropriate ending in at least once scenario. The "best" ending so to speak.

[OneDrunkMonk]

I don't think the ending needs to be more palpable to a mainstream audience. Creative, innovative, highly artistic is fine as long as it fits. Who'd of thought having operatic themes in a rock song would work and yet we have Bohemian Rhapsody and it works. The current ME3 ending does not compliment what we've enjoyed in the series so far. It's obviously a switch up from a finale that was much more conducive.

[Taboo]

OneDrunkMonk wrote...

I don't think the ending needs to be more palpable to a mainstream audience. Creative, innovative, highly artistic is fine as long as it fits. Who'd of thought having operatic themes in a rock song would work and yet we have Bohemian Rhapsody and it works. The current ME3 ending does not compliment what we've enjoyed in the series so far. It's obviously a switch up from a finale that was much more conducive.

Bohemian Rhapsody is technically three song types in one.

Ballad
Opera
Hard Rock

Anyway, Bioware does need to take into consideration things that will appeal to a majority of fans. They need to take back as many fans as they can and adding more Tarkovsky will only serve to rustle more jimmies.

[Baa Baa]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Baa Baa wrote...

Even though I tend to grow tired of mainstream endings, I imagine a mainstream ending being satisfying for ME3

Happy endings are not necessarily mainstream. Anyone who tells you this is not aware that happy endings exists everywhere in every art form.

It would be an appropriate ending in at least once scenario. The "best" ending so to speak.

I know, and I agree that they should have a happy ending to it, I would hope it wouldn't be a mainstream ending but if it was I wouldn't really mind. But I know that just because it's happy doesn't mean it's mainstream, I love the alt ending to I Am Legend (which is a happy ending; everyone makes it out alive) but it's definetly NOT mainstream.

[xsdob]

They'll keep bringing up negative points until they run out of them, than they'll just make stuff up to complain about.

Not that it will matter, people are already becoming desensitized to all the negativity that the controversy has brought, I give it another month and a half before people don't even acknowledge the retake and hold the blank crowds anymore. They will become a backdrop or background set piece, completely unnoticeable to anyone not looking for it.

Also, great post, I agree.

[Taboo]

Happy endings are not mainstream. Narratives that explain everything to you are. Mass Effect never attempted to tell us everything but in the end Bioware went a bit........overboard with the speculation.

[Femlob]

Mylia Stenetch wrote...
So to think that Casey Hudson coming out and talking about it on the forums would quell the anger is a small blip on hope. Mainly cause you post where you are very much on the offensive on what he said.

I don't think that the people who call for Casey to make an appearance are particularly interested in him quelling anything. They're out for blood; they want to see him bend over and take it. It's a rowdy sentiment, but one I do partly agree with. I'm not out to destroy him, but I do feel that he should show up and own his mistake.

Shame is an integral educational element in western society, and the driving force behind the desire to do better in the future. If he doesn't own up to his mistake - if he doesn't feel the shame associated with it - why would he be motivated to improve?

[Taboo]

Femlob wrote...

Mylia Stenetch wrote...
So to think that Casey Hudson coming out and talking about it on the forums would quell the anger is a small blip on hope. Mainly cause you post where you are very much on the offensive on what he said.

I don't think that the people who call for Casey to make an appearance are particularly interested in him quelling anything. They're out for blood; they want to see him bend over and take it. It's a rowdy sentiment, but one I do partly agree with. I'm not out to destroy him, but I do feel that he should show up and own his mistake.

Shame is an integral educational element in western society, and the driving force behind the desire to do better in the future. If he doesn't own up to his mistake - if he doesn't feel the shame associated with it - why would he be motivated to improve?

Casey is owning up to his mistake in some capacity by doing this extended cut. I'm also fairly certain he was integral to making it free. There's a difference between making a public and private concession. I see the Extended Cut as the latter.

[Femlob]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Femlob wrote...

Mylia Stenetch wrote...
So to think that Casey Hudson coming out and talking about it on the forums would quell the anger is a small blip on hope. Mainly cause you post where you are very much on the offensive on what he said.

I don't think that the people who call for Casey to make an appearance are particularly interested in him quelling anything. They're out for blood; they want to see him bend over and take it. It's a rowdy sentiment, but one I do partly agree with. I'm not out to destroy him, but I do feel that he should show up and own his mistake.

Shame is an integral educational element in western society, and the driving force behind the desire to do better in the future. If he doesn't own up to his mistake - if he doesn't feel the shame associated with it - why would he be motivated to improve?

Casey is owning up to his mistake in some capacity by doing this extended cut. I'm also fairly certain he was integral to making it free. There's a difference between making a public and private concession. I see the Extended Cut as the latter.

It very well might be - but the thing with private concessions (and confessions, for that matter) is that you can back out of them whenever you want to. I promised myself I'd quit smoking many times, and I'm still blowing smoke like a chimney. A public concession is final - it gives people something to beat you over the head with if you try to wiggle your way out of it.

[Agugaboo]

Taboo-XX wrote...

This beer tastes awful!: Bioware's mistake of serving you "arty" beer.

I like art films a great deal, unfortunatley a great majority of people do not, and I think has caused a great deal of anger on the forums. BSN users are not dumb but they are unfamiliar with what I would consider to be true "artistic" endeavors and much like beer your first taste is particularly unpleasent. It doesn't taste good, I understand and you don't have to partake in it if you don't want to. If you do continue to "drink" it will eventually taste better even if the experience is a bad one. I think this is where Bioware dropped the ball big time and where they need to step up to plate in this extended cut. They need to make it more palatable to a mainstream audience.

I like art films. Have seen many many many. Have had Netflix for years. Have watched tons of Cannes and Sundance films, and stuff that doesn't make it to the big screen.  I get it. End the movie preclimax in order to avoid cliche, or make people think; it's really trendy these days. Tragic heros are such a great statement. I also like good beer. Lite beer is A**. Hoppyum is yum. I get it. Sometimes bitter is good.  Sometimes just bitter notes can accent a dark flavor. Mass Effect is neither a pure I.P.A. or a Philip Seymour Hoffmann movie about middle age crises and offing yourself.
To say that rejection of the ending is wholly on the basis that we are too mainstream or unacquired for mass effect is crass. In fact the rejection is largely similar to what you would get if you poured a couple cans of beast (the last five minutes of the game) in an aged red wine (the rest of the series). A snake bite this does not make.


Despite this, I still think a clever, fitting ending can be made of what is presently there. And I really hope Bioware proves themselves once again and goes beyond the standard 'film' definition of Extended Cut, wether or not it was planned.

[Taboo]

Femlob wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Femlob wrote...

Mylia Stenetch wrote...
So to think that Casey Hudson coming out and talking about it on the forums would quell the anger is a small blip on hope. Mainly cause you post where you are very much on the offensive on what he said.

I don't think that the people who call for Casey to make an appearance are particularly interested in him quelling anything. They're out for blood; they want to see him bend over and take it. It's a rowdy sentiment, but one I do partly agree with. I'm not out to destroy him, but I do feel that he should show up and own his mistake.

Shame is an integral educational element in western society, and the driving force behind the desire to do better in the future. If he doesn't own up to his mistake - if he doesn't feel the shame associated with it - why would he be motivated to improve?

Casey is owning up to his mistake in some capacity by doing this extended cut. I'm also fairly certain he was integral to making it free. There's a difference between making a public and private concession. I see the Extended Cut as the latter.

It very well might be - but the thing with private concessions (and confessions, for that matter) is that you can back out of them whenever you want to. I promised myself I'd quit smoking many times, and I'm still blowing smoke like a chimney. A public concession is final - it gives people something to beat you over the head with if you try to wiggle your way out of it.

He could come out and apologize for a great many things but people would still give him a hard time for it. People would be angry that he didn't do it sooner etc, etc. All we can really do now is wait for more information about the extended cut which people need to remember, is still in the development stage.

[Femlob]

Taboo-XX wrote...

He could come out and apologize for a great many things but people would still give him a hard time for it. People would be angry that he didn't do it sooner etc, etc. All we can really do now is wait for more information about the extended cut which people need to remember, is still in the development stage.

That "hard time" is part of the shame I mentioned earlier. I'm aware that "hard time" on the internet is considerably different (and more verbally violent) from "hard time" in real life, so I'm not surprised he's opted to remain silent, but the point stands.

[M0keys]

Faded-Myth wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
This beer tastes awful!: Bioware's mistake of serving you "arty" beer.

I like art films a great deal, unfortunatley a great majority of people do not, and I think has caused a great deal of anger on the forums. BSN users are not dumb but they are unfamiliar with what I would consider to be true "artistic" endeavors and much like beer your first taste is particularly unpleasent. It doesn't taste good, I understand and you don't have to partake in it if you don't want to. If you do continue to "drink" it will eventually taste better even if the experience is a bad one. I think this is where Bioware dropped the ball big time and where they need to step up to plate in this extended cut. They need to make it more palatable to a mainstream audience.

I have an issue with your second sentence in the body there. Not every BSN is art-film ignorant. I own all of Lynch's films. I have hitchcock movies. Two of my favorite movies are Mulholland Drive and Eraserhead, both of which are as far from mainstream and linear as you can get. I regularly watch artsy films with collegues and friends. One of my friends is a director whose works gravitate towards art house.

I know it might sound nitpicky but it bugs me when people generalize a particular audiance as being ignorant regarding a particular genre or medium.

i have a friend who is also a director. he says ME3's ending isn't art, it's just "bilgewater." 

art is an attempt to express something, and he says nothing was really expressed in the ending using the narrative and visual languages established by Mass Effect. fails as art, etc.

[indyracing]

Having only read the OP - I simply don't agree.

What Mr Gamble says isn't trustworthy - so while he may be a nice guy for talking to us, why should anyone take anything he says at face value?  Maybe he's trying, but he's not saying much, and nothing of substance, so why should I be happy he's saying anything?

You say they can fix it, but they've said they stand by the artistic vision of the ME team.  So why bring this up?  Unless they stop standing by the artistic vision of the ME team, nothing's going to change (just expanded upon).

[Gwtheyrn]

Taboo-XX wrote...

eddieoctane wrote...

And the destruction of the relays serves zero purpose. Technologically, it would be much more feasible to try to rebuild the relays than to try to develop new FTL tech from the ground up. There's a saying in engineering "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The relays work. The Protheans figured out how to build them. It would be the first thing on any politician's list. So the "effect" the Reapers had by leaving the relays for us is permanent. It's not going away. What was seen cannot be unseen. So there is no long term benefit of getting rid of Reaper tech (other than the actual Reapers) and in the short term we are in a galactic dark age.

I know it's hard to swallow but they have already started retconning. Mr. Gamble confirmed that the relays are disabled on Twitter. Oh and the citadel isn't going to be destroyed. The problem now is that the ending was so poor that people have picked it apart and Bioware has quite a task ahead of them if they are going to fix it.

The only fix for this is to scrap the whole damned thing and hire a competent writer to come in and do the job Hudson and Walters should have done. They need to be kept far away from ever touching this franchise again.

[Taboo]

Gwtheyrn wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

eddieoctane wrote...

And the destruction of the relays serves zero purpose. Technologically, it would be much more feasible to try to rebuild the relays than to try to develop new FTL tech from the ground up. There's a saying in engineering "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The relays work. The Protheans figured out how to build them. It would be the first thing on any politician's list. So the "effect" the Reapers had by leaving the relays for us is permanent. It's not going away. What was seen cannot be unseen. So there is no long term benefit of getting rid of Reaper tech (other than the actual Reapers) and in the short term we are in a galactic dark age.

I know it's hard to swallow but they have already started retconning. Mr. Gamble confirmed that the relays are disabled on Twitter. Oh and the citadel isn't going to be destroyed. The problem now is that the ending was so poor that people have picked it apart and Bioware has quite a task ahead of them if they are going to fix it.

The only fix for this is to scrap the whole damned thing and hire a competent writer to come in and do the job Hudson and Walters should have done. They need to be kept far away from ever touching this franchise again.

I don't think that it's necessary if they do it right. Four or five months working on the ending should be enough time to at least salvage something.

I've also made an update.

[Richard 060]

Sorry, OP, but I disagree -

Just because a piece of storytelling's choppy, piecemeal execution, non sequiturs, logical fallacies and continuity flubs give it a superficial veneer of something resembling 'minimalism'...

[Taboo]

Richard 060 wrote...

Sorry, OP, but I disagree -

Just because a piece of storytelling's choppy, piecemeal execution, non sequiturs, logical fallacies and continuity flubs give it a superficial veneer of something resembling 'minimalism'...

It does actually. Because that's exactly the type of reaction people talk about when discussing things like this.

I'm probably wrong though and the ending is just bad. 

[Richard 060]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Richard 060 wrote...

Sorry, OP, but I disagree -

Just because a piece of storytelling's choppy, piecemeal execution, non sequiturs, logical fallacies and continuity flubs give it a superficial veneer of something resembling 'minimalism'...

It does actually. Because that's exactly the type of reaction people talk about when discussing things like this.

I'm probably wrong though and the ending is just bad. 

Well, minimalism or no, to contradict central plot 'beats' of your original story (i.e. the establishment of your sci-fi universe) is something of a cardinal sin when it comes to storytelling, so the ending has problems in that regard.

But again, I genuinely don't believe that this is a conscious attempt at 'minimalism'. And even if it is, why suddenly make the tonal shift to such, when, for the past 2 games and 99% of this one, we've been rooted in traditionally straight-forward science fiction storytelling in the mold of the likes of 'Star Trek'?


I'm thinking of making a seperate thread on the subject, but something I've noticed when writing critiques on film and television is that the concept of 'show, don't tell' (and the extension, 'hint, don't show') requires the following to work:


If you want your audience to reach the conclusion you intended without giving them all the information on a plate, then 'seed' your storytelling with enough clues to direct their speculation.


Now, granted, that's not true minimalism, where it's the intent of the creatives that much of the experience is down to what the audient (singular, crucially) makes of it in their own experience of the work.

But consider (even before the announcement of the Extended Cut) the genuine surprise from BioWare employees at the logical conclusions that gamers had come to after finishing ME3.


"No, the Relays weren't destroyed, taking several solar systems with them - how did you get that from the ending?"

"Of course EDI's still alive - isn't it obvious?"

"The fleet isn't stranded, without resources of any kind - watch it again, it'll make perfect sense..."

"Tali and Garrus will be fine - they're not going to starve due to a lack of dextro-consumable food. Wow, you're going off at a real tangent from what you see on-screen..."


Now, I'm paraphrasing (partly for comic effect, naturally), but only slightly - those are based on actual things I'd read on Twitter, here, and elsewhere. And it suggests one major thing to me: that there's a larger, unproduced draft of the end story that's commonly known to the team at BioWare, but was cut before being animated for the finished product.

(which would make sense, since at present, certain parts of the ending just don't serve any purpose to the story without a larger context. Why exactly are we shown the Normandy crashing? It just 'happens'. No set-up, and no follow-through - it's a non-sequitur as it currently stands)

Assuming this to be true, then, it does point out that the final draft of the current ending doesn't succeed from a storytelling perspective, because not enough information is given for the viewer to reach what the creative team considers the 'correct' conclusions.


It's why I mention 'show, don't tell' above - there's a difference between reducing the story to the bare minimum information needed to serve the narrative, and omitting crucial pieces of the puzzle.



Case in point of 'speculative storytelling' done brilliantly: the recent film adaptation of 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy'.

[SPOILERS FOR THE FILM - avoid reading if you don't want the plot given away!]


Considering that the BBC television adaptation was 6-odd hours long, fitting le Carré's labyrinthine plot and esoteric descriptive style (rooted in the real-world jargon and affectations of the Cold War-era British Secret Service), paring it down to a 2:15 run-time was always going to require massive cuts, and ran the risk of losing either vital plot points, or at the very least, context.

You have to give due credit to Alfredson and his team in the way they condensed the story in such a way to fit the run-time efficiently, yet maintain both the overall story and the distinctive tone/flavour of the Smiley novels, as well as being paced to make for a suitably entertaining thriller. In particular, I'm amazed at the use of montages in lieu of whole conversations - you'd expect losing an exchange between characters to rob the story of meaning, yet it doesn't happen - things like Control's death at the beginning don't suffer at all without dialogue.

The stand-out for me, and why I'm citing the film in comparison to the points about ME3, is the end montage - specifically, the brief shot of disgraced former bureaucrat Connie Sachs, looking wistfully out of her window. It's a shot that says nothing, yet is full of meaning that the viewer can extrapolate, because of what we know from earlier in the story. Connie used to work with the protagonist George Smiley in 'the Circus', i.e. British Intelligence, and was close to most of the team. She suspects one of their informants is actually running a double-agent ('mole'), and is dismissed on the strength of her claims. Later, when the similarly 'retired' Smiley questions her on the subject, she realises that he's suggesting there is indeed a mole - and it's one of their former colleagues and friends who worked to disgrace her, Smiley and Control (the head of Intelligence), and lead to the attempted killing of agent Jim Prideaux.

Her last line (of the entire film - her final appearance being the aforementioned montage, without dialogue), is this: "If it's bad (i.e, if one of the team is a traitor), don't come back. I want to remember you as you were.". Smiley never returns, and the mole is revealed to be the charming Bill Haydon, one of the best-liked of the team (and Prideaux's closest friend). Thus, her parting shot in the end sequence is more than just a 'curtain call' - it's a poignant reminder that, by Smiley failing to come back with good news, she must therefore be aware that one of her old friends is indeed the turncoat she suspected, and that her memories of the past will now be forever tainted by the knowledge. Indeed, by inferring further, it's fair to say that it's a futile requst on her part - from the very moment she discovered that Russian spymaster Karla was running a mole in the service, she must of known that one of the team was corrupt, so her plea to Smiley is little more than false hope in the face of inevitable disappointment.

It's subtle layering of the narrative that makes reading le Carré so captivating, and so one has to hand it to the filmmakers - it's such a skillful adaptation that not only do they maintain those aforementioned layers despite the heavy editing of the story, but in doing so, they add layers of their own, which mesh perfectly well with those from the original text. That kind of deft ability is rare, but getting back to the original point, it's a masterclass in giving the viewer only the pieces of information necessary to create the story, then arranging them in such a way that the audience 'joins the dots' correctly, with any speculation being 'guided' along carefully planned lines.


It could be best described as follows: "Speculate all you want - as long as you do it the way we WANT you to!". And that's not a bad thing in the slightest - with all the talk of 'creative vision' that's been going around, it's a clear example of said vision being dictated without the viewer being aware of it. It's an illusion of viewer freedom that Mass Effect itself handled incredibly well in the first two games - the overall story progresses in quite a linear fashion, with our choices being little more than su[erficial aesthetic colouration. But the 'colouring' is done so vividly that the degree of freedom ends up feeling far greater to us - we feel we're in control of the story, when that's never been entirely the case.   


As a contrast to 'Tinker Tailor', take JJ Abrams' 'Star Trek' [again, SPOILERS!], which coincidentally Mac Walters cites as an influence as how he approched Mass Effect 3.

Aside from the 'because we said so - that's why!' nature of the plot devices in the film, there's a big problem with the way the story was told and edited. For example, Nero and his crew destroy the USS Kelvin, then wait for 25 YEARS in hiding. No sign of them during that time, and they apparently do little or nothing until the attack on Vulcan a quarter-century later.

This is 'revealed' to be because the crew were captured by the Klingons, spending the years in a prison camp until escaping to attack Vulcan. Except it's not in the film - it's a scene deleted from the movie. Apparently, Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof felt that a trivial thing like explaining why their antagonist vanishes without trace between the opening sequence and the events over two decades later wasn't a 'vital' part of the narrative. I beg to differ, seeing as I value things like 'plot logic'...

Similarly, we have the Narada, supposedly a 'mining ship', yet over a kilometer in length, and armed with enough firepower to destroy an entire fleet without breaking a metaphorical sweat. Why civilian miners would need an arsenal of that magnitude is baffling, even if they hail from some 150 years after the time of the Kelvin.

A simple line, like 'they stole a warship', or 'they raided a munitions dump to upgrad the ship' would have gone a great way to make sense of this, but there's no explanation given in the film - not even in cut footage. No, the reason is instead given in a tie-ie COMICBOOK. The 'Countdown' mini-series tells us that they Narada was upgraded with Borg technology. Considering that: 1. there's no guarantee viewers of the film would have read the series to know this information, and 2. this is a reboot, so there's no guarantee viewers would know who the Borg are, either, this a bad move on the part of the creative team. As with the Klingon scene, don't remove content from the story if that content is needed in order for people to logically understand elements of your story.

So, to re-iterate: For your story to make sense, you don't have to spell things out. You don't need them in chronological order. You don't need to use dialogue to impart the information, or show events happening to do likewise. But enough information must be included so that the overall picture can be seen, and that any 'filling of the blanks' done by the viewer fills said blanks with accurate information, correctly-deduced from the clues and hints implanted somewhere in the narrative.


(apologies for the mini-essay, but I'm never one to get into an debate without being suitably well-armed!)



Oh, and as a tangential post-script, let's cap the notion that gamers are by-and-large unsophisticated, and simply do not 'get' minimalism, or the fallacy that minimalism and the like are somehow 'superior' artistically to more 'mainstream' artistic styles. Some gamers might be artists in their own rights, but even so, the issue here isn't one of art appreciation - it's about what's stylistically relevant to the finalé of this particular gaming series, and how well-executed or not said finalé is. If someone can objectively find flaws in the storytelling of ME3's ending, that doesn't automatically make them a phillistine who has a knee-jerk reaction against 'high art'... That's just insulting condescension of the first water.

[Daedalus1773]

 Pretty much agree with you, OP. But your forum name makes me suspect you work in the porn movie business.

[Taboo]

I does in fact feel like rather half-arsed shoe-inning of an attempt at artistry. I've seen tonal shifts like this before and they are even frequent in some filmmakers storytelling.

A great example of this is Alejandro Jodorowsky's The Holy Mountain. The film literally ends with Jodorowsky looking at the camera and telling people that they have, in fact been watching a film for two hours and that they need to get back to the real world. It completely overrides everything done before.

This type of thing isn't new, I've seen it before.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 20 avril 2012 - 09:47 .