88 réponses à ce sujet

[Divulse456]

Lets look at the ME trilogy from the point of view of an "epic" in the tratidional sense.  The following 9 characteristics of an epic can be found in William Harmon and C. Hugh Holman, A Handbook to Literature, 8th ed., Prentice Hall, 1999.

1.) Story proceeds in medias res.  Mass Effect does this.  Shepard is introduced mid career.  The particulars of his/her service record are narrated through quick references and short side quests.  Moreover, the entirety of galactic political history which provides ME's setting is narrated in present game-time by characters who are directly affected by these past events.  From the discovery of the Citadel by the Asari, to the Rachni War, the Krogan Rebellions, the Genophage, the Morning War, and the First-Contact War, our narrative is brought almost completely up to speed by the time the player leaves the Citadel as CO of the Normandy for the first time. This is a short list, many other story threads could be cited.

The Iliad begins similarly; not with explosions and battle-cries, but with a discussion of past events and their significance in the present (Iliad 1).

2.) The setting is vast. Check.  Milky Way is pretty big.

3.) Begins with an invocation to the muses.  This is generally only appropriate to epics in the classical tradition.  No such invocation occurs, but BioWare has always been rather open about their inspiration comes from.

4.) Begins with a statement of the theme.  Ancient epics do this by introducing the theme first and hero second; "Sing, Muse, the wrath of Peleus' son Achilles..." (Iliad 1), or by introducing the hero first and theme second; "Speak, Muse, of the clever hero who travelled the world... while trying to save his own life and bring his men safely home" (Odyssey 1), "I sing of arms and of a man... before he won the Latin realm and restored his banished gods." (Aeneid 1).  

Mass Effect does this.  Shepard is introduced first, like Odysseus and Aeneas.  The theme is introduced immediately after, much like nostos (homecoming) in the Odyssey, and piety in the Aeneid.  There has been quite a bit of debate over the theme of ME, especially considering the hay made over the ending.  For my part, I think it's obvious what the theme is.  The first instance of present action in the entire trilogy is a geth (synthetic) attack on Eden Prime, a human (organic) colony.  Therefore, the main theme of the Mass Effect trilogy is conflict between organics and synthetics.  Shepard is the protagonist through whose actions this conflict will seek its resolution.  

This does not rule out other themes.  Indeed, ancient epics all have side-stories and minor themes, both filling up episodes and prevailing throughout.  ME is similar; however, the main theme is the one first introduced, and it is done according to the epic formula.  

5.) Includes the use of epithets.  Examples from ancient epic: swift-footed Achilles, Pious Aeneas, Hector the Tamer of Horses, Cow-Eyed Hera, arrowy-swift words, Zeus the Cloud-gatherer, Hermes the swift-sighted slayer of Argus, etc.

Unfortunately for classics geeks, no overt epithets for ME.  (I wish we could all refer to Garrus as "Garrus the Calibrator" or Tali as "dem hipz Tali'Zorah", alas)

ME is not quite without this epic convention though.  The main character has one.  Intentionally or otherwise, BioWare has pulled off something very clever on a literary level.  We, as players of a role-playing game, are all the main character.  It would be impossible to have the voice overs address us each individually, so BioWare had to come up with a name that could apply to a male/female/paragon/renegade gestalt hero.  By using the literary device antonomasia, substituting a noun (in this case a "shepherd") for a proper name, they have satisfied our desire for identification with the protagonist by calling us a word with connotations important in the narrative.  The epilogue of ME3 directly addresses this phenomenon; "Tell me another story about the Shepard..."

6.) Contains an "Epic Catalogue".  Good god, can you imagine how boring that would be?  Who even reads the catalog of ships in the Iliad?  Nevertheless, the purpose of the Epic Catalogue is partially satisfied by the inclusion of the Galactic Codex as well as many short conversations that take place throughout the trilogy.  Nobody (I think) would claim that BioWare did a poor job fleshing out their universe.  The amount of info and lore is quite staggering.  The type of data presented by the Catalogue of Ships in the Iliad is presented in ME, but not all at once (unless you sit and read the whole codex in one go) and in a palatable form.

7.) Features long and formal speeches.  In ancient epic they can go on forever.  In an RPG this would take control out of our hands for too long.  Instead, BioWare has crafted a conversation-heavy series with modern pacing.  Also, sci-fi as a genre is not as conducive to formal speeches as, say, epic fantasy.  What would happen if TIM called a biotic Shepard "Lathspell" and Shep responded by calling him a "Dwimmerlaik"?  Not cool.

8.) Shows divine intervention in human affairs.  There are many references to this throughout the trilogy, wrapped in sci-fi tropes and jargon.  The vison from Prothean artifact on Eletania, Sovereign's claim to be "unknowable", the indoctrinated Cerberus science team ("a true god is a verb... even a dead god can dream..."), the Protheans being worshiped by Asari as divinities and even *gasp* star-child.  

9.) Features heroes that embody values of the civilization.  I'm not sure anyone would debate that, being western, there's a Judeo-Christian morality spun throughout the series.  That's not to say that there's some sort of message along those lines, but Shepard is no Greek hero.  He/she has the values of the modern west written into him/her, as do the writers.  Many people in the games say that Shepard can show the galaxy what humans are worth.  This sense of worth comes from our western culture.  What's important to the citizens of the galaxy is important to the writers and to us, the audience.  If this were not the case, the story would be a flop.

Final Thoughts: Yes, Mass Effect is an Epic trilogy, in the formal sense of the word.  It abides by custom, and adapts the form to its literary genre and modern composition.  I think BioWare has done something special here.  I can't count the number of playthroughs I've made of the first 2 games, and I just finished my 2nd ME3 playthrough.  "Bittersweet" is how Casey Hudson defined the ending to Shepard's story.  Indeed.  Bittersweet and magnificent.  Shepard is a wonderful epic hero, whose cyclical journey (beginning and ending with organic vs. synthetic conflict [see 4 above]) has given me several hundred hours of entertainment.  

I know many people are complaining about the ending, but I just don't see it.  "Deus ex machina!", "No narrative coherence!", "etc.!"  The best instances of any literary form are the ones that bend the form to just before breaking point.  And many of the arguments against the ending on this forum are, frankly, made from ignorance of literature.  Lots of terms are thrown around like "artistic integrity", "deus ex machina", and "cupcakes" with only a superficial understanding of their meaning.  At any rate, these are my thoughts, and this post was too long. 

Modifié par Divulse456, 21 avril 2012 - 08:47 .

[Cadence of the Planes]

It was epic for me too .

Probably the best game I've played since Planescape: Torment.

[Grimwick]

Interesting read, though I diagree with (5) and (8)

5) I personally don't believe this has a place at all in the ME story. reffering to Shepard as 'the shepard' in the ending also made me feel sick that BW would make sucha mockery of your actions and the game. (as well as such an awful link to religion somewhat)

8) I don't think that perceived divinity is the same as divinity. The protheans weren't technically gods and I don't believe the examples you gave were adequate examples of divinity and their influence on the plot of the game.

I like your ideas though, it was truly an EPIC game.

[Divulse456]

Grimwick wrote...

5) I personally don't believe this has a place at all in the ME story. reffering to Shepard as 'the shepard' in the ending also made me feel sick that BW would make sucha mockery of your actions and the game. (as well as such an awful link to religion somewhat)

8) I don't think that perceived divinity is the same as divinity. The protheans weren't technically gods and I don't believe the examples you gave were adequate examples of divinity and their influence on the plot of the game.

RE 5.) It seemed to me throughout all 3 games that Shepard's primary role is as a leader.  This comes out especially strong in ME3, as when Shep asks Admiral Hackett "Why me?"  A shepherd moves their flock from point A to point B.  The story moves from point A to point B through Shep's (our) actions.

RE 8) I think that as a sci-fi, it would have been tough to do gods as gods.  This convention had to be adapted.  The reapers are god-like (according to their own dialogue and in-story perception) and they DID things in the story.  They interacted with humans, and some of them were defeated.  Ares interacted with humans in the Iliad, Diomedes defated him.  The parallel seems there to me.  But it certainly bends the convention.

[Grimwick]

Divulse456 wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

5) I personally don't believe this has a place at all in the ME story. reffering to Shepard as 'the shepard' in the ending also made me feel sick that BW would make sucha mockery of your actions and the game. (as well as such an awful link to religion somewhat)

RE 5.) It seemed to me throughout all 3 games that Shepard's primary role is as a leader.  This comes out especially strong in ME3, as when Shep asks Admiral Hackett "Why me?"  A shepherd moves their flock from point A to point B.  The story moves from point A to point B through Shep's (our) actions.

To some extent yes, but this is bending both the conventions and the game a fair bit. Also, there aren't really any other epithets to speak of.

[Divulse456]

Divulse456 wrote...

Unfortunately for classics geeks, no overt epithets for ME.  (I wish we could all refer to Garrus as "Garrus the Calibrator" or Tali as "dem hipz Tali'Zorah", alas)

[Il Divo]

Divulse456 wrote...

I know many people are complaining about the ending, but I just don't see it.  "Deus ex machina!", "No narrative coherence!", "etc.!"  The best instances of any literary form are the ones that bend the form to just before breaking point.  And many of the arguments against the ending on this forum are, frankly, made from ignorance of literature.  Lots of terms are thrown around like "artistic integrity", "deus ex machina", and "cupcakes" with only a superficial understanding of their meaning.  At any rate, these are my thoughts, and this post was too long. 

It's hardly ignorance, speaking as a huge fan of both the Illiad and the Aeneid. And the ending does suffer from a lack of narrative coherence relating to Shepard's out of character persona in the final moments and the Catalyst's non-existent logic in providing a motivation for the Reapers. Thematically, if the Catalyst is intended to fill the role of the Greek Gods, fine. Just make sure you explain the concepts of the story in a clear enough manner that it doesn't come off as nonsensical ramblings.

[Phaedon]

It's almost funny you specifically classify what is an epic and what is not based on Homer, because I have a feeling that a lot of people here would love to butcher Cavafy for writting 'Ithaca' after being inspired by the Oddyssey.

Oh, well. That's the kind of influence Hollywood has to people, I s'pose.

[Divulse456]

I'm a fan of computers, that doesn't mean I'm not ignorant as to how they function on a mechanical level. Also, I said many arguments, not all.

I'm not really sure how Shepard's actions at the end are out of character. And the entire trilogy is made up of small moments where he/she has 2 or 3 choices to choose from. How is the ending any different?

[Divulse456]

Phaedon wrote...

It's almost funny you specifically classify what is an epic and what is not based on Homer, because I have a feeling that a lot of people here would love to butcher Cavafy for writting 'Ithaca' after being inspired by the Oddyssey.

Oh, well. That's the kind of influence Hollywood has to people, I s'pose.

Homer is the oldest epic I can read.  I would base my assessment of epic on the Enuma Elish or Gilgamesh if I could make sense of cuneiform.  Hollywood did not influence my classification.  A doctorate in classics did.

Also, Ithaka is not an epic poem, as it is not narrative in structure, so I'm not sure what you point was in referencing it aside from showing erudition.

Modifié par Divulse456, 21 avril 2012 - 08:31 .

[Habs25]

Divulse456 wrote...

Lets look at the ME trilogy from the point of view of an "epic" in the dratidional sense.  The following 9 characteristics of an epic can be found in William Harmon and C. Hugh Holman, A Handbook to Literature, 8th ed., Prentice Hall, 1999.

1.) Story proceeds in medias res.  Mass Effect does this.  Shepard is introduced mid career.  The particulars of his/her service record are narrated through quick references and short side quests.  Moreover, the entirety of galactic political history which provides ME's setting is narrated in present game-time by characters who are directly affected by these past events.  From the discovery of the Citadel by the Asari, to the Rachni War, the Krogan Rebellions, the Genophage, the Morning War, and the First-Contact War, our narrative is brought almost completely up to speed by the time the player leaves the Citadel as CO of the Normandy for the first time. This is a short list, many other story threads could be cited.

The Iliad begins similarly; not with explosions and battle-cries, but with a discussion of past events and their significance in the present (Iliad 1).

2.) The setting is vast. Check.  Milky Way is pretty big.

3.) Begins with an invocation to the muses.  This is generally only appropriate to epics in the classical tradition.  No such invocation occurs, but BioWare has always been rather open about their inspiration comes from.

4.) Begins with a statement of the theme.  Ancient epics do this by introducing the theme first and hero second; "Sing, Muse, the wrath of Peleus' son Achilles..." (Iliad 1), or by introducing the hero first and theme second; "Speak, Muse, of the clever hero who travelled the world... while trying to save his own life and bring his men safely home" (Odyssey 1), "I sing of arms and of a man... before he won the Latin realm and restored his banished gods." (Aeneid 1).  

Mass Effect does this.  Shepard is introduced first, like Odysseus and Aeneas.  The theme is introduced immediately after, much like nostos (homecoming) in the Odyssey, and piety in the Aeneid.  There has been quite a bit of debate over the theme of ME, especially considering the hay made over the ending.  For my part, I think it's obvious what the theme is.  The first instance of present action in the entire trilogy is a geth (synthetic) attack on Eden Prime, a human (organic) colony.  Therefore, the main theme of the Mass Effect trilogy is conflict between organics and synthetics.  Shepard is the protagonist through whose actions this conflict will seek its resolution.  

This does not rule out other themes.  Indeed, ancient epics all have side-stories and minor themes, both filling up episodes and prevailing throughout.  ME is similar; however, the main theme is the one first introduced, and it is done according to the epic formula.  

5.) Includes the use of epithets.  Examples from ancient epic: swift-footed Achilles, Pious Aeneas, Hector the Tamer of Horses, Cow-Eyed Hera, arrowy-swift words, Zeus the Cloud-gatherer, Hermes the swift-sighted slayer of Argus, etc.

Unfortunately for classics geeks, no overt epithets for ME.  (I wish we could all refer to Garrus as "Garrus the Calibrator" or Tali as "dem hipz Tali'Zorah", alas)

ME is not quite without this epic convention though.  The main character has one.  Intentionally or otherwise, BioWare has pulled off something very clever on a literary level.  We, as players of a role-playing game, are all the main character.  It would be impossible to have the voice overs address us each individually, so BioWare had to come up with a name that could apply to a male/female/paragon/renegade gestalt hero.  By using the literary device antonomasia, substituting a noun (in this case a "shepherd") for a proper name, they have satisfied our desire for identification with the protagonist by calling us a word with connotations important in the narrative.  The epilogue of ME3 directly addresses this phenomenon; "Tell me another story about the Shepard..."

6.) Contains an "Epic Catalogue".  Good god, can you imagine how boring that would be?  Who even reads the catalog of ships in the Iliad?  Nevertheless, the purpose of the Epic Catalogue is partially satisfied by the inclusion of the Galactic Codex as well as many short conversations that take place throughout the trilogy.  Nobody (I think) would claim that BioWare did a poor job fleshing out their universe.  The amount of info and lore is quite staggering.  The type of data presented by the Catalogue of Ships in the Iliad is presented in ME, but not all at once (unless you sit and read the whole codex in one go) and in a palatable form.

7.) Features long and formal speeches.  In ancient epic they can go on forever.  In an RPG this would take control out of our hands for too long.  Instead, BioWare has crafted a conversation-heavy series with modern pacing.  Also, sci-fi as a genre is not as conducive to formal speeches as, say, epic fantasy.  What would happen if TIM called a biotic Shepard "Lathspell" and Shep responded by calling him a "Dwimmerlaik"?  Not cool.

8.) Shows divine intervention in human affairs.  There are many references to this throughout the trilogy, wrapped in sci-fi tropes and jargon.  The vison from Prothean artifact on Eletania, Sovereign's claim to be "unknowable", the indoctrinated Cerberus science team ("a true god is a verb... even a dead god can dream..."), the Protheans being worshiped by Asari as divinities and even *gasp* star-child.  

9.) Features heroes that embody values of the civilization.  I'm not sure anyone would debate that, being western, there's a Judeo-Christian morality spun throughout the series.  That's not to say that there's some sort of message along those lines, but Shepard is no Greek hero.  He/she has the values of the modern west written into him/her, as do the writers.  Many people in the games say that Shepard can show the galaxy what humans are worth.  This sense of worth comes from our western culture.  What's important to the citizens of the galaxy is important to the writers and to us, the audience.  If this were not the case, the story would be a flop.

Final Thoughts: Yes, Mass Effect is an Epic trilogy, in the formal sense of the word.  It abides by custom, and adapts the form to its literary genre and modern composition.  I think BioWare has done something special here.  I can't count the number of playthroughs I've made of the first 2 games, and I just finished my 2nd ME3 playthrough.  "Bittersweet" is how Casey Hudson defined the ending to Shepard's story.  Indeed.  Bittersweet and magnificent.  Shepard is a wonderful epic hero, whose cyclical journey (beginning and ending with organic vs. synthetic conflict [see 4 above]) has given me several hundred hours of entertainment.  

I know many people are complaining about the ending, but I just don't see it.  "Deus ex machina!", "No narrative coherence!", "etc.!"  The best instances of any literary form are the ones that bend the form to just before breaking point.  And many of the arguments against the ending on this forum are, frankly, made from ignorance of literature.  Lots of terms are thrown around like "artistic integrity", "deus ex machina", and "cupcakes" with only a superficial understanding of their meaning.  At any rate, these are my thoughts, and this post was too long. 

You're 100% correct.

[Phaedon]

Alright, some more in depth critique, mind you, I haven't been able to actually play the final game yet.

[quote]Divulse456 wrote...


1.) Story proceeds in medias res.  Mass Effect does this.  [/quote]
Which I could personally only accept if you considered the entire MEverse as a single tale, which is, considering that other than the Protheans there are very very few plot points in the backstory that have something to do with the central story of the Reapers or their minions, at the very least, controversial.

[quote]2.) The setting is vast. Check.  Milky Way is pretty big.[/quote]
Yup.

[quote]3.) Begins with an invocation to the muses.  [/quote]
OK, sorry, what.

I think that you aren't providing proper context from the book you are quoting this from. This can't be a serious attempt of classifying all epics, ancient or not. The muses are very specific Greek deities. Having this as a requirement for all epics would , I don't know, force Giglamesh and Kalevala to be reclassified as...episodic soap operas?

[quote]4.) Begins with a statement of the theme. 
Mass Effect does this.  Shepard is introduced first, like Odysseus and Aeneas.  The theme is introduced immediately after,[/quote]
Only true if you consider the trilogy a... Shepardey. Either way, it doesn't really matter. There are different ways to reveal themes in as wildly different mediums such as epic poetry and video games.

[quote]much like nostos (homecoming) in the Odyssey[/quote]
[quote]
much like nostos [/quote]
[quote]nostos [/quote]
I F*CKING LOVE THIS WORD.

[QUOTE] The first instance of present action in the entire trilogy is a geth (synthetic) attack on Eden Prime, a human (organic) colony.  Therefore, the main theme of the Mass Effect trilogy is conflict between organics and synthetics.  [/QUOTE]
It's the truth, but people will hate you for this deduction.

[quote]5.) Includes the use of epithets.  [/quote]
Yeah, more like Greek epic poetry. This is not a serious classification requirement.

[quote] Contains an "Epic Catalogue".  [/quote]
There very well is an epic catalogue in ME1, it's just very difficult to notice because of the medium itself. Note how the synthetics, the prophecy, the Citadel, and then the various other Citadel races are revealed, and in which order.

[quote]7.) Features long and formal speeches. [/quote]
Again, this rules out most epics other than Norse or Greek ones.

[quote] Shows divine intervention in human affairs.  [/quote]
Modern epics do not have this. Ancient ones? Sure.

[quote] Features heroes that embody values of the civilization.  I'm not sure anyone would debate that, being western, there's a Judeo-Christian morality spun throughout the series. [/quote]
Yeah, I think that you are quite wrong in this one. Any kind of morality in the MEverse is inserted passively and not in a didactic manner. In this manner, the trilogy is less of an epic than your standard Greek tragedy.

Just look at the Illiad. Look how much Achilles, Ajax or Odysseus value honour and camaraderie. While both of these values were even present in the society of Hellenistic times, it was nothing to how important they were in Homer's Greece. Or even better, Homer's overglorified view of the Epic era.

[Phaedon]

Divulse456 wrote...
Also, Ithaka is not an epic poem, as it is not narrative in structure, so I'm not sure what you point was in referencing it aside from showing erudition.

Ithaca's entire point is 'It's the journey that matters, not the destination'. Do you not see what I am getting at?

Modifié par Phaedon, 21 avril 2012 - 08:39 .

[Il Divo]

Edit: removed.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 22 avril 2012 - 01:56 .

[Divulse456]

Habs25 wrote...

You're 100% correct.

Thanks.  I'm not really trying to be correct at the expense of others.  I just wanted to look at the ME story and see if it is "epic" in the classical sense. 

I feel it is.  The whole ending debate is another story, and honestly, I don't see any real problems with it.  I can understand why some people are not satisfied with it, but I am.  Art is a 2-way street though.  The artist and audience both participate in the artistic experience, and if you hate the endings for a reason you believe, then your conclusion is valid.  1+1 is 2; 1+2 is 3

[matthewmi]

It's definitely epic, even if the end fell a little flat. Writing an that would please everyone was going to be a near impossible task.

[Phaedon]

matthewmi wrote...

It's definitely epic,

S/he's referring to the genre of 'epics'.

[Divulse456]

Phaedon wrote...

Yeah, I think that you are quite wrong in this one. Any kind of morality in the MEverse is inserted passively and not in a didactic manner. In this manner, the trilogy is less of an epic than your standard Greek tragedy.

I did not mean to imply it was didactic. I meant to say that it was there in its Judeo-Christian form because that's the literary context in which most modern western writers practice their art, and in which most western readers understand their literature.

As for your other points, I'm glad that someone actually read my post. I thought I was typing for nothing. I stand by my ideas though.

It proceeds in medias res because the context of intergalactic policy and history (past events) is delivered in exposition through dialogue (present events). This is the definition of in medias res that comes directly from Horace.

On the muses, I'm not saying that ME adheres to every characteristic of "Epic". Indeed, most epics do not. There is no invocation to the muses outside of classical epic. But all indo-european epics adhere to or adapt these characteristics according to their context in literary history.

On the theme, the story is a "Sheperdey" as you put it. Casey Hudson said that ME is Shepard's story.

Epithets are a serious requirement. They are in most epic, not just greek and roman.

You may be right about the formal speeches, but then, as with all of these characteristics, I'm not always saying that ME adheres to them exactly. Hence my points about out of place dialogue.

Modern epics to have divine intervention. Paradise Lost is ABOUT divine intervention.

Shepard is a hero loved by many because of shared values between artist and audience. The artists and audience are from the same society.

[Divulse456]

Il Divo wrote...

Then you misunderstand the problem. You're confusing a character's actions as being out of character with a character being given limited options. ME3's fault is the former, not the latter... good recap.

If the problem with the game is that his behavior was out of character, NOT that the writers did not provide him with limited options, then what type of action would have been in character in this context?

Il Divo wrote...

Potential Spoilers follow:

This is the spoiler free section of the forum.  I've been kind of trolled away from my original post as well.  I wanted to look at the ME story in the context of traditional epic.  I did so, and determined that it adheres to the characteristics of traditional epic as outlined in the book cited above enough to qualify as "epic".

The merits of the ending, or lack of merits, is a discussion for another thread.

Modifié par Divulse456, 21 avril 2012 - 09:35 .

[Cybernetic_Queen]

To be fair, most of the "Retake ME, wah wah" have all said ME3 is an epic game. Of course, the fact that one can define it via the Grecian/Homeran (if that's a word) definition of an "epic" is spectacular. Just off the top of my head, you could also use the "Monomyth Cycle/The Hero's Journey Cycle", but that's 20 odd points to define

Also: About the whole "the Shepard" being offensive.... Why? I disliked the ending, but I did think it was intriguing how the Hero of the times became so mythisicsed that even his/her name was made to be epic. Also, when thinking about the whole "original" ending, that let Shepard decide on whether to allow the Reaping because of the Dark Energy, I myself thought that it'd be interesting if the current cycle's Reaper was named "Shepard", as in the noun, similar to Harbinger and Sovereign (who knows, maybe the "heroes" of other cycles had similar meaning names, a hero with a name that translates as "Harbinger" like Shepard, but I digress.

Also: could the opening prologue be somewhat considered to be an invocation to the muses? While not outright, it seems like an invitation to "join" the muses in the heavens, if that makes sense?

Also, finally, the Epic catalogue isn't that bad. For one, even the Codex is at least extremely relevant to the story. For example, in Les Misérables (not sure if defined as an epic per se) Hugo spends the better part of 50 pages (in a section entitled, ironically "a few pages of History") describing a battle that has nothing to do with the overall plot of the book, the Codex at least describes the battles that take place IN the ME timeline

[Divulse456]

Cybernetic_Queen wrote...

Also, finally, the Epic catalogue isn't that bad. For one, even the Codex is at least extremely relevant to the story. For example, in Les Misérables (not sure if defined as an epic per se) Hugo spends the better part of 50 pages (in a section entitled, ironically "a few pages of History") describing a battle that has nothing to do with the overall plot of the book, the Codex at least describes the battles that take place IN the ME timeline

Many scholars think that the epic catalogue was used in greek and roman epic to highlight the ancestry of the audience, making them invested in the story of Achilles/Odysseus/Aeneas since their own ancestors "stood among giants".  That doesn't quite jive with a story that happens in the future.  I think the value system inherent in the ME story is what makes it relatable to us.

On the muses, the ancient epics invoked the muses as their source of inspiration, addressing them directly.  That would be out of place in this genre.  But there's plenty of references and easter eggs in ME to show us where the authors got their inspiration.  "I am the very model of..."

P.S.- Nice avatar

Modifié par Divulse456, 21 avril 2012 - 09:46 .

[SDW]

Divulse456 wrote...

4.) Begins with a statement of the theme.  [...]
Mass Effect does this.  Shepard is introduced first, like Odysseus and Aeneas.  The theme is introduced immediately after, much like nostos (homecoming) in the Odyssey, and piety in the Aeneid.  There has been quite a bit of debate over the theme of ME, especially considering the hay made over the ending.  For my part, I think it's obvious what the theme is.  The first instance of present action in the entire trilogy is a geth (synthetic) attack on Eden Prime, a human (organic) colony.  Therefore, the main theme of the Mass Effect trilogy is conflict between organics and synthetics.  Shepard is the protagonist through whose actions this conflict will seek its resolution.

Sorry, can't fully agree here. Or at least have to put a disclaimer on it so that it doesn't sound like the ending used the very same theme as has been used over all the rest of the story. Not to be Captain Obvious, but that's not the case.

You say the conflict led by the Geth shows what the topic is.  But in fact, what it is all about only really unfolds over the course of the first game. First we think it's the Geth against the other civilizations. Then we think Saren is behind it all. Eventually, we learn about the Reapers who control both these factions.
These seem to be synthetics, so you could still claim that the theme is synthetics against organics. Well, to be nitpicky, ME2 clarifies things a little more in showing they're actually organo-synthetics, being made of the genetic material of whole species. But whatever. So the topic is "Us against (organo-)synthetics". That sounds nearly like what the Catalyst stated, right?
Only there is of course an obvious flaw in making this connection: The synthetics we have to fight against were made by the Catalyst. He's causing what he claims to want to avoid (synthetics killing organics).
</disclaimer>

[KingJason13]

EPIC FAIL!

[Divulse456]

SDW wrote...

Sorry, can't fully agree here. Or at least have to put a disclaimer on it so that it doesn't sound like the ending used the very same theme as has been used over all the rest of the story. Not to be Captain Obvious, but that's not the case.

Be careful not to confuse theme with plot.  The theme of the Iliad is Achilles' wrath.  The convolutions of plot are many, and his wrath is interpreted variously through many characters, but the theme itself, the wrath, does not abate until the end. 

Likewise, the theme of the ME trilogy is Synthetic vs. Organic, it's the first conflict in the story, which follows the epic formula of introducing hero and theme in close proximity at the very beginning.  It's manifestation changes throughout the three acts, but that, as we have seen from other epics, is not an issue.  Finally, the conflict, in Shepard's (the player's) story, is ended at the end by any of the three choices, and the theme is therefore resolved.  How are these statements "obviously" untrue?

[SDW]

Divulse456 wrote...



Likewise, the theme of the ME trilogy is Synthetic vs. Organic, it's the first conflict in the story, which follows the epic formula of introducing hero and theme in close proximity at the very beginning.  It's manifestation changes throughout the three acts, but that, as we have seen from other epics, is not an issue.  Finally, the conflict, in Shepard's (the player's) story, is ended at the end by any of the three choices, and the theme is therefore resolved.  How are these statements "obviously" untrue?

Okay, permission to become wordy. Here I go. 

So you think the theme of the trilogy is the theme of the ending?
The catalyst states that synthetics which have been created by organics will always fight organics. If that is true within the story, it should be reflected in the story, too. In fact, it should be the main theme, as it is, as you correctly state, that which we try to resolve at the end.

So let's look back at the plot. Which organic/synthetic conflicts were there?

We had the heretics fight against us. Later, we learn that they are a only a part of the whole Geth population. And that they fought us because they joined the Reapers - who have been made by the Catalyst. So that's synthetics against us only *because of his meddling*.

Then there was the conflict of Geth and Quarians. While here, too, it seems clear at first who is good and bad, we find out that the Geth only acted in self-defence when they weren't allowed to "live". That they stopped following the Quarians once those had left the homeworld. So these synthetics only fought because they were attacked first, and they did *not* try to eradicate their creators.
One could say "But they turned against them in the third game!" Well, the story as it is told says the Geth did so because they were facing extinction. Again, self-defence, for the right to exist.

Then we have EDI. She says she started out as the rogue AI on the moon. That is a rather clear case of synthetic vs. organic, and out of her own free will. But it is only one case. And what makes it hard to uphold the Catalyst's statement once again is that EDI develops further and in fact, decides to work alongside organic life. Of course, it depends of how you play, but when doing a paragon playthrough, she will finally say that she's decided to live for love, duty and altruism and that she will be better than the Reapers and not put her self-preservation in the first place.

Okay, two things that go in your favour:
I have to admit that in ME2 it's first claimed that EDI is a VI, not an AI, because people fear the AIs' potential for turning against their creators (like EDI first did on the moon). And there was a sidequest in ME1 where a computer on the Citadel had gone rogue.
But that's the theme mentioned two times. If it's what the whole story revolves around, we should have had to fight AIs left and right. Yep, these synthetics were against us. But in the presentation of the story, they were peripheral elements. If I am an author and I want to drive a point home, I make sure to implement it into the very heart of the plot and mention it over and over again.
Like in Deus Ex: Human Revolution, where the theme is "Human vs. augmented" (augmented = with cybernetic implants): You find pamphlets, books, tons of characters all speaking for or against augmentations. It's mentioned in all kinds of conversations you overhear. The lead character has received augmentations and is asked how he feels about them ("I never asked for this"). You fight people who are against augmentations and others who want to use them for their own benefit. So in the end, it is only logical that you will have to take your own stand on the topic.

But our main opponents in ME are the Reapers. They are what drives the plot, in which organic-created synthetics only take a lesser role. That, in addition to the fact that the organic/synthetic conflicts presented in the story can be resolved. And from how it's presented to us, no doubt is cast e.g. on the sincerity of the Geth's will to work with the Quarians after they've made peace.
Sure, in real life we don't know what will happen once the technological singularity has hit us. But this is a story. If you want to make a point in a story, the plot has to show it to be true.

And that's why I say it's an obvious flaw in the Catalyst's statement. All synthetics will always turn against their creators? The story didn't prove that. Parts of it said there is that danger, but they were not expanded. The biggest personifications of "the synthetics" within the plot did just the opposite. The only synthetics that turned against us and that we had to fight left and right were those made by the Catalyst.