88 réponses à ce sujet

[Divulse456]

Icinix wrote...

its not literature

I think it is as much literature as any other visual medium can be.  Interactive literature has been around for decades, if not longer.

No matter how artistic, or woven the story can be, if the game fails to
end in line with the established game and gameplay - then the ending is
poor.

So the ending is poor because the mechanics are changed slightly?  I'm not sure I can agree with that.  I never played ME for the mechanics (certainly not ME1!).  

[frypan]

Divulse456 wrote...

Sweet, my degree is in history.  Republic from 133 down to about 27 (I know, it's been done to death, but I'm old fashioned and we don't know as much as we could, despite the size of the wissenschaft.)

I can generally understand the things that people don't like about the ending, but I  just don't feel the same.  And I have to disagree with anyone that says the ending does not resolve the theme.  If you plud ME into the epic structure, it seems to do it well.

The lack of choices is a gripe I can definitely understand, but in all 3 games, are there ever more than 2 or 3 things to choose between?  I can't really recall offhand.  I'm realy looking forward to the EC.  For me, more ME is always better!

Hah - late republic is mine too - Caesar to be precise as I look at battle narrative.

Totally agree with you on choice as well - it did not affect the end of each game and was illusory (however in a fine way). I only looked at choice as an aspect of the paragon vs renegade themes and a chance to express those while personalising the character. Whether taking syntehtics vs organics or those ideas, the games are still epic and worth the time to examine as such. And we dont have to translate from Greek, something I'm terrible at!

EDIT - and late Republic is so rich with work to be done. I took one path but there were a load of choices when deciding- proof positive of the amount of work still required- I could spend years just looking at Appian alone.

Modifié par frypan, 22 avril 2012 - 01:25 .

[Divulse456]

frypan wrote...

Might get there later with ME3 too, but not right now (2000 years from now perhaps)

Hah, can you imagine?  It's been good chatting, but time for bed.  I'm not much of a forum poster, but I felt my take on things was a bit different because of my background.  This was fun.  It's nice that the fans are so invested, but I can do without some of the more serious anti BioWare aggression.

Edit:

Yeah, my Greek is not as good as my Latin, but Homer is great.  I absolutely loathe Hellenistic Greek (not really, but it's a pain in the rear for me!)

Archaic Latin is my 2nd love.  The earlier the better, we have so little of it!

Caesar is my favorite author for historical reasons, Tacitus for stylistic, though he's outside my main historical interest.  Sallust provides a good fake Tacitus in a pinch, and he's closer to home for me.

Modifié par Divulse456, 22 avril 2012 - 01:27 .

[frypan]

Divulse456 wrote...

frypan wrote...

Might get there later with ME3 too, but not right now (2000 years from now perhaps)

Hah, can you imagine?  It's been good chatting, but time for bed.  I'm not much of a forum poster, but I felt my take on things was a bit different because of my background.  This was fun.  It's nice that the fans are so invested, but I can do without some of the more serious anti BioWare aggression.

Good to chat too, hope to see you around on the forums more!

[Chashan]

Hallo,

Divulse456 wrote...
 

Lets look at the ME trilogy from the point of view of an "epic" in the tratidional sense.

About the epic structure which you claim to be a perfect fit to the proceedings of the entire series, I'll turn to that later.
First, I'll have a long look at your synopsis of the "man vs. machine"-theme in the respective instalments of the series...

Divulse456 wrote...
 
ME1 Citadel Races vs. Geth/reapers

First time through, one could certainly arrive at that conclusion (to be honest, at first I thought the whole game was a clear-cut business of us-versus-creepy geth). Reflecting upon ME1 in context with the sequels, however, it does start to crumble, and the lines spouted by Sovereign and Mr Arterius are indeed quite foreboding for what is to come. Including the ending, admittedly.
And as someone else mentioned, the primary purpose of the Eden Prime raid was not to wipe out the entire population, but to grab the Beacon's info and leave. Only clear in retrospect again, but still.

ME2 Shepard/Cerberus vs. Collectors (culturally dead, "replaced by tech"), lackeys of the reapers.

"New" lackeys of our favorite genocidal squid-bots, at that. Had the point been to outline the man-vs-machine scenario, they could have stuck with the geth doing the Reapers' dirty work of finding subjects for their "experiments", the geth being mysterious enough as is. Yet instead of the mechanical boogeymen, they went with mindless cyborg-husks, henchmen that are still partially organic (although visually the emphasis is even firmer on "organic"). Again telling in view of the conclusion...

ME3 All galactic life vs. Reapers (with defectors on both sides)

Why exactly there wasn't any type of serious infighting shown in the game other than everyone against Cerberus - as in pirate raids, anarchic infighting, the odd mercenary gang trying to get back at Shepard for ruining their lives in ME2 - is somewhat beyond me, although that's for a different topic.
In that sense, ME3, building upon the revelations in ME2, makes it rather clear that the Reapers are not just a robotic threat, but a rather distasteful vision of a "cyborganic future", given form in what passes as their footsoldiers - so maybe everyone banding together against that is not so far-fetched after all despite the classic doomsday-scenario...
Now that the supervising figure of the Reapers, who is only introduced in (abstract) person at the very end would endorse a certain "solution" and struggles to put this process into not too "obvious" words - "a new...DNA" - nails it as to who the true enemy of the day is: the Reapers, with their perverted vision of an "ideal" existence.


As I stated at the start of this post, I wanted to also turn to the seeming adherence to "epic structure" by how ME3, and in extension Mass Effect as a whole, played out. I am not quite certain about the exposition, or lack thereof, of the powers that be in the grand classical works you cited prior to their intervention in the story.
However, in my view, one clear example of the divine sphere's involvement into a story
before the resolution,
whether as a driving force or merely a passive observer, would be the book of Job in the Old Testament.
An entire prologue therein describes Satan vowing to Iahwe to turn steadfast believer Job's faith away from him by ruination of his wealth, home and relationships. Iahwe lets the devil proceed, whether due to his faith in Job's loyalty or to indirectly "test" Job's faith via Satan is left unexplored, even in the very end where Iahwe merely pronounces that his will is beyond us mortals' understanding, so to speak.

The difficulty of grasping the Catalyst's intentions could be compared to that conclusion. But, unlike the book of Job, we get nothing in the way of a prologue or even somewhat more than passing mention of a divine observing power that might intervene in the story for its own obscure reasons. And indeed, had the Catalyst pronounced as much as Shepard's inability to comprehend its machinations and bludgeoned Shepard into one of its "solutions", it could have been a deal more acceptable.
Given what we have, however, it is not. At all.

Modifié par Chashan, 22 avril 2012 - 02:27 .

[Icinix]

Divulse456 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

its not literature

I think it is as much literature as any other visual medium can be.  Interactive literature has been around for decades, if not longer.

No, I'm saying you can't apply a strictly literature rule set to it.

No matter how artistic, or woven the story can be, if the game fails to
end in line with the established game and gameplay - then the ending is
poor.

So the ending is poor because the mechanics are changed slightly?  I'm not sure I can agree with that.  I never played ME for the mechanics (certainly not ME1!).  

Not just the mechanics, but the game itself, which is why most people played the game. If you do go in and buy a game strictly for the story, then thats fine, but most people buy the games to play them and be a part of their narrative. Not have the narrative thrown at the player merely in presentation.

The only place this happens is the end of Mass Effect 3. Prior to the ending, the Mass Effect trilogy was a game with a story. The end of Mass Effect 3 is purely a story without a game. Which is at odds with the other 99% of the game.

It had always presented story elements within the game, it had always presented things within the realms of the game - in particular without the player ever really needing to fill in the blanks or at least providing enough information that the blanks were obvious enough. The ending became a cutscene in a void absent of the Mass Effect game, that coupled with the disparity in some of the established themes made it poor.

[Divulse456]

Icinix wrote...

No, I'm saying you can't apply a strictly literature rule set to it.

Of course I can.  I paid my $60.

I stated how I believe the ME story fits into the narrative framework of a classical epic fairly well, and thereby satisfies me.  I made no mention of game mechanics for the simple fact that they are not important aspects of the ME games to me. 

If you disagree with how I 've fit the ME story into the epic framework, explain yourself; that's an interesting conversation.  Coming into a thread and telling me I can or can't interpret art I paid good money for in a certain way is ignorant; to which accusation you have previously taken offence.  

[Icinix]

Divulse456 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

No, I'm saying you can't apply a strictly literature rule set to it.

Of course I can.  I paid my $60.

I stated how I believe the ME story fits into the narrative framework of a classical epic fairly well, and thereby satisfies me.  I made no mention of game mechanics for the simple fact that they are not important aspects of the ME games to me. 

If you disagree with how I 've fit the ME story into the epic framework, explain yourself; that's an interesting conversation.  Coming into a thread and telling me I can or can't interpret art I paid good money for in a certain way is ignorant; to which accusation you have previously taken offence.  

Wait...let me get this straight. You can say;

And many of the arguments against the ending on this forum are, frankly, made from ignorance of literature.

..but if I say you can't do that because not everyone is going to apply strictly literature ruleset to it, that makes me ignorant too?

Regardless, I only took offence to you calling people ignorant because they didn't like the ending, but you asked me explain why I disagreed with what you've said - and that is because I don't believe you can apply a strictly literature set of rules / guidelines to a computer game. I'm not telling you how you can interpret it, I'm telling you you shouldn't call other people ignorant because they don't choose to interpret it under the same guidelines that you do.

[Divulse456]

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.!"   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.  

I did not say that people were ignorant because they did not like the ending.  I said their arguments showed an ignorance of literature.  If someone does not know the difference between technical terms like plot, setting, theme, etc., they should not build an argument using them.  Someone is ignorant about something if they do not know it.  Don't put words in my mouth.

And I'm not telling people how to interpret the story.  I am explaining the context in which I see the story and providing examples why.  If I have made a factual error, point it out.  I have said several times that someone elses interpretation will be valid for them.

I have made the claim that the ME story fits the epic form.  Either agree or disagree and argue why.  Any other sort of post has no relevance.

Modifié par Divulse456, 22 avril 2012 - 01:39 .

[Il Divo]

Divulse456 wrote...

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?

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.

Fair enough. I'll edit my original post down.

[Divulse456]

No worries. Love your sig. Anyone who quotes a modern Italian politician has ballz in my book.

[SDW]

Divulse456 wrote...
I said their arguments showed an ignorance of literature.  If someone does not know the difference between technical terms like plot, setting, theme, etc., they should not build an argument using them.  

Is this referring to my posts? If so, I don't see how I used the terms in a wrong way.
Please clarify.

And I'm not telling people how to interpret the story.  I am explaining the context in which I see the story and providing examples why.  If I have made a factual error, point it out.  I have said several times that someone elses interpretation will be valid for them.

The error I pointed out was the claim that the theme presented in the ending is the same theme as in the remaining story.
Yes: If put it in a very general context,  the theme can be seen as being the same.
After all, up to the ending it was "conflict against synthetics". And the ending also presents the theme of "conflict against synthetics". Only those synthetics it's about in the ending are different ones than those fought before. So while in very general terms, the theme is the same, there is a sudden change of the specific antagonist. An antagonist that has been proven (by the plot!) to not be what they are presented as now.
I just have to ask: Are you saying that the plot had us fight against organic-created synthetics as main adversaries? Then, the specific theme of the ending would be justified.
And if that's not enough: By changing the specific antagonist, a different theme of the story (not the main one, but still)  is negated: The theme that coexistence in diversity is possible and even a good thing. That theme rung e.g. from the words of Javik when he said that the diversity of races in the current cycle might be their only chance to beat the Reapers.
I dare to claim that's not just my personal interpretation, but an interpretation going by common storytelling rules, be they literary or not. If there are errors in that, again, let's discuss where you think I'm wrong and why.

Modifié par SDW, 22 avril 2012 - 02:40 .

[Il Divo]

Divulse456 wrote...

No worries. Love your sig. Anyone who quotes a modern Italian politician has ballz in my book.

Hehe, much appreciated. I've always had a soft spot for the classics, Roman history, etc, so it just seemed fitting. You're actually one of 4 people on here who have recognized the reference. Very well played, Sir.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 22 avril 2012 - 02:39 .

[Divulse456]

I actually recognized the movie title, 'cause I saw it about 2 years ago, and my Italian is decent enough to read the quote. I had forgotten the guy's name though.

[Divulse456]

SDW wrote...

Divulse456 wrote...
I said their arguments showed an ignorance of literature.  If someone does not know the difference between technical terms like plot, setting, theme, etc., they should not build an argument using them.  

Is this referring to my posts? If so, I don't see how I used the terms in a wrong way.
Please clarify.

Partially.  You keep getting theme confused with plot.  Theme is the thing that needs to be resolved.  Plot is the path the story takes in order to resolve the theme. 

And I'm not telling people how to interpret the story.  I am explaining the context in which I see the story and providing examples why.  If I have made a factual error, point it out.  I have said several times that someone elses interpretation will be valid for them.

The error I pointed out was the claim that the theme presented in the ending is the same theme as in the remaining story.

Yes: If put it in a very general context,  the theme can be seen as being the same.

I did put it in a general context.  The context of classical epic.  You can't say I'm in error and then agree with me in your next sentence.  Am I in error or not?

After all, up to the ending it was "conflict against synthetics". And the ending also presents the theme of "conflict against synthetics". Only those synthetics it's about in the ending are different ones than those fought before. So while in very general terms, the theme is the same, there is a sudden change of the specific antagonist. An antagonist that has been proven (by the plot!) to not be what they are presented as now.

Altering the antagonist does not necessarily matter with respect to theme; indeed, it usually does not in epic literature.  Protagonist and antagonist are plot elements, the vehicles through which the plot is driven forward, and do not alter the theme once it has been established.

An example from the most important epic in western lit.; Achilles starts the Iliad angry at Agamemnon.  He changes his anger to focus on Hector.  The antagonist changes, the theme of anger does not.

[SDW]

[quote]Divulse456 wrote...

[quote]SDW wrote...

[quote]Divulse456 wrote...
I said their arguments showed an ignorance of literature.  If someone does not know the difference between technical terms like plot, setting, theme, etc., they should not build an argument using them.  
[/quote]

Is this referring to my posts? If so, I don't see how I used the terms in a wrong way.
Please clarify.
[/quote]

Partially.  You keep getting theme confused with plot.  Theme is the thing that needs to be resolved.  Plot is the path the story takes in order to resolve the theme.  
[/quote]

Agree on the "plot" definition.

Disagree on the "theme" definition. What needs to be resolved in a story is the conflict, not the theme.
Themes are ideas presented throughout the story in a recurring fashion.

Also, where exactly did I use them in the wrong way? I was rather looking for quotes.

[quote]
I did put it in a general context.  The context of classical epic.  You can't say I'm in error and then agree with me in your next sentence.  Am I in error or not?
[/quote]

I clarified that you are only right when one stays at a very general level.
And that the claim falls apart when one examines things more closely. Both these things are correct in their own right.
If that's good enough for you, we can consider this point settled.

[quote]
[quote]
After all, up to the ending it was "conflict against synthetics". And the ending also presents the theme of "conflict against synthetics". Only those synthetics it's about in the ending are different ones than those fought before. So while in very general terms, the theme is the same, there is a sudden change of the specific antagonist. An antagonist that has been proven (by the plot!) to not be what they are presented as now. [/quote]

Altering the antagonist does not necessarily matter with respect to theme; indeed, it usually does not in epic literature.  Protagonist and antagonist are plot elements, the vehicles through which the plot is driven forward, and do not alter the theme once it has been established.

An example from the most important epic in western lit.; Achilles starts the Iliad angry at Agamemnon.  He changes his anger to focus on Hector.  The antagonist changes, the theme of anger does not.
[/quote]

[/quote]


Yes, because the theme is Achilles' anger and not his conflict with a certain person.
Put in a broader context, the Iliad is about the fight of Achaeans against the Trojans with the involvement of Greek gods on both sides, not just Achilles' wrath. After all, he dies at one point and the epic goes on.

Modifié par SDW, 22 avril 2012 - 03:46 .

[Chashan]

I hope I am not interrupting the two of you too much, but I'd like some input on the following, specifically from your side of things, Divulse.

As I stated at the start of this post, I wanted to also turn to the seeming adherence to "epic structure" by how ME3, and in extension Mass Effect as a whole, played out. I am not quite certain about the exposition, or lack thereof, of the powers that be in the grand classical works you cited prior to their intervention in the story.

In classical epic, is there any involvement of divine powers in a story without any concrete passage beforehand that establishes an interest of the pantheon in mortal affairs, similar to what we have in ME3?


I'd also be interested in your, or anyone else's take on my comparison to the book of Job's "deus ex machina"*-frame. While not strictly originating from a Greek context - Greek influence is only apparent in the Old Testament in texts of late date -, it still is arguably one of the defining influential texts on our modern, "western" literature.

*By mentioning this, I am not pointing out any inherent spite of mine for the plot-device. I rather think that most memorable "modern" employments of it fall rather flat, hence the general rage about it. In other words, I do think the "machine god" can be done right, and following Job's example could have been one way for ME3 to do better than it did, IMHO.

[Divulse456]

Chashan wrote...

In classical epic, is there any involvement of divine powers in a story without any concrete passage beforehand that establishes an interest of the pantheon in mortal affairs, similar to what we have in ME3?

Not to my knowledge. 

I do not know enough of the Old Testament to comment appropriately.  If someone else does, I would be interested to hear what they have to say.

About the deus ex machina:  It is not inherently bad composition, but it provides certain problems.   Aristotle generally disliked the device; however, most of the examples he derided were instances where the god solved the protagonist's problems.  Regardless, it is a plot device, and has little to do with the main theme.

He was actually a bit happier with Euripides whose use of the device led to a suprising and tragic end instead of a predictable and positive one. (Poetics 11.5)

The star-brat does not solve Shepard's problem, he presents a new one.  This leads to acceptable tragic composition (cf. Casey Hudson's assertion that the end of Shepard's story is "bittersweet".).  Shepard still moves the plot to its conclusion by picking one of the choices he is given.  This choice ends the conflict and therefore resolves the theme.  The deus ex machina does not break anything that recessarily must remain intact.  

Modifié par Divulse456, 22 avril 2012 - 04:51 .

[Divulse456]

Chashan wrote...

Greek influence is only apparent in the Old Testament in texts of late date -, it still is arguably one of the defining influential texts on our modern, "western" literature.

I've published a paper on 1st and 2nd Maccabees dealing with Seleucid military doctrine in the Levant.  Since I don't read Hebrew, the deuterocanonical texts are more my speed, generally.

Modifié par Divulse456, 22 avril 2012 - 04:59 .

[Divulse456]

SDW wrote...

Yes, because the theme is Achilles' anger and not his conflict with a certain person.
Put in a broader context, the Iliad is about the fight of Achaeans against the Trojans with the involvement of Greek gods on both sides, not just Achilles' wrath. After all, he dies at one point and the epic goes on.

1.) The SETTING is the fight between Greeks and Trojans, starts before the poem, ends after the poem.

2.) The THEME is Achilles' wrath, introduced at the beginning, concluded at the end.

3.) Achilles does not die in the Iliad.  The epic ends with a short denouement culminating in Hector's funeral, a physical and social result of Achilles' anger being resolved..

Disagree on the "theme" definition.

I don't use my own definitions, that is a conflict of interest.  You disagree with the Oxford English Dictionary and a number of literary handbooks.

Modifié par Divulse456, 22 avril 2012 - 05:06 .

[Meshaber]

Divulse456 wrote...

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?

I always thought it was pretty obvious that the overall theme of Mass Effect was the interaction (not necessarily conflict in a military sense) between synthetics and organic. From the Geth attacking eden prime and joining synthetic material with organic (Husks), to cooperating with an organic (Saren) with obvious cybernetic implants, to the citadel being dependant on the keepers (which are obviously bio-engineered at the very least). Next plot twist is delivered by Geth via quarian. Then you find out about the reapers: synthetics.
Collectors are husks all over again, you find out reapers are partly organic (so basically superadvanced husks), the entire Quarian/Geth situation in both ME2 and primarily ME3, and the entire story in ME3 is nothing but synthetics vs organics, even Cerberus troopers are largely implanted with cybernetics.

Almost every plot element of the series, including the triple color ending, are fused to one of three  interpretations of this:
Organic vs Synthetic: Destroy ending, also: Above. Also, Admiral Han'Gerrel.

Organic + Synthetic: Synthesis ending, Geth making peace with quarians, Husks, Collectors, Cerberus, Saren, Overlord, Cyberworld mission on Rannoch, Keepers, the Reapers themselves, Shepard is filled with implants (that are mentioned repeatedly in the third game), Cerberus, Adjutants, Admiral Zal'Koris and probably more.

Control of one form of life over another: Control ending, Husks again, Indoctrination, Thorian, Peak 15, Rachni in general, Morning war, Overlord again, Admiral Daro'Xen, most Kroganrelated subplots, motivations of the reapers etc.  "We impose order on the chaos of organic evolution. You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it". 

How people can seriously claim that the endings (flawed as they were in terms of execution and actually explaining what's going on) were not consistent with the series themes, I have no idea.

Also: Great post OP.

Modifié par Meshaber, 22 avril 2012 - 05:22 .

[SDW]

Divulse456 wrote...
3.) Achilles does not die in the Iliad.  The epic ends with a short denouement culminating in Hector's funeral, a physical and social result of Achilles' anger being resolved..

I admit I was wrong there. I read both Iliad and Odyssey when I was a teenager, and all I remembered was that he was killed in the fight for Troy. Point for you.

ETA: That doesn't change the fact that the theme is his wrath, and as such, you can indeed switch who he "uses" it on.

Disagree on the "theme" definition.

I don't use my own definitions, that is a conflict of interest.  You disagree with the Oxford English Dictionary and a number of literary handbooks.

It's not only my definition. And on a sidenote: Saying I use my own definitions, inferring I didn't check before I posted, sounds quite condescending. As have others of your statements before. I discuss with you based on arguments and would appreciate it if you did the same.
Assuming you won't accept definitions from websites about novel-writing, I looked online for actual published books.
These dictionaries also say that themes are ideas in a literary work:
http://books.google....e theme&f=false
http://books.google....e theme&f=false
http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

I didn't find quite as much on "conflict" online. At least this one says it's the things that oppose each other in the plot:
http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

And not a direct definition, but this one talks about that it's conflicts that are resolved:
http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

On a purely linguistic standpoint as well: How can one "resolve" a theme?

Modifié par SDW, 22 avril 2012 - 06:34 .

[MrnDpty161]

My own opinion, I think they blew their chances to take this idea to a Star Wars type level ---- their last attempt at it would be the up coming movie.

But as I know how games change to movies isn't great, I think this will stay where it is for now.

[Chashan]

Divulse456 wrote...

Chashan wrote...

Greek influence is only apparent in the Old Testament in texts of late date -, it still is arguably one of the defining influential texts on our modern, "western" literature.

I've published a paper on 1st and 2nd Maccabees dealing with Seleucid military doctrine in the Levant.  Since I don't read Hebrew, the deuterocanonical texts are more my speed, generally.

Heh, I thought of pointing to exactly these, since I recently read through Bar-Kochva's Seleucid Army for a presentation and paper for university; he gives a very fair evaluation on the story of the Maccabees as far as the reliability of their battle accounts are concerned. While I was primarily interested in further elaboration on Antiochos Megas's military exploits, the chapters dealing with the Jewish rebellions against the Seleucids were still quite interesting.
It is indeed ironic to note that while Maccabees I and II are very much anti-philhellene that they were primarily preserved in Greek...

Not to my knowledge.

I do not know enough of the Old Testament to comment appropriately. If someone else does, I would be interested to hear what they have to say.

That there isn't any true example in ancient epics which ME3 could follow for its conclusion does kind of show the problem of assigning it a structure based on those very epics. Not including exposition of the divinity's interest in the proceedings at hand well before the finale to me seems to be the wrong place to depart from the structure established by the epics, since it is very much crucial to it.

Myself, I am not a theologian-to-be or anything, just had to deal with the story of Job in the final year of school in what passes for an "A-level" class in religious education here. In retrospect it was a fascinating topic, and I wish my graduation and the preparation for it had been about that instead of moral dilemmata on palliative medicine or verbose on justification for faith, but oh well. 

Modifié par Chashan, 22 avril 2012 - 08:07 .

[RyuujinZERO]

I would like to call into question #4.

The "synthetics Vs organics" thing is quickly dispelled in ME1 as being little more than a cover story to hide the real antagonists (Cyborgs) behind. I'm not much a classical reader, but it's not uncommon in storytelling to place one "foe" at the forefront, only to later reveal that another greater foe is puppeting them, often the original foe even becomes an ally - as the Geth do.

ME2 does not even touch upon Synthetics Vs organics; ME2 is all about the very organic collectors, harvesting organics in order to create cyborg monstrosities - and let's be clear here. Cyborg != Synthetic; cyborgs are the natural evolution of the concept of "humanity". (Humanity is defined by it's ability to use tools to further it's goals. The natural extrapolation of this is where man and his tools become indistinguishable from one and the other, where the man ends and the tool begins is gone)... I imagine this is what the writers were trying to get at in the synthesis ending but they just plain screwed it up.

Anyway the point holds that "synthetic Vs organic" never plays more than a sideshow part of the grand story arc; the Geth attacks in ME1, and the geth Vs Quarian side story in all 3 games, but the geth and the Quarians are not the defining story of ME, they are a sideshow to the galactic war which is harder to pin down thematiclly. (transhumanism?)