288 réponses à ce sujet

[The Angry One]

LucasShark wrote...

As a great video put it: throwing on a wig and sitting at a piano does not make you Motzart. Simple as that.

It doesn't? God damnit.

*burns wig*

[Taboo]

The Angry One wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

As a great video put it: throwing on a wig and sitting at a piano does not make you Motzart. Simple as that.

It doesn't? God damnit.

*burns wig*

Ugh. The **** that is out there.

You have no idea.

[Ultra Prism]

This was intersting post and opinion

I was so insulted when they that had small window pop out saying "Commander Shepard has become legend by eliminating the Reaper Threat ... blah blah ... buy more DLC next time to build more on this legend" SERIOSULY WHAT THE HECK!!!

[Taboo]

Ultra Prism wrote...

This was intersting post and opinion

I was so insulted when they that had small window pop out saying "Commander Shepard has become legend by eliminating the Reaper Threat ... blah blah ... buy more DLC next time to build more on this legend" SERIOSULY WHAT THE HECK!!!

We call that a cash grab were I come from.

It almost always pisses the audience off because they know exatcly what it means.

And then they put you right back before the assault on the Cerberus Base.

LOLWUT?

[oneyedjohn]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

As a great video put it: throwing on a wig and sitting at a piano does not make you Motzart. Simple as that.

It doesn't? God damnit.

*burns wig*

Ugh. The **** that is out there.

You have no idea.

I've seen things too...

[Mylia Stenetch]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

As a great video put it: throwing on a wig and sitting at a piano does not make you Motzart. Simple as that.

It doesn't? God damnit.

*burns wig*

Ugh. The **** that is out there.

You have no idea.

I spent a full year watching the horrids of C-movies (since we off too much of them on our on-demand) for work to help move night shifts. Anyone who has watched the quality of Mr. Creepo without hanging themselves I applaud.

[Taboo]

 They teach units on Italian exploitation films in school.



Those range from being so bad they insult the audience to just being ****ing disgusting.

[incinerator950]

I want the TFS cast to redo Mass Effect.

[frylock23]

If anything these days, media has the opposite problem of the ME3 endings in that they show too much. This is a common beef I have with films that makes extensive use of CGI effects. Rather than use old techniques of building tensions and the artistry they used to employ to make the watcher's own imagination part of their arsenal (Alien is an excellent example, Jaws is also a good one for much of the first half of the film), modern filmakers are relying almost excusively on CGI to just show everything to their audience. And hitchcock is right in that the mind scares you more effectively than anything you can be shown even with fancy CGI.

It feels like the endings of ME3 went so far to the opposite that they just plain left it all up to me to piece together. So, when we all went faithfully back to the source materials we had and started putting together likely scenarios - Victory fleet stranded, Turians and Quarians possibly starving for lack of appropraite food, krogans and rachni over populating and possibly killing and eating everyone else in the battle for the scarce resources of the war-torn earth, the possibility that all were/ would be destroyed by the exploding Mass Relay supernova because that's what happened the only other time a Relay blew up with similar results in every other relay system in the galaxy ... and on and on with none of it happy and all of it increasingly bleak because logical conclusions seemed to say that nothing was very hopeful ... Then all of IT theory.

Then BioWare stepping in after announcing that they wanted us to speculate and fill in the gaps and telling us that we were wrong ...

It felt like they clearly had some idea of what was supposed to happen, but if they did, they certainly hadn't given us enough pieces from the ending material to draw those conclusions. Surely, if they had given us enough clues to draw the right kind of conclusions in our speculations, we would have hit upon them at some point. But clearly no one did,

[Taboo]

It's looking more and more like it was rushed.

The amount of scenes that were cut that WEREN'T innocuous to the plot are pretty bad.

Did we really need all the space on the disc for the scene on the jungle planet?

[incinerator950]

Taboo-XX wrote...

It's looking more and more like it was rushed.

The amount of scenes that were cut that WEREN'T innocuous to the plot are pretty bad.

Did we really need all the space on the disc for the scene on the jungle planet?

No, but they probably cut it for other random reasons.

[goose2989]

OP, I think you'll get this since you love Warhol so much

http://t3.gstatic.co...wM8WaUtMKWBulng

And just so we're clear, I agree with everything you said in your OP

Modifié par goose2989, 02 mai 2012 - 06:27 .

[aj2070]

Baronesa wrote...

Great post Taboo.

No matter how much time has passed... the disappointment from ME3 ending is still there. Even worse now, that I'm replaying ME2.

Agreed.  Especially as I am playing Mass Effect 2 and seeing outright contradictions to the current ending.  Just finished the "Dyson Sphere" conversation with Legion.  Legion's take on what the geth indend completely contradicts what the "writers" say the geth's intentions are in Mass Effect 3.

To Taboo-XX, the OP was spot-on in my opinion.  We have been insulted and as of right now I feel the way everyone involved from Dr. Ray Muzyka's blog post to Michael Gamble's comments have furthered the "our ending is brilliant, but we will explain it to you morons" feeling.

Speaking of Taboo's original post, my issue with the ending is that Gamble and Weeks have both expressed shock that we have reacted to the ending in this way.  I have said earlier that if they understand the ending based on information they have and we don't, they should not be surprised that we come to a different conclusion based on information they presented in-game and in-universe.  If they want us to come to their conclusion, they should give us the same information they have.

[Taboo]

incinerator950 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

It's looking more and more like it was rushed.

The amount of scenes that were cut that WEREN'T innocuous to the plot are pretty bad.

Did we really need all the space on the disc for the scene on the jungle planet?

No, but they probably cut it for other random reasons.

The shortcuts in the endings are pretty suprising once you look at them.

The animation shortcuts, the reused textures (mirrored even), and the lack of dialouge.

Hell, I even noticed compression in the video files at the end.

[PoisonMushroom]

ShepnTali wrote...

Oh goodness, please o please don't drag hitchcock's good name into this mess.


Has there ever been a successful story leaving you with questions such as what happened to who where, and how?

The Angry One wrote...

You can have elements to this, which can affect the narrative in retrospect but are ultimately secondary to the story, such as "Is Deckard a replicant"?.
But leaving everything up in the air for lots of speculation from everyone? Hell no.

 

Absolutely loads. It doesn't always have to be a secondary to the story but as far as I can tell there needs to be a point to it. Speculation shouldn't just be for the sake of speculation... unless maybe your story is about speculation.

It's really common when the audience/reader is subjected to an unreliable narrative. Usually there's some sort of payoff or a reason that you can't figure out exactly what's happened that is satisfying its own right.

There's a Spanish book called The Hive, that's set in post-war Spain. Basically you're given a mystery that you can never solve. The point in this being that the limitations on the information you're given is meant to echo the limitations of truth that existed within post-war Spain. So essentially, a traditional conclusion is replaced with a social commentary that you become a part of.

A more widely known example is the end of Inception. At the end you've pretty much got no way of telling if he's in a dream or if he's in reality. There's plenty of evidence to support either theory. The point is that it doesn't matter either way, because what you do know is that Cobb spins the top, and walks away. The protagonist who throughout the entire film anxiously spins the top to check if he's in the real world or in a dream is now prepared to walk away from it, and just accept whatever reality he's in, in order to see his children again. A traditional conclusion is replaced with significant character development.

There are even more extreme cases than these. These just show the purpose of it well. I think ME's ending was really just vague in order to inspire debate and make the Starkid seem mysterious. It didn't fit the story well at all.

Modifié par PoisonMushroom, 02 mai 2012 - 06:56 .

[Kunari801]

oneyedjohn wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

Kunari801 wrote...

CrutchCricket wrote...
Well a fanbase divided, if there was ever a more perfect example. Enough people are willing to settle, who gives a **** about the rest?  

No we're not "divided" I'm just being a realist on what to expect in the EC. 
Yes, I too would love a complete removal of star-brat, but I know they aren't going to remove him so I've "come to terms" with that.   

I fully support letting Shepard bleed out next to Anderson while watching the Crucible activate killing the Reapers and sparing the Geth, EDI, Relays, and Citadel.   I also fully support expanding the "breath" scene to let Shepard live and reunite with crew and LI.  If Shepard dies an expanded epilogue with crew and LI at Shepard's funeral.  After either Shepard fate cinematic, fadeout with a glimpse or two of the galaxy rebuilding.  
In my "head canon" the relays get rebuilt and I'd like to see that official in the EC (it's been hinted) so I hope.  I hope for closure with the crew that I've grown to love and care about.  I hope for a future of the ME universe for me to explore. 

I hope for more ME games with a new cast of characters for us to fall in love with.   No, not hope, I WANT more. 

Yeah, had the ending have been, as you say, Shep bleeding out next to Anderson, watching the reapers being destroyed, and say, Shep pulling a small pic of his LI out of a pocket, I'm sure it would have been much more widely accepted.

I would have liked that ending too. 

Since we're stuck with Star-brat and the RBG it doesn't mean they can't be expanded: 

I'd like to see "Control" split into two:   1- A way to just kick the Reapers back to dark space and let Shepard live.  Even if it doesn't destroy them and 2- Shepard joins the Reapers for permanent control[/b]. (current control ending) 

I'd like to see "Destroy" split up too, with high enough EMS you can choose to kill the Reapers and yourself (Thus saving the Geth & EDI) or sacrifice the Geth & EDI to save yourself.  

I don't think expanding the endings would hurt the "Artistic Integrity" nor insult the players, even the ones who like the current versions since they'd remain.  

Modifié par Kunari801, 02 mai 2012 - 06:45 .

[Devil Mingy]

PoisonMushroom wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

Oh goodness, please o please don't drag hitchcock's good name into this mess.


Has there ever been a successful story leaving you with questions such as what happened to who where, and how?

The Angry One wrote...

You
can have elements to this, which can affect the narrative in retrospect
but are ultimately secondary to the story, such as "Is Deckard a
replicant"?.
But leaving everything up in the air for lots of speculation from everyone? Hell no.

 

Absolutely
loads. It doesn't always have to be a secondary to the story but as far
as I can tell there needs to be a point to it. Speculation shouldn't
just be for the sake of speculation... unless maybe your story is about
speculation.

It's really common when the audience/reader is
subjected to an unreliable narrative. Usually there's some sort of
payoff or a reason that you can't figure out exactly what's happened
that is satisfying its own right.

</snip>

There are even more extreme examples than these, but I think these examples show to purpose of way it might be done quite well.

I truly think that if Mass Effect 3 had been an abstract, semi-mystic story that focused frequently on how different organics and synthetics are (say, by having the Joker and EDI relationship have constant hurdles that are not played for laughs but rather just show the futility of two radically different "cultures" to understand each other), I think the ending of Mass Effect 3 would have worked, at least in some form.

The ending itself isn't bad, especially if you enjoy discussing transhumanism or sacrificing your ideals (and possibly yourself) to appease or negotiate with an enemy. The problem is that it's completely disconnected from everything that came before it, and it doesn't even try to justify itself.

aj2070 wrote...

Speaking of Taboo's original post, my issue with the ending is that Gamble and Weeks have both expressed shock that we have reacted to the ending in this way.  I have said earlier that if they understand the ending based on information they have and we don't, they should not be surprised that we come to a different conclusion based on information they presented in-game and in-universe.  If they want us to come to their conclusion, they should give us the same information they have.

Too right. I really want to have faith in the Extended Cut giving Mass Effect 3 a better ending, if not an ending worthy of the series. However, past comments and interviews seem to indicate that Bioware is either clueless or intentionally screwing with us.

In particular are two statements from Mike Gamble. One was made one one month before release telling us that the ending, whether we like it or hate it, would provide answers to the questions that the fanbase cares about. A month after the release, he mentioned that the content that we would see the in the Extended Cut (closure, personalization, clarification) wasn't in the original ending because Bioware wasn't aware the fans cared about it.

Now, I mean no disrespect to Mr. Gamble. He seems to be very personable on the forums. However, what am I supposed to make of that? At best, I trust Bioware that they have no idea what their fanbase wanted in the first place, which doesn't give me a lot of confidence that the Extended Cut will be any better. At worst, the first claim was a lie, which doesn't leave me much hope that there's any truth to what they're saying now.

Am I reading into this way too much? Probably, but it's all I can do when I'm asked to formulate an opinion based on a handful of vague statements.

Modifié par Devil Mingy, 02 mai 2012 - 06:48 .

[nitefyre410]

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Relgious allegories are overused.

When I see them in a theater I just..............UHHHHHHH.

Yes they are over-used. but as a whole society does enjoy mysticism, mythology and religion. They were our original works of fiction.

 

They are over used and poorly used that  it's  not even funny anymore... I have more of any issue with the poorly used than overused...slightly more. 

@Taboo-XX   - As always sir you threads  are  enlighting and spot on.  Alot of people misuse the hitchcock quoute and twist its context to fight their need. 

[pistolols]

Taboo-XX wrote...
Deus Ex Machina->

Major misconception.  The 3 choices for the ending are the product of the Crucible, not the Catalyst.  We are told the entire game that the Crucible is designed to work with the catalyst.  In fact, we are told it cannot work unless it is with the Catalyst.  We meet the Catalyst, he tells us "The crucible changed me".  The catalyst being a machine intelligence, we know that being "changed" must mean an alteration to code programming.  The Catalyst is allowing Sheaprd to make this decision even though we know he cannot be a big fan of at least 2 of the choices, and 1 of them he straight up tells us he does not agree with.  The only way to make sense of all of these facts is if the crucible has reprogrammed the catalyst to implement it's capabilities.  In other words, the Catalyst has been defeated and is being forced into this situation.  Calling it a deus ex machina does not really fit. 

Even if you do not agree with my interpretation, what my view shows us is that whether or not it is a deus ex machina is largely based on one's interpretation.  There are some people that believe (and with some interesting evidence to back it up) that the entire thing is in Shepard's head.  Still others think it's real, but actually some kind of elaborate failsafe trap.  With these interpretations deus ex machina does not really fit either.

Another point is that the key component of a deus ex machina is that it's unexpected.  We are told ahead of time that there is a reaper master.  Meeting him was not unexpected.  The ending is just a twist on information we already had... that the reaper master is what we've been looking for all game.

Taboo-XX wrote...
Three choices with very little explanation->

Perhaps, but in my opinion we're arriving at this situation with 3 games worth of data that have explored the realms of these choices.    Maybe that doesn't help in knowing what exactly will happen afterword, but at least the issues behind the choices themselves have been thoroughly examined.  Just think about Control for a few moments.  The entire series has been a macrocosm of control.  The reapers grow and cultivate civilizations like crops, then harvest the crop.  Within that, tons of smaller examples of species subjugating one another are presented to us, and for different reasons.  The thorian.  The genophage.  Re-writing the geth.  Edi and Eva.  It's pretty interesting how deep the rabbit hole goes here.

The choices are foreshadowed in some interesting ways.  Tali's loyalty mission in ME2, for example.  The admirals are fighting over what to do about the geth.  One admiral wants to control them, one wants to destroy, and one wants peace.  Does this sound familar?  Then in ME3, each outcome to that conflict are symbolic of the 3 choices.  If you side with the Geth, Legion uploads the reaper tech to the geth which can be argued as controlling them in the sense that it is manipulating them, similar to rewriting the heretics in ME2.  Interestingly enough, Legion has to die in order to do this.  If you side with the quarians, the geth are destroyed.  Not much to elaborate on there.  Lastly if you achieve peace, the geth merge themselves with the Quarian's suits.  There is no question in my mind that this is supposed to be symbolic of synthesis in the end.  As user Ieldra has pointed out numerous times, this would have made even more sense if they had gone with the original presentation for the synthesis ending as it was written in the leaked script.

Taboo-XX wrote...

Six aesthetically similar cutscenes->

The irony here is that for the greater portion of Mass Effect, choosing conversation options whether it be paragon, renegade, or neutral, often have the same outcome, just that they are achieved with a different Shepard flavor.  No matter what you choose in the end, the relays are destroyed and the cycle is ended... but with a different ending flavor.  If you consider that the act of choosing one of these options is literally designed to be a physical symbolic representation of the dialogue wheel... then it fits and is really no different from the rest of the game.  Pretty cool how they did that if you ask me.  I also think this is perhaps inadvertently a good thing for the synthesis ending.  It is reassuring that with synthesis everything appears largely the same as the other two endings.  Joker and Edi are still Joker and Edi, etc.

[Acturas]

Agree with your statement OP, it made good reading.

[PoisonMushroom]

pistolols wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Deus Ex Machina->

Major misconception.  The 3 choices for the ending are the product of the Crucible, not the Catalyst.  We are told the entire game that the Crucible is designed to work with the catalyst.  In fact, we are told it cannot work unless it is with the Catalyst.  We meet the Catalyst, he tells us "The crucible changed me".  The catalyst being a machine intelligence, we know that being "changed" must mean an alteration to code programming.  The Catalyst is allowing Sheaprd to make this decision even though we know he cannot be a big fan of at least 2 of the choices, and 1 of them he straight up tells us he does not agree with.  The only way to make sense of all of these facts is if the crucible has reprogrammed the catalyst to implement it's capabilities.  In other words, the Catalyst has been defeated and is being forced into this situation.  Calling it a deus ex machina does not really fit. 

snip

Pretty well written. Some of your thought are really interesting, even though I dislike the ending. I'd like to see some responses to this.

[Klijpope]

Aw, I kinda like "Flesh for Frankenstein" and "Blood for Dracula". To be fair to Warhol he is more video art than art movie, and most video art is even more appalling (though not all). This stuff shouldn't be exhibited in a cinema, but in a dark side room in an art gallery, where it can play on and folk can dip in and out between the free bar and nattering to vague aquaintances.

I've sat through 3 of Matthew Barney's (Mr. Bjork) Cremaster Cycle. That was the most egregious ordeal I've experienced at the cinema, I think. I then sat through a live piece (because of a girl) which involved him trying to get a live bull off with a loofer (he failed, the bull was too scared) while he made two female dancers urinate while doing handstands, among other things.

The end of ME3 is not this.

The problem with the endings is that they're just symbolism, and symbolism too subtle to notice while you're caught up in the full emotional build up to the end. Symbolism only works to emphasise and maybe make obvious the story points that the emotional side of the narrative is already expressing. We don't get that element at the end of ME3. We have no idea how Shepard feels or is supposed to feel, because he/she is able to express nothing. It is confusing and anticlimactic. The end cinematics are so abrupt that before we've noticed the symbolic cues, because we're thinking "hold on my Shep wouldn't just walk meekly into the night like that", they're over and we have no idea what's happened.

It's taken us weeks to collectively parse the endings to work out what they were meant to represent.

Modifié par Klijpope, 02 mai 2012 - 07:08 .

[aj2070]

Devil Mingy wrote...

aj2070 wrote...

Speaking of Taboo's original post, my issue with the ending is that Gamble and Weeks have both expressed shock that we have reacted to the ending in this way.  I have said earlier that if they understand the ending based on information they have and we don't, they should not be surprised that we come to a different conclusion based on information they presented in-game and in-universe.  If they want us to come to their conclusion, they should give us the same information they have.

Too right. I really want to have faith in the Extended Cut giving Mass Effect 3 a better ending, if not an ending worthy of the series. However, past comments and interviews seem to indicate that Bioware is either clueless or intentionally screwing with us.

In particular are two statements from Mike Gamble. One was made one one month before release telling us that the ending, whether we like it or hate it, would provide answers to the questions that the fanbase cares about. A month after the release, he mentioned that the content that we would see the in the Extended Cut (closure, personalization, clarification) wasn't in the original ending because Bioware wasn't aware the fans cared about it.

Now, I mean no disrespect to Mr. Gamble. He seems to be very personable on the forums. However, what am I supposed to make of that? At best, I trust Bioware that they have no idea what their fanbase wanted in the first place, which doesn't give me a lot of confidence that the Extended Cut will be any better. At worst, the first claim was a lie, which doesn't leave me much hope that there's any truth to what they're saying now.

Am I reading into this way too much? Probably, but it's all I can do when I'm asked to formulate an opinion based on a handful of vague statements.

These statements are why I refuse to believe anything Michael Gamble says.  He is either clueless or a self-serving manipulative person.

[Kunari801]

pistolols wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Deus Ex Machina->

Major misconception.  The 3 choices for the ending are the product of the Crucible, not the Catalyst.  We are told the entire game that the Crucible is designed to work with the catalyst.  In fact, we are told it cannot work unless it is with the Catalyst.  We meet the Catalyst, he tells us "The crucible changed me".  The catalyst being a machine intelligence, we know that being "changed" must mean an alteration to code programming.  The Catalyst is allowing Sheaprd to make this decision even though we know he cannot be a big fan of at least 2 of the choices, and 1 of them he straight up tells us he does not agree with.  The only way to make sense of all of these facts is if the crucible has reprogrammed the catalyst to implement it's capabilities.  In other words, the Catalyst has been defeated and is being forced into this situation.  Calling it a deus ex machina does not really fit. 

Even if you do not agree with my interpretation, what my view shows us is that whether or not it is a deus ex machina is largely based on one's interpretation.  There are some people that believe (and with some interesting evidence to back it up) that the entire thing is in Shepard's head.  Still others think it's real, but actually some kind of elaborate failsafe trap.  With these interpretations deus ex machina does not really fit either.

Another point is that the key component of a deus ex machina is that it's unexpected.  We are told ahead of time that there is a reaper master.  Meeting him was not unexpected.  The ending is just a twist on information we already had... that the reaper master is what we've been looking for all game.... 

Interesting viewpoint, one I had not really considered.  I still feel star-brat itself is a deus ex machina as I don't feel we needed him to explain the "functions" of the cruicible.  EDI would have worked well to explain the functions and even a dis-trustful Shepard would trust her more than some out-of-the-blue Reaper King.  Since it was only mentioned once IIRC prior to meeting it (and never in previous games) its appearance is still a bit "out of left field" and sudden to most of the established Reaper lore. 

So you may be correct that he's not a deus ex machina.  it is however, at best, an unwelcome, unnecessary, and intrusive plot-device.  

I myself don't subscribe to the IT, I don't think that was BW's intention, but it's an interesting idea that could have worked and been an intersting plot twist.  

Modifié par Kunari801, 02 mai 2012 - 07:22 .

[JadedLibertine]

PoisonMushroom wrote...

pistolols wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Deus Ex Machina->

Major misconception.  The 3 choices for the ending are the product of the Crucible, not the Catalyst.  We are told the entire game that the Crucible is designed to work with the catalyst.  In fact, we are told it cannot work unless it is with the Catalyst.  We meet the Catalyst, he tells us "The crucible changed me".  The catalyst being a machine intelligence, we know that being "changed" must mean an alteration to code programming.  The Catalyst is allowing Sheaprd to make this decision even though we know he cannot be a big fan of at least 2 of the choices, and 1 of them he straight up tells us he does not agree with.  The only way to make sense of all of these facts is if the crucible has reprogrammed the catalyst to implement it's capabilities.  In other words, the Catalyst has been defeated and is being forced into this situation.  Calling it a deus ex machina does not really fit. 

snip

Pretty well written. Some of your thought are really interesting, even though I dislike the ending. I'd like to see some responses to this.

pistolols is probably the most articulate and reasoned defender of the ending I've seen on here and has posted quite a few contributions to this thread 
http://social.biowar...ndex/11435886/1  which is very probably the best thread here.  Though I despise the ending and wish that a Men In Black style memory wiping device would be invented so I can erase every last trace of it from my brain, I do like hearing from those with contrary opinions.  It is most unstimulating to just seek out those I already agree with.   It reminds me how much of a close run thing it was, if I could have just made that one final leap of emotion and imagination. ...