209 réponses à ce sujet

[The Master Chief]

We don't need to have a Ph. D in Literature to know when basic rules of storytelling are broken. You're also just blatantly assuming that we have no knowledge of the context of the ME Universe when personally, I've played all three video games, read the comics, etc. So maybe you are correct when you say most anti-enders don't know the context of the ME narrative, maybe not, but I do.

Look, I'm tired of arguing when we won't be able to change each other's minds. I think we both presented decent arguments for our viewpoints... can we just shake hands and be two friends that are at odds with each other? (Kind of like Professor X and Magneto from X-Men lol)

[Amioran]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Amioran wrote...

So, let's talk about real things, want we?

Considered your history of posts, I find it humorous to see such a sentence from you.

My history of posts is one of writing detailed things and explaining everything, and while doing it also proving many times the majority of you wrong, no matter if if you acknowledge it or not.

Let's see what's yours, instead: "the ending is bad because youtube video X says it" or "it is so, you troll, I say it and it must be so".

So, you know, I would be cautious next time on bringing posts' history as evidence of something, given yours. Do you know the old Jesus saying:

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?  How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." - Luke 6,41-42

Modifié par Amioran, 05 mai 2012 - 11:49 .

[Amioran]

The Master Chief wrote...

We don't need to have a Ph. D in Literature to know when basic rules of storytelling are broken.

To know if, how you say it , "basic rules" are broken you must first know if it's really so or it is just your pretense given your lack of knowledge of the context.

From having a Ph. D in literature and knowing absolutely anything about it there's a world of difference. People here that pretends to judge ME narrative have no idea whatsoever of what a narrative implies, nor the knowledge of the various contexts to judge the same, nor on technical parameters that make a narrative "good" or not.

An evidence of this, btw, is already to be seen just in the above sentence of yours. "Basic rules" get broken all the time in literature, and on the contrary it is usually the proof of a great writer the fact of being able to do so. So, "breaking the basic rules" as you put it, it's not evidence at all for a bad written narrative per se.

But in the case of ME this doesn't either happens so it is just, again, a sub-product of the fact of not knowing the thematic behind; not knowing the context you can believe that something is amiss. That's not fault of the narrative per se, however, but lack of knowledge of the context (in this case the theme behind the narrative).

So, you see, it is for this motive that you should know the background of the thing you are going to judge, elsewhere you risk of doing these sort of errors.

The Master Chief wrote...
You're also just blatantly assuming that we have no knowledge of the context of the ME Universe when personally, I've played all three video games, read the comics, etc. So maybe you are correct when you say most anti-enders don't know the context of the ME narrative, maybe not, but I do.

So, what do you believe is the theme behind the ME narrative (the primary one, the context of ALL, not just of a point of view in the same) and how much do you really know about it? Are you able to fully understand the connections of the theme with the narrative and acknowledge them completely?

No need to reply to me here. Reply to yourself instead, sincerely, about this, then draw the consequences the answer implies.

The Master Chief wrote...
Look, I'm tired of arguing when we won't be able to change each other's minds. I think we both presented decent arguments for our viewpoints... can we just shake hands and be two friends that are at odds with each other? (Kind of like Professor X and Magneto from X-Men lol)

As you like. I have nothing against others opinions. Everybody is entitled to having one and I would never pretend mine to be better than that of another.

A different thing, however, is when you state a judgment. The fact that people here cannot change their minds about those is just because they cannot stand to be proven wrong, neither in front of evidence of the contrary. I've seen this in action countless of times. It is not really that you cannot come to an agreement in a judgment, because that's perfectly possible given the nature of the same, it is just that the majority here are not able to put bias beyond them, no matter what.

Modifié par Amioran, 05 mai 2012 - 11:58 .

[BatmanPWNS]

Bioware don't care anymore. I mean they use the hate to promote the game now.

[clipped_wolf]

Amioran wrote...
I've made countless topics about this fact, explaining all the context of the ME narrative in detail (for what I can do here); 

Links please?  
EDIT: Nevermind, I followed links in your profile.
Could you explain why you like it?

And couldn't talking about 'real' things be off topic in a gaming forum?  And doesn't having an emotional reaction to the game make it 'real'?

Modifié par clipped_wolf, 05 mai 2012 - 12:05 .

[Amioran]

clipped_wolf wrote...
Links please?  

I don't have them.

I don't waste time saving the links of the threads in where I partecipated. I just remember vaguely the names now. One was about the green ending, the other was about keeping the ending in the name of integrity, another was on having a "good ending" instead; yet another one was about RPGCodex review about ME narrative. These are those that I remember, there are others, here and there, but I forgot their names.

The important thing is that many of the "anti-enders" (the ones you see the most here) were all there and so they know exactly about all this, yet they (who knows why) forget it all the time, pretending nothing of this ever happened or they just twist the thing for their convenience, as they always do.

clipped_wolf wrote...
Can you explain why you like it?

It is not that I like it in the full sense. In fact I acknowledge that there are many problems in it, primarily of execution, and that for this it is a mediocre narrative all in all (but it is difficult to find games that have not this problem, however).

What I cannot stand is people insisting that's "badly written" based on motives that have anything at all to do with the reality of the situation, and, instead (hilariously enough), are points that could prove exactly the contrary.

If for example I judge a painting that's objectively trash but I insist that it is so for the use of colors when the colors are the only thing good about it, then it doesn't matter at all if the painting is really trash or not. The judgement is faulted anyway and morover attacking a thing good in it proves the contrary of what I'm saying (i.e. that's trash) for those that can acknowledge the fallacy of the judgment.

clipped_wolf wrote...
And couldn't talking about 'real' things be off topic in a gaming forum?  And doesn't having an emotional reaction to the game make it 'real'?

So having objective parameters to judge a narrative objectively instead of just pretending to do the same without having no knoweldge whatsoever to be able to do so is "off topic"?

I would think, instead, the opposite; that it is "off-topic" pretending to judge something you have no knowledge upon, don't you think?

As for the "emotional reaction" I have nothing against it. As I said in the previous post I have nothing against others' opinions, no matter what they are. I have problems with people that insist to judge what's "bad writing" or not (a judgment, not an opinion) when they don't posses the knowledge necessary to be able to do a thing as this to begin with.

Modifié par Amioran, 05 mai 2012 - 12:25 .

[Grimwick]

Amioran wrote...

clipped_wolf wrote...
Can you explain why you like it?

It is not that I like it in the full sense. In fact I acknowledge that there are many problems in it, primarily of execution, and that for this it is a mediocre narrative all in all (but it is difficult to find games that have not this problem, however).

What I cannot stand is people insisting that's "badly written" based on motives that have anything at all to do with the reality of the situation, and, instead (hilariously enough), are points that could prove exactly the contrary.

If for example I judge a painting that's objectively trash but I insist that it is so for the use of colors when the colors are the only thing good about it, then it doesn't matter at all if the painting is really trash or not. The judgement is faulted anyway.

That is an incredibly poor analogy. 
For a start, if there is something 'good about it' like the colours, as you suggest, then it is therefore not objectively trash.  If it is 'objectively trash' in the first place then no matter what justification you give... it is still objectively trash.

I'm not saying that the endings are in fact objectively trash, but for the large part the weak narrative and the lack of choice is trash.


I still don't see what the problem with making new endings is for the pro-enders. Surely there would be a high probability that you would enjoy any new endings anyway (as OP suggests) and if not you don't have to download the dlc itself.

Improved choice/better priority earth/more narrative coherence/improved epilogue and closure would be a benefit to all unless you really prefer the ambiguous, out of place and laughably cliched choices we face. 

[PaxtonFetel]

What you are arguing with a person who does not have the game even?
Let's respect ourselves..
I see only DAII

Modifié par PaxtonFetel, 05 mai 2012 - 12:58 .

[Amioran]

Grimwick wrote...
That is an incredibly poor analogy. 
For a start, if there is something 'good about it' like the colours, as you suggest, then it is therefore not objectively trash.  If it is 'objectively trash' in the first place then no matter what justification you give... it is still objectively trash.

1. A painting can be objectively badly done also if the colors are used well. It is not a contradiction. Explaining the motives of why it is so would take too many time and it will be completely off-topic. I suppose you will have to trust me on this.

2. The justification matters a lot. Again, if you give as justification something that proves all the contrary of what you want to prove then it doesn't matter at all how the thing is or isn't in other aspects.

If people insist that ME narrative is "bad writing" and they give as justification for the this the SC making no sense, for example, when he on the contrary is completely consisten given the theme behind, this fact make the judgment completely faulted. Does it matter if then ME narrative can be not so good in other points? No. The motivation for it to be "badly written" exposed is completely wrong and so the judgment cannot be valid.

Example: if one is accused of murder and everybody knows that the guy is guilty but you bring as proof of this something that never happened, it doesn't matter if everybody knows the guy guilty or not, it matters only the fact that the proof you brought is not valid.

Grimwick wrote...
I'm not saying that the endings are in fact objectively trash, but for the large part the weak narrative and the lack of choice is trash.

The lack of choice is thematic. So, again, you see, since your knowledge on this aspect is lacking, your judgement on why the narrative is "weak" it is erroneous. Does it matter if the execution on some other point can be really weak for what it concerns your faulty judgment of above? Not at all.

"Weak narrative" then, is a concept too large. It depends on what you intend by it in the specifics, and the specifics, again, are what can turn the judgment plausible or not.

Grimwick wrote...
I still don't see what the problem with making new endings is for the pro-enders. Surely there would be a high probability that you would enjoy any new endings anyway (as OP suggests) and if not you don't have to download the dlc itself.

We have talked about this before. I explained a little what the problems are. It is both a problem of intention and waste of time, plus the fact that DLCs (also if you can download them or not) are seen as canon by many people.

Grimwick wrote...
Improved choice/better priority earth/more narrative coherence/improved epilogue and closure would be a benefit to all unless you really prefer the ambiguous, out of place and laughably cliched choices we face. 

It depends on how it is exectued. The problem is that the new choices you "anti-enders" want go completely against the context of the ending as it is now.

Modifié par Amioran, 05 mai 2012 - 01:03 .

[clipped_wolf]

Amioran wrote...

So, let's talk about real things

You have to admit that statement was vague.  I interpreted it the word real to be RL.  I don't know why, but I did.

So your big argument with anti-enders is that argumentments filled with faulty logic are recycled?

[SalsaDMA]

Amioran wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Amioran wrote...

So, let's talk about real things, want we?

Considered your history of posts, I find it humorous to see such a sentence from you.

My history of posts is one of writing detailed things and explaining everything, and while doing it also proving many times the majority of you wrong, no matter if if you acknowledge it or not.

No, your history of posts is one of blatantly ignoring anything that doesn't fit with you system of belief, aka faith.

That's why I find it funny when you talk about basing stuff on 'real things'. Cause anything real you can't fit into your own version of how the world looks gets discarded by you.

You do like longwinded posts, though, but I've seen that kind of argumentative stuff before. It's usually used by people that want to try and bully their own viewpoint through by raw exhaustion of the 'opponent'. That's why I don't bother with most of your posts anymore, cause they're just fluff taking up space on the board for no real reason.

[ToaOrka]

Silly forumite, you should know better than to expect Bioware to respond to logic.

[hangmans tree]

...and all yuor posts and arguments people come crushing upon a might wall of reality: BW cant and wont change the ending - they would have to agree that their ending/vision lacks/falls short, or simply blows.

Expanding on the ending have not such a negative connotation, and they can stand by their 'artistic integrity and vision'... but still look like an ass, coz I havent heard a real argument or explanation why things happened like they did.

[Grimwick]

Amioran wrote...

The lack of choice is thematic. So, again, you see, since your knowledge on this aspect is lacking, your judgement on why the narrative is "weak" it is erroneous. Does it matter if the execution on some other point can be really weak for what it concerns your faulty judgment of above? Not at all.

"Weak narrative" then, is a concept too large. It depends on what you intend by it in the specifics, and the specifics, again, are what can turn the judgment plausible or not.

My knowledge is lacking? Who ever gave you the right to declare that?
The lack of choice is not thematic - it is the direct opposite. ME has been all about choice from the very beginning. BW deliberately tried to make a game with impactful decisions and where you have a range of options at any time. So when we get forced into three very similar endings I don't see how it thematically fits at all.

I also entirely disagree with the SC's resolution of the theme of the game. Sure, the game has been synthetic/organic and the relationships thereof - but nothing else the SC says really plays on this. He just says that coexistance is impossible! If we have been playing the game and examining this theme, playing out the different consequences and then making our own decisions... to be told that there is only one answer to the problem, then we have been wasting our time trying to make up our own minds about it. Why does Shepard even have an opinion to side with the geth anymore when in the end we are forced into believing that they will inevitably want to kill us?

We have talked about this before. I explained a little what the problems are. It is both a problem of intention and waste of time, plus the fact that DLCs (also if you can download them or not) are seen as canon by many people.

It obviously wouldn't be a waste of time if it pleased so many people then would it. Just because you don't want something doesn't mean you therefore have the right to deprive someone else of it, in fact it makes pro-enders seem even more selfish than anti-enders wanting it changed.
Also, there would be no problem with making it canon (even though i doubt they would). BW have already stated that there will be no ME games after the events of ME3 and so any speculation of 'canon' and it's consequences is moot.

It depends on how it is exectued. The problem is that the new choices you "anti-enders" want go completely against the context of the ending as it is now.

Yes, it does depend on how it is executed for it to be accessible to all. That said, I am sure that BW would be able to think up new ways of expressing the ending with stronger narrative coherence whilst also being able to express the options they wanted you to have in a more sensible or reasonable manner. They have proven themselves to be creative enough to think of ways to solve problems like this before.

Modifié par Grimwick, 05 mai 2012 - 01:13 .

[LogicGunn]

I don't care one iota what the ending actually is. What I do care about is being told to expect something in advertising and interviews, then being sold something completely different.

[Amioran]

SalsaDMA wrote...
No, your history of posts is one of blatantly ignoring anything that doesn't fit with you system of belief, aka faith.

That's just one way you have to ignore what you dont want to hear, it is a system of defense of you bias. If you have no evidence to contrast what the other says and since you cannot tolerate the fact that this can happen then you must find some way to debunk what the others say in some way.

One of this is using the "you believe in it but it's just your faith, it's not real" argument.

I explained many times the fact that all the evidence I bring has nothing to do with "failth". However, at the same time, your argument cannot be disproved totally because to do so you would need knowledge of the thing, and since you don't have it (and you don't want to see it) you can always believe I'm "making it up".

Example: I can provide all proofs you want of the theme behind the ME narrative and explain why it is so, but since you don't know the theme you cannot see the thing and so you can always shelter yourself in the "but it's your belief, it's not said that's so", no matter what, if you really want to do it (it is a defense behaviour, because you don't want to see what you don't like, and if you want you can adopt it and I can do nothing about it).

This is true for everything. If you for example believe that the earth is flat and all your notions cannot understand otherwise no matter how much evidence I can bring to the table of the contrary, if you want and really like to, you can always insist that I'm "making it up". Naturally it depends, as I said, on a defense system to avoid being proven wrong, but I cannot do anything about it, no matter what.

SalsaDMA wrote...
That's why I find it funny when you talk about basing stuff on 'real things'. Cause anything real you can't fit into your own version of how the world looks gets discarded by you.

It's real. Things are not real or false just because you pretend them to be in a way or another.

I've given proof of this many many times, with detailed explanations and explaining all the connections. The fact you insist that what I said it's not true it is just, again, your automatic defense on the possibility of being proven wrong.

SalsaDMA wrote...
You do like longwinded posts, though, but I've seen that kind of argumentative stuff before. It's usually used by people that want to try and bully their own viewpoint through by raw exhaustion of the 'opponent'. That's why I don't bother with most of your posts anymore, cause they're just fluff taking up space on the board for no real reason.

My posts have always explained in full what I say and in detail. It is just that you are so biased anyway that you cannot admit that the thing can be different and more complex than what you think it is, no matter the proof.

I explained in detail all about the theme of ME, explained the connections with all the narrative as the choices in the end and the lack thereof, the SC and what it means, the way the villains are introduced etc. etc. and connected the same to the theme behind in a perfect logical way. I've let you see that the theme is addressed both directly and indirectly in all the narrative, from beginning, and from two different angles. I've let you see, explaining it, the way the three choices in the end are built from beginning in the theme, in a perfect consistent way with the theme.

All of this always without assumptions, I always motivated everything without "if" or "but". I even quoted other narratives you can study to find the same things, or what authors speak about the theme in detail, so you can find all I said to you and research it if you are interested, so that if you are not sure of what I say you can check for yourself.

More I cannot do, as I said. You can continue deny all I said, in the end, if it is convenient for you. I have no problems on people saying "I don't believe you". That's pefectly fine, and I encourage it, in fact. Another completely different thing however is saying: "All you say is bulls*it, no matter the evidence and no matter whatever you will say", because it just shows that, in the end, all the matter of the question is your fear of changing your point of view on an argument.

[Gibb_Shepard]

The Razman wrote...

They're not basing the decision on mathematically pleasing as many people as possible. Straw man fallacy.

And the argument that "those that like the current ending, just don't download the DLC" has been refuted and debunked and ridiculed and disproved and logically killed to death about a million times already. Please search the forums in future before posting stuff.

Much like the ending has been logically disproved. Search the forums.

[Amioran]

Grimwick wrote...
My knowledge is lacking? Who ever gave you the right to declare that?

It's in what you write about this. You will find examples continuing.

Grimwick wrote...
The lack of choice is not thematic - it is the direct opposite. ME has been all about choice from the very beginning. BW deliberately tried to make a game with impactful decisions and where you have a range of options at any time. So when we get forced into three very similar endings I don't see how it thematically fits at all.

All of this is in the theme. At the beginning there's the concept of free will, so the protagonist of narratives that use the theme usually have a range of options and the ability to always "find another solution". It comes a point, however, in where the two points of views in the theme cannot be dealt with in ways that are outside the behaviour already estabilished for them by the way their struggle ends (in the philosophical sense).

It is just the great contrast between free will in the beginning (from the point of view of the protagonist) and the lack of choice in the end that supports great part of the theme.

All the motivations of these things are to be found in the theme itself. Why things cannot be in other ways etc. are all to be foundable in the theme.

Grimwick wrote...
I also entirely disagree with the SC's resolution of the theme of the game. Sure, the game has been synthetic/organic and the relationships thereof - but nothing else the SC says really plays on this.

Synthetics vs. organics is the same theme approached on a different scale (it is the difference between a microcosm and a macrocosm, for example). It is always "order vs. chaos". The SC plays a fundamental role on this, being the supreme aspect of order.

Grimwick wrote...
He just says that coexistance is impossible! If we have been playing the game and examining this theme, playing out the different consequences and then making our own decisions...

In fact it's impossible. The two point of views in the theme are so distant than there's no way for them to really be able to stand togheter. The only choices are the ones given in the end, that methaphorically express the only solution to have the two point of views have a stable "relationship" one another, be it with total separateness, controlling one of the two or trying to unite the two giving up your individuality in one.

All of the why that's so, is, again, explained fully in the theme if you know it.

Grimwick wrote...
to be told that there is only one answer to the problem, then we have been wasting our time trying to make up our own minds about it. Why does Shepard even have an opinion to side with the geth anymore when in the end we are forced into believing that they will inevitably want to kill us?

Because there's no other way out. Again, the free will of Shepard must contrast with the inevitability of the way things are, because this is all what the theme is about.

Your siding with the Geth it has another scope than a full "order vs. chaos" coexhistence in a greater scale. Your "peace" with the Geths it is only possible because there's the illusion of a greater enemy. Killing them express the fact that in that choice the two points cannot cohabit no more (total separateness), where you exist I cannot and viceversa.

It is the same in the fall from heaven of Lucifer.

Grimwick wrote...
It obviously wouldn't be a waste of time if it pleased so many people then would it. Just because you don't want something doesn't mean you therefore have the right to deprive someone else of it, in fact it makes pro-enders seem even more selfish than anti-enders wanting it changed.

The thing work both ways, you know?

The fact that you don't like the thing as it is it doesn't mean that you have the right to have others stand the fact that the company has to waste time on a thing you don't like and that has to do something that would have never done otherwise. The fact that you don't like the ending doesn't give you the right to decide what to do about it.

How can pro-enders be more more selfish since they aren't pretending anything at all?

Modifié par Amioran, 05 mai 2012 - 01:56 .

[BiancoAngelo7]

Xellith wrote...

They dont care about delivering a product that people want. They only want to deliver art that they want. This is why making people happy doesnt matter.

yuuuup. As long as it makes them ton o cash, they're fine with it.

[SalsaDMA]

Amioran wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...
No, your history of posts is one of blatantly ignoring anything that doesn't fit with you system of belief, aka faith.

That's just one way you have to ignore what you dont want to hear, it is a system of defense of you bias. If you have no evidence to contrast what the other says and since you cannot tolerate the fact that this can happen then you must find some way to debunk what the others say in some way.

One of this is using the "you believe in it but it's just your faith, it's not real" argument.

I explained many times the fact that all the evidence I bring has nothing to do with "failth". However, at the same time, your argument cannot be disproved totally because to do so you would need knowledge of the thing, and since you don't have it (and you don't want to see it) you can always believe I'm "making it up".

Example: I can provide all proofs you want of the theme behind the ME narrative and explain why it is so, but since you don't know the theme you cannot see the thing and so you can always shelter yourself in the "but it's your belief, it's not said that's so", no matter what, if you really want to do it (it is a defense behaviour, because you don't want to see what you don't like, and if you want you can adopt it and I can do nothing about it).

This is true for everything. If you for example believe that the earth is flat and all your notions cannot understand otherwise no matter how much evidence I can bring to the table of the contrary, if you want and really like to, you can always insist that I'm "making it up". Naturally it depends, as I said, on a defense system to avoid being proven wrong, but I cannot do anything about it, no matter what.

SalsaDMA wrote...
That's why I find it funny when you talk about basing stuff on 'real things'. Cause anything real you can't fit into your own version of how the world looks gets discarded by you.

It's real. Things are not real or false just because you pretend them to be in a way or another.

I've given proof of this many many times, with detailed explanations and explaining all the connections. The fact you insist that what I said it's not true it is just, again, your automatic defense on the possibility of being proven wrong.

SalsaDMA wrote...
You do like longwinded posts, though, but I've seen that kind of argumentative stuff before. It's usually used by people that want to try and bully their own viewpoint through by raw exhaustion of the 'opponent'. That's why I don't bother with most of your posts anymore, cause they're just fluff taking up space on the board for no real reason.

My posts have always explained in full what I say and in detail. It is just that you are so biased anyway that you cannot admit that the thing can be different and more complex than what you think it is, no matter the proof.

I explained in detail all about the theme of ME, explained the connections with all the narrative as the choices in the end and the lack thereof, the SC and what it means, the way the villains are introduced etc. etc. and connected the same to the theme behind in a perfect logical way. I've let you see that the theme is addressed both directly and indirectly in all the narrative, from beginning, and from two different angles. I've let you see, explaining it, the way the three choices in the end are built from beginning in the theme, in a perfect consistent way with the theme.

All of this always without assumptions, I always motivated everything without "if" or "but". I even quoted other narratives you can study to find the same things, or what authors speak about the theme in detail, so you can find all I said to you and research it if you are interested, so that if you are not sure of what I say you can check for yourself.

More I cannot do, as I said. You can continue deny all I said, in the end, if it is convenient for you. I have no problems on people saying "I don't believe you". That's pefectly fine, and I encourage it, in fact. Another completely different thing however is saying: "All you say is bulls*it, no matter the evidence and no matter whatever you will say", because it just shows that, in the end, all the matter of the question is your fear of changing your point of view on an argument.

No.

And you didn't add anything new to the table with any of those words either.

I'm sorry, but you are blinded by your own faith. There is nothing 'real' about your blind asumptions that you try to impose on other people.

And the hypocrisy of your being reeks from this part: "I have no problems on people saying "I don't believe you". That's pefectly fine, and I encourage it, in fact." when you have on several occasions stated the exact opposite in actions and even literal words.

Keep dreaming up your own world if it makes it happy. Just don't expect the rest of us to be converted to your idea of reality. :innocent:

[cyrslash1974]

Grimwick wrote...

Amioran wrote...

The lack of choice is thematic. So, again, you see, since your knowledge on this aspect is lacking, your judgement on why the narrative is "weak" it is erroneous. Does it matter if the execution on some other point can be really weak for what it concerns your faulty judgment of above? Not at all.

"Weak narrative" then, is a concept too large. It depends on what you intend by it in the specifics, and the specifics, again, are what can turn the judgment plausible or not.

My knowledge is lacking? Who ever gave you the right to declare that?
The lack of choice is not thematic - it is the direct opposite. ME has been all about choice from the very beginning. BW deliberately tried to make a game with impactful decisions and where you have a range of options at any time. So when we get forced into three very similar endings I don't see how it thematically fits at all.

I also entirely disagree with the SC's resolution of the theme of the game. Sure, the game has been synthetic/organic and the relationships thereof - but nothing else the SC says really plays on this. He just says that coexistance is impossible! If we have been playing the game and examining this theme, playing out the different consequences and then making our own decisions... to be told that there is only one answer to the problem, then we have been wasting our time trying to make up our own minds about it. Why does Shepard even have an opinion to side with the geth anymore when in the end we are forced into believing that they will inevitably want to kill us?

We have talked about this before. I explained a little what the problems are. It is both a problem of intention and waste of time, plus the fact that DLCs (also if you can download them or not) are seen as canon by many people.

It obviously wouldn't be a waste of time if it pleased so many people then would it. Just because you don't want something doesn't mean you therefore have the right to deprive someone else of it, in fact it makes pro-enders seem even more selfish than anti-enders wanting it changed.
Also, there would be no problem with making it canon (even though i doubt they would). BW have already stated that there will be no ME games after the events of ME3 and so any speculation of 'canon' and it's consequences is moot.

It depends on how it is exectued. The problem is that the new choices you "anti-enders" want go completely against the context of the ending as it is now.

Yes, it does depend on how it is executed for it to be accessible to all. That said, I am sure that BW would be able to think up new ways of expressing the ending with stronger narrative coherence whilst also being able to express the options they wanted you to have in a more sensible or reasonable manner. They have proven themselves to be creative enough to think of ways to solve problems like this before.

I strongly approve. Artistic vision has to be in line with screenplay vision. It's not the case with the end in state.
Why Shepard can't explain to the Catalyst that peace is possible between organics and synthetics (Quarians/Gueth, Joker/IDA...) ? He can prove that this peace is possible, so the Cycle is done. New solution, new color proposed : destroy only the reapers.

[Secret Elf]

Amioran wrote...
It is just the great contrast between free will in the beginning (from the point of view of the protagonist) and the lack of choice in the end that supports great part of the theme.

No, actually, there isn't. The ending is clearly in complete contradiction to the established theme of choice and Shepard's stubborn unwilligness to submit to paths imposed upon him that has been established throughout the entire series.
The so-called contrast between free will and the lack of choice in the end is clearly just your poor attempt at rationalization, a feeble defense mechanism of a mind unwilling to accept the simpler truth.
And please don't mention philosophy again in this context, because you clearly haven't got the most distant clue as to what actually constitutes "philosophical". I'd say you know much about sophistry instead, but I somehow doubt you understand what that word even means.

Amioran wrote...
All the motivations of these things are to be found in the theme itself. Why things cannot be in other ways etc. are all to be foundable in the theme.

Of course they are. Anything can be found anywhere if one wills it to be there. Especially vague motivations in a nebulous theme, perfect tools for the willfully blind.

Amioran wrote...
Synthetics vs. organics is the same theme approached on a different scale (it is the difference between a microcosm and a macrocosm, for example). It is always "order vs. chaos". The SC plays a fundamental role on this, being the supreme aspect of order.

Correction, he just CLAIMS he is the supreme aspect of order and salvation, and his final rationalizations are nothing more than cheap cliche, awkwardly trying to cover and simplify a very complex underlying issue, based on far-fetched speculation and ludicrous pseudo-logic. You know, kind of like your statements above.

Amioran wrote...
In fact it's impossible. The two point of views in the theme are so distant than there's no way for them to really be able to stand togheter. The only choices are the ones given in the end, that methaphorically express the only solution to have the two point of views have a stable "relationship" one another, be it with total separateness, controlling one of the two or trying to unite the two giving up your individuality in one.

All of the why that's so, is, again, explained fully in the theme if you know it.

In fact it's possible. All of why that's so, is, again, explained fully in the theme, if you are not feverishly rationalizing things away because you refuse to acknowledge what is actually happening.

Golly gee, I sure wish someone told the Quarians and the Geth that there can't possibly be any sort of peace between them because apparently their points of view are so distant in the "theme", that there's just no way that Geth would, say, not only make an alliance with their former creators(whom they've never wanted to truly exterminate, by the way, nor did they initiate the war), but also actively participate in the rebuilding of their homeworld, even going so far as downloading themselves into Quarian suits and helping them rebuild their cities. All that is simply not possible, because the almighty THEME hath declared thus! There is simply no other choice, the Starchild says so!
Geth are synthetic, thus – must - destroy – organic life! Ex-ter-mi-nate!
Aw, and they've started to build such nice things together, too. Shucks.

Amioran wrote...
Because there's no other way out. Again, the free will of Shepard must contrast with the inevitability of the way things are, because this is all what the theme is about.

Your siding with the Geth it has another scope than a full "order vs. chaos" coexhistence in a greater scale. Your "peace" with the Geths it is only possible because there's the illusion of a greater enemy. Killing them express the fact that in that choice the two points cannot cohabit no more (total separateness), where you exist I cannot and viceversa.

It is the same in the fall from heaven of Lucifer.

You know what, I actually really wanted to respond to this rationally, but the more I read through your post, the less sense it makes.
Were you actually drunk when you wrote this? Just a little bit?
Because I cannot fathom someone completely sober actually writing this in any kind of serious tone. There can't be peace between Geth and Quarians even if it already IS, because apparently the almighty theme forbids it, and of course you are the most sacred and solitary arbiter of said theme?
And the already existing peace between Quarians and Geth is actually an argument AGAINST the coexistence of organics and synthetics?
It's all an illusion?
'K, cool story, bro.

p.s. And artistic integrity, really now?
Bioware is not artistic, and they have no integrity. That's how I know it's not really about artistic integrity.



 

[Grimwick]

[quote] It's in what you write about this. You will find examples continuing. [/quote]

Because you are suddenly the objective master of all that is logical and knowledgeable?
You have based none of your ideas on anything with weight and comments as to my 'understanding' are rude and arrogant.

[quote] All of this is in the theme. At the beginning there's the concept of free will, so the protagonist of narratives that use the theme usually have a range of options and the ability to always "find another solution". It comes a point, however, in where the two points of views in the theme cannot be dealt with in ways that are outside the behaviour already estabilished for them by the way their struggle ends (in the philosophical sense).

It is just the great contrast between free will in the beginning (from the point of view of the protagonist) and the lack of choice in the end that supports great part of the theme.
[/quote]
Wait, so your justification that we have only 3 choices which are near identical in the end... is because the theme was free will?
What part of the game and story was based around the idea of free will? The only mentions of it are to do with the geth's right to self-determination which funnily enough appears more in the synthetic/organic theme than free will.

I fail to understand your point (or lack of one?). Just because it "comes to a point where the two points of views cannot be dealt with in ways that are outside of the behaviour established for them" doesn't mean that we can't have a variety of endings does it? If the theme was free will then we should have had options or have been able to make decisions other than what we are forced into. If the theme was synthetic/organic we should have had options which are other than SYNTHETICS ARE EVIL K?

[quote] Synthetics vs. organics is the same theme approached on a different scale (it is the difference between a microcosm and a macrocosm, for example). It is always "order vs. chaos". The SC plays a fundamental role on this, being the supreme aspect of order. [/quote]

No. I reject the premise that:
1) Chaos vs Order was the theme of mass effect
2) Synthetic vs Organic = Chaos vs Order

Synthetic/Organic is on the nature of life and peaceful coexistance between alien cultures. 
Chaos/Order is a complex philosophical idea based on nature and the driving forces which control it.

They are not the same theme on any level! It is not a case of microscale/macroscale at all. It is ridiculous to suggest this.
In any case, the idea of chao/order is certainly not the theme of mass effect. If you are trying to tell me that after 100 hours of gameplay and touching many strong topics such as racism/the genophage/free will/syntheticvsorganic/nature of life/survival against the impossible/friendship+cooporation that the theme is in fact based in 2 lines of dialogue in ME1 and 2 lines of dialogue in ME3? 

Nu-uh. Not buying it.

[quote]In fact it's impossible. The two point of views in the theme are so distant than there's no way for them to really be able to stand togheter. The only choices are the ones given in the end, that methaphorically express the only solution to have the two point of views have a stable "relationship" one another, be it with total separateness, controlling one of the two or trying to unite the two giving up your individuality in one.[/quote]

I'm sorry but why is coexistance impossible? The geth that weren't heretics lived peacefully in their own corner of space for centuries... peacefully. If you are trying to propel the claim that war is inevitable then try and find some evidence first please, don't base it from what the SC says in the last 3 mins of the game.

In fact the two points of view aren't that opposed and I don't see why a peaceful resolution is impossible (it was certainly possible about 5 hours before the ending).
The choices we are given are in NO way the only 3 solutions. Since when is having to control one of the sides one of the only three solutions? Since when is having to unite them both in some stupid mega-DNA another solution? That's one of the most stupid sci fi ideas I have heard in a long time. And then the only other option is to destroy them? These are definitely, definitely not the only solutions.

[quote]All of the why that's so, is, again, explained fully in the theme if you know it.[/quote]
Please retype with better english? I have a feeling you were trying to subtly insult me here.

[quote][quote]Grimwick wrote...
to be told that there is only one answer to the problem, then we have been wasting our time trying to make up our own minds about it. Why does Shepard even have an opinion to side with the geth anymore when in the end we are forced into believing that they will inevitably want to kill us?[/quote]

Because there's no other way out. Again, the free will of Shepard must contrast with the inevitability of the way things are, because this is all what the theme is about. [/quote]

I have no idea why Shepard's free will must contrast with anything...

[quote]
Your siding with the Geth it has another scope than a full "order vs. chaos" coexhistence in a greater scale. Your "peace" with the Geths it is only possible because there's the illusion of a greater enemy. [/quote]

Not supported with any substantiated evidence.

[quote]It is the same in the fall from heaven of Lucifer. [/quote]

You have to be joking here. There is no way you could compare a vague religious parable with synthetic/organic coexistance and still make sense.

[quote][quote]Grimwick wrote...
It obviously wouldn't be a waste of time if it pleased so many people then would it. Just because you don't want something doesn't mean you therefore have the right to deprive someone else of it, in fact it makes pro-enders seem even more selfish than anti-enders wanting it changed.[/quote]

The thing work both ways, you know?

The fact that you don't like the thing as it is it doesn't mean that you have the right to have others stand the fact that the company has to waste time on a thing you don't like and that has to do something that would have never done otherwise. The fact that you don't like the ending doesn't give you the right to decide what to do about it.

How can pro-enders be more more selfish since they aren't pretending anything at all?
[/quote]

It doesn't work both ways if you already have what you want and don't have to change yourself...

Just because it would never have done anything otherwise doesn't mean anything. If a company for example really believed everyone in the world liked dark chocolate and then planned to make all their chocolate dark, only later to find out that most people preferred milk chocolate, then they would change their plans regardless. Plans change - don't assume they would never had done something just because it wasn't required at the time.

Actually, the fact that I don't like the ending gives me the right to state it, and also gives me the right to ASK for another one. We are not forcing BW to do anything, we are trying to persuade them to make something that would increase our overall enjoyment.

Pro-enders are welcome to voice their opinions on the ending... but openly petitioning in order to deny others of what they want IS selfish. You cannot claim otherwise.

Modifié par Grimwick, 05 mai 2012 - 04:29 .

[xsdob]

Now I may not be an statistical or logistical expert, but as someone who's taken 3 science courses in college, the fact that op has no references or links to where he got this information from makes me doubt his claims.

[The Razman]

The Master Chief wrote...

I understand the argument that the entire game itself is a series of little endings to different story arcs, and I think that they are all wrapped up very well. We've cured the genophage (or maybe not), so now the turians and salarians/krogan can work together and help retake Earth. There's closure in that regard. We solved the geth/quarian conflict, so now both of them can help us retake Earth. There's closure there, too. But it's not the same kind of closure that we get from knowing what happens to all of our squadmates and allies after the war is over. We only know that our current squadmates crash landed on some unknown planet and we have no clue about what happened to our former ME2 squadmates, unless they died, of course. That's what I'm talking about when I say that there really was no closure with the other characters. We're left to infer what happened to them, rather than seeing the lasting consequences of our actions firsthand. This kind of ending is fit for leading into a sequel, not for wrapping up a trilogy, and I think this can be said for any game series, not just Mass Effect.

Which is not a problem. There are countless examples of narratives which end with some ambiguity as to the future of the characters. Ending of Angel, anyone?

As long as the story arcs are concluded within the narrative we see, that's really not a complaint. You don't need an epilogue saying "And they all lived happily ever after" or whatever to give you closure. This is a story about the characters and their growth and progression, and we've seen and influenced that over the course of the trilogy.

There's nothing wrong with not knowing, as much as some people will try and claim there is. All fans want to know, but a good showman doesn't just always give the fans what they want ... what would be the point? If they just gave the fans what they think they want, then the ending would probably have been "little blue babies". Which let's be honest ... would have been rubbish.

Also, my claims are not invalid simply because you think the origin of them are defective somehow (referring to the beginning of your first long paragraph). You've shown me already that you can do better than that. Also, I watched the video again and I fail to see where the guy takes a crap on every piece of academic writing regarding genre studies in literature. He's comparing one apple to another apple, not an apple to an orange. I can't say I agree with the statement that the ending abandons the genre of Mass Effect, it's still a sci-fi, "talky and techy" video game, regardless of how it ends, so I can see where you're coming from there. But the central conflict? Throughout the entire series, it is set in stone that our goal is to stop the Reapers from wiping out advanced civilizations. Then we meet the Catalyst and it tells us that we need to find a new solution to the inevitable conflict between synthetics and organics, a claim based on an assumption that we have been shown is erroneous unless you decided to wipe out the geth. Yeah, it doesn't change our final actions or the consequences of them that we are bottlenecked into, but it shifts our focus unnecessarily, and after 100+ hours of playing Mass Effect, having this sudden shift in focus does break my immersion and suspension of disbelief. The ending of an entire series is far too late to pull such a manuever, and if it is, then this manuever was executed terribly. It segues quite nicely into the idea of loss of narrative coherence, in my humble opinion.

I'm not saying your point is automatically invalidated, I'm saying it doesn't help. A video on YouTube is not going to exactly represent your views to the letter, and so letting it speak for you is just deflecting the argument away from what you think and onto what the guy in the video thinks. You may think you're helping prove your point by linking to the video, but it's trying to jam a square peg into a round hole; it's never going to directly answer the question you're probably posting it in response to.

The guy takes a dump on academic genre studies by saying "There's only three kinds of sci-fi ... Star Wars-esque, Star Trek-esque, Blade Runner-esque. Mass Effect is the second one, so it has to be like Star Trek and the Starchild doesn't fit Star Trek-esque sci-fi, so it's a mistake". That's literally it's argument. I don't think I have to explain why taking such a ridiculously dumbed down and basic approach to the concept of genre is flying in the face of all academic study done in that area ... but really, it invoked some very distasteful, very much stated academic nerd-rage in me. The whole idea of dumbing down the sci-fi genre to "talky and techy" is offensive and erroneous.

But as for the central conflict, it never changes. You activate the Crucible in the hopes of stopping the Reapers, and the Starchild offers you ways to do that, including the option you were hoping for in the first place ... destroying the Reapers. He even says "You can do what you came here to do ... destroy us". But then it offers you other choices too. It's not a new conflict ... it's the resolution of the conflict. And it's claim isn't erroneous, the Quarian/Geth conflict is, if anything, supporting evidence for its claims.

EDI and the Geth do not disprove the Starchild’s argument. They actually strengthen it.

The Starchild’s argument is that organics will develop synthetics so powerful that they will rebel and destroy all organic life. No matter that they were provoked, the Geth have already rebelled. EDI, as we learn from the video logs in the Cerberus base, was the psychopathic rogue AI Sheperd took offline forcibly on the Lunar Base in Mass Effect 1. At our current stage in the cycle, the stage where synthetics are not sophisticated enough to pose the same threat to the galaxy’s life as the Reapers do, these mistakes are damaging but not dangerous to all organic life. If we were at the technological level to create synthetics as powerful as the Reapers are, then all it would take is for an incident similar to the one which has already happened with EDI and the Geth to occur once. Just once. And that’s it for all organic life.

That we believe that we have synthetics licked because of EDI and the Geth is actually quite arrogant. An arrogance which could very possibly, according to the Starchild’s logic, end up destroying us all.

As for loss of narrative cohesion because it was "too sudden", I just don't understand that one. What were you expecting to happen when the Crucible was activated? I was expecting something unexpected to happen, as I don't think anyone seriously went in there thinking "it's just a weapon that we activate and then it'll kill all the Reapers", did they? I was expecting a twist, so it didn't break any immersion for me.

Modifié par The Razman, 05 mai 2012 - 04:55 .