[quote]Amioran wrote...
An ending of a narrative is not an exam where you need to have preparation before; an exam is built on technical examinations on points already estabilished, a narrative is built many times in shifting points having many asbract concepts in them.[/quote]
Narratives cannot exist as entities without internal cohesion. Abstract concepts must be maintained, and if there are interactions between abstract concepts, the relationship must either be maintained or have sufficient explanation to account for the differences in exhibition.
The Mass Effect narrative, as science-fiction, uses the veracity and stringent accountability of science as its source for the rules of its universe. It is an extrapolation of current reality and technological capability extrapolated to some arbitrary point and given the caveat of Eezo, which is capable of significantly modifying the proposed reality in ambiguous ways with consistent interactions (nobody knows how Eezo creates Biotics or why it even exists, but its uses are consistent and affects on living organisms categorizable). It is, as you say, based on points already well-established.
[quote]For this, the comparision between the two is completely inaccurate and wrong. If you need to make comparisions between two completely different topics to try to have a point then you are really at loss of evidences to support the same.[/quote]
I don't agree that the ending is like an exam, but I also disagree with your assertion that the two are wildly innacurate analogs. Either you haven't taken enough science courses to happen upon the "What if..." questions, or your prematurely concluding an argument.
[quote]A narrative doesn't need to explain everything when it comes to make decisions on the same, exactly the contrary, in fact.[/quote]
You're missing a word. The same what? Situations? Things? I'm going to assume 'problems.'
You are correct. The narrative doesn't need to explicitly state why decisions were made, but the basis of human knowledge comes from accumulation of experiences. If a decision is made that is counterintuitive, based upon prior experiences, then it creates a minor cognitive dissonance resulting in disbelief.
This is extremely well known, and while it can be masterfully manipulated, often the employ of cognitive dissonance in narratives is flanked by further development of other ideas or characters so that critical analysis of the work returns multiple, valid interpretations.
However, as ironic as it is that Sovereign declared their motives could not be comprehended by organic beings - and we stand, now, asking what logical sense the options presented to us by the Catalyst make - it's up to the reader to determine whether that was the intent of the author(s) or not. This is usually determined via support in the narrative itself.
That the Reapers are constrained by human logic throughout 95% of the series (their military tactics are perfectly understandable, their technology is comprehendable and reverse-engineered, their creation is within assumption) is evidence more for the unintentional implementation of cognitive dissonance than the Catalyst's reasoning being purposeful implementation.
[quote]As it happens in real life many times (almost always) you don't know in anticipation what is going to happen when you make a choice. Doing otherwise in a narrative would render the choice completely arbitrary and without concern. What tension would it have? Uncertainity is one of the best ways to build tension and to add a choice a REAL valor, otherwise, if the choices are predictable, there's no difficulty at all in making them.[/quote]
You may not know, but you assume. The human mind is fantastic at making assumptions (like gravity, or the response of a little girl you stole candy from). Unexpected outcomes can create anxiety or excitement, and the anticipation of an unexpected outcome or outcome for which there isn't enough evidence to build a firm assumption is - I agree - what builds tension.
Unfortunately, this argument may not be your best bed-fellow. If uncertainty leads to valor, then what is the player/Shepard when they are explicitly told the outcomes of their choice by the Catalyst? There isn't any ambiguity. You are told "If you do A, then B will happen." As you say, there's no difficulty in making the final choice - instead there is difficulty is in the existence of the final choices at all.
That's what's bad about the ending. Why do you end up where you are, and why do you get presented with the three choices? That's the impetus behind the constant dissatsifaction. The first question is answered adequately, if not entirely as-well explained as the rest of the game. The second is answered with the auspices of authority lacking logical support. "Just because" is your answer for the second, and that has/is/never-will-be a satisfactory answer.
[quote]Having all choices with predictable results in a narrative render the same completely fabesque and unreal. It creates a completely arbitrary environment that removes all tension from the choices, turning them prevedible and predictable.[/quote]
Quite.
[quote]aj2070 wrote...
The problem is that it’s impossible for people paying attention to fit what went down into context with the rest of the game. They lack the tools needed to do so because they were never provided in the first place. (Underline added) [/quote]
The ending is perfectly coherent with the theme of the narrative. The only problem of the guy that wrote this is that, as usual, he knows anything at all about it.
[/quote]
I disagree. Given the previous two games and the majority of the third game, I don't see sufficient support for the ending presented. The necessary questions are not answered:
-Why is the Catalyst acting under cyclical (and apparantly faulty) logic? No evidence is given, and no reason for the error in our own assumptions is given. Without evidence, we are forced to conclude there isn't a logical reason.
-Why are there only three choices? Again, no explanation for the choices' existence is given. We are merely forced to assume they exist because they are the only options that can exist. However, we are not given evidence as to why other choices were eliminated or the three presented are chosen. We are even told that one of the choices is essentially a null-value since it merely results in the delayed continutation of the cycle (which, as already mentioned, doesn't have evidence to support its existence in the first place). So I guess there are only 2 choices if you ponder things.
-Why is Joker where he is with the Normandy at the end? His character has displayed undisputed loyalty to Shepard, and there wasn't any conceivable advantage (strategically or otherwise) for him to be where he is at the end. No evidence, again, forces us to assume his actions are illogical. I'm not as troubled by the appearance of the squadmate - it's not known how long Shepard is on the Citadel before the end, so it's possible they could be picked up.
-What is really accomplished by Shepard? This is the other complaint, but I think the blunt elution that is the ending leaves many unable to properly articulate it. Shepard makes a choice, the Normandy is shown, and the ending voice-over is given.
Leaving questions unanswered can be utilized to provoke introspection and profound thought. However, it must... must be backed and supported by extensive development via themes, characters, and evidence to provide enough information for the participants to form a logical conclusion. The only exception is where the idea is so abstract or illogical that it must be taken as-is, but that exception is shattered if it cannot remain consistency illogical.
Obviously your interpretation is different than mine, but I can't accept yours because of a perceived lack of evidence and forethought by BioWare. Thus, I can't but deem ME3's ending as "incredibly dissatisfactory."
Retour en haut
