4520 réponses à ce sujet

[Seival]

killage_wizard, ME3 story can't be understood correctly when you take everything literally... And this is the proof of good writing actually.

[The Night Mammoth]

Seival wrote...

I'm sure that EC will fix all misunderstandings. And BioWare already said that EC will add epilogue with detailed descriptions of consequences... Right now my biggest concern is what are they going to do with Normandy crash scene... This is the only thing in the ending that is completely out of line.

Unless they remove literally the ending and replace it, no, I don't think it will. 

Some say only their execution is off, but the ideas are good.

No, I say, their execution was attrocious but the ideas are even worse.

So it's not a case of "I don't understand their ending" and more a case of "I do understand their ending, and the things I understand are complete bollocks".

 

Short version of great writing is not a "bad writing". It's actually good when some story leaves a lot of space for your own imagination.

That depends on many things, and it's largely a matter of opinion.

I don't mind when a story leaves small details out for us to speculate on., I hate it when they leave out more than they actually explain, including the actual result of what you see and do. The central conflict hasn't been resolved, there are more questions than answers, big questions. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 31 mai 2012 - 10:41 .

[D24O]

Seival wrote...

killage_wizard, ME3 story can't be understood correctly when you take everything literally... And this is the proof of good writing actually.

My lats beg to differ.

[Lord Goose]

And how is a human going to impose their will onto thousands of these Reaper minds again without it backfiring horribly?

Crucible allows to control the Reapers via its super technology. Probably even Vorcha could have done what given Crucible.

Mass Effect deserves better than space magic. Do you think this ending would've flown in ME1? Hell no.

I actually sort of thought about it. Not exactly about beams, but... face it, Reapers were plain unstoppable in the first games. At least, described so. Given how little anybody have paid attention to the incoming invasion, I always thought what situation could be resolved only be sort of deus ex.

[The Angry One]

Seival wrote...

killage_wizard, ME3 story can't be understood correctly when you take everything literally... And this is the proof of good writing actually.

Okay, seriously. You can't make an argument with "you don't understand" and "that's actually good writing".
These are just excuses... well, the latter isn't even an excuse. You're just saying "No this isn't bad, it's good!" over and over.

[Seival]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Seival wrote...

I'm sure that EC will fix all misunderstandings. And BioWare already said that EC will add epilogue with detailed descriptions of consequences... Right now my biggest concern is what are they going to do with Normandy crash scene... This is the only thing in the ending that is completely out of line.

Unless they remove literally the ending and replace it, no, I don't think it will. 

Some say only their execution is off, but the ideas are good.

No, I say, their execution was attrocious but the ideas are even worse.

So it's not a case of "I don't understand their ending" and more a case of "I do understand their ending, and the things I understand are complete bollocks".

 

Short version of great writing is not a "bad writing". It's actually good when some story leaves a lot of space for your own imagination.

That depends on many things, and it's largely a matter of opinion.

I don't mind when a story leaves small details out for us to speculate on., I hate it when they leave out more than they actually explain, including the actual result of what you see and do. The central conflict hasn't been resolved, there are more questions than answers, big questions. 

Let's wait for EC. I'm sure it will make you, me, and many other players 100% happy with all aspects of ME3 endings

Modifié par Seival, 31 mai 2012 - 10:45 .

[Jamie9]

Seival wrote...

killage_wizard, ME3 story can't be understood correctly when you take everything literally... And this is the proof of good writing actually.

No, no, no, no, no.

Great writing, truly great writing can be interpreted literally and make sense. Then you can look deeper into it, and see it symbolically and get a totally different interpretation from it.

It has to have both to be successful. It simply feels hollow if the literal interpretation is missing - ie. this game's ending.

Endings are hard to do, don't get me wrong. Many, many great series have terrible endings. Mass Effect 3 won't be the last.

[The Angry One]

Lord Goose wrote...

Crucible allows to control the Reapers via its super technology. Probably even Vorcha could have done what given Crucible.

That's a horrifically bad justification.

I actually sort of thought about it. Not exactly about beams, but... face it, Reapers were plain unstoppable in the first games. At least, described so. Given how little anybody have paid attention to the incoming invasion, I always thought what situation could be resolved only be sort of deus ex.

I can and have disputed that, as have many others.
Still to keep on topic, my arguments here have been based on the Crucible remaining. The Crucible however is no excuse for not foreshadowing the endings properly.
Again, you could have numerous events and dialogues to justify and foreshadow control.

Tell me pro-controllers, you really wouldn't have wanted a boss battle where you control a Reaper? Really?

Modifié par The Angry One, 31 mai 2012 - 10:47 .

[Jamie9]

Lord Goose wrote...
I actually sort of thought about it. Not exactly about beams, but... face it, Reapers were plain unstoppable in the first games. At least, described so. Given how little anybody have paid attention to the incoming invasion, I always thought what situation could be resolved only be sort of deus ex.

I actually thought they were going to go with a nihilistic but also hopeful ending. I assumed the Reapers were pretty much unstoppable, and thought best-case scenario would be taking out a significant portion of the Reaper fleet. Say, maybe 50%.

And then there'd be a beacon (which is what Liara ends up doing but that never gets brought up again) and you get a glimpse into the next cycle.

That way, there'd have been endless possibilities for story potential for future games. Whole new races. Whole new planets. The Citadel would still be there though and the Relays for continuity.

Of course, this turned out to be just delusions of grandeur once I actually played the game.

[Jamie9]

The Angry One wrote...

I can and have disputed that, as have many others.
Still to keep on topic, my arguments here have been based on the Crucible remaining. The Crucible however is no excuse for not foreshadowing the endings properly.
Again, you could have numerous events and dialogues to justify and foreshadow control.

Tell me pro-controllers, you really wouldn't have wanted a boss battle where you control a Reaper? Really?

Huh. That would have been good actually. Shepard ends up only being able to control 25-75%-ish of the Reapers. A human is literally unable to control more at once without burning up.

Then your EMS comes into play. Can your Reapers and the Allied Fleets destroy the remainder of the Reapers?

[Lord Goose]

That's a horrifically bad justification.

That's more realistic, I think. Even though sentient, Reapers are just machines created by Catalyst. It is only natural that he had means to control them. Probably it could be similiar to rewrite geth with the virus.

Still to keep on topic, my arguments here have been based on the Crucible remaining. The Crucible however is no excuse for not foreshadowing the endings properly.

Well, it was never clarified what the Crucible actually does, I think. We knew what it is anti-Reaper device, but how exactly it was supposed to function is not clear.
Also, we have Horizon, where TIM studied how to control the Reapers. And we know what they discovered something which caught Reapers attention, so they launched preemptive strike.

We also have a line from Garrus about that all Shepard have to do after establishing peace between geth and quarians and turians and krogans, is to pacify the Reapers.

[Taboo]

Good writing is open to interpretation from MANY people. Bad writing is hated and liked by only a few people.

Much like the poop art in New York.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 31 mai 2012 - 10:53 .

[The Angry One]

Jamie9 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

I can and have disputed that, as have many others.
Still to keep on topic, my arguments here have been based on the Crucible remaining. The Crucible however is no excuse for not foreshadowing the endings properly.
Again, you could have numerous events and dialogues to justify and foreshadow control.

Tell me pro-controllers, you really wouldn't have wanted a boss battle where you control a Reaper? Really?

Huh. That would have been good actually. Shepard ends up only being able to control 25-75%-ish of the Reapers. A human is literally unable to control more at once without burning up.

Then your EMS comes into play. Can your Reapers and the Allied Fleets destroy the remainder of the Reapers?

I was thinking more of a foreshadowing mission where you go to a Cerberus base being assaulted by Destroyers or something. You find their prototype Reaper control device based on Crucible schematics and are given the option to use it to control a Destroyer.

I like your idea though. Hell, it could be an epic and unique control finale where Shepard engages in a battle of wills against Harbinger and depending on EMS have x amount of Reapers to turn against him and side with the fleet, or something like that.

[Lord Goose]

I actually thought they were going to go with a nihilistic but also hopeful ending. I assumed the Reapers were pretty much unstoppable, and thought best-case scenario would be taking out a significant portion of the Reaper fleet. Say, maybe 50%.

And then there'd be a beacon (which is what Liara ends up doing but that never gets brought up again) and you get a glimpse into the next cycle.

Be realistic.
Giving epic story downer ending is just against human nature.

[The Angry One]

Lord Goose wrote...

That's more realistic, I think. Even though sentient, Reapers are just machines created by Catalyst. It is only natural that he had means to control them. Probably it could be similiar to rewrite geth with the virus.

The problem here is the Catalyst is an AI designed to oversee the Reapers. It would have no issues. Having Shepard, one human, control all Reapers with no explanation is pure magic.

Well, it was never clarified what the Crucible actually does, I think. We knew what it is anti-Reaper device, but how exactly it was supposed to function is not clear.
Also, we have Horizon, where TIM studied how to control the Reapers. And we know what they discovered something which caught Reapers attention, so they launched preemptive strike.

We also have a line from Garrus about that all Shepard have to do after establishing peace between geth and quarians and turians and krogans, is to pacify the Reapers.

Even if we knew absolutely nothing about what the Crucible could do, it doesn't stop TIM from trying.
Neither should it stop Shepard from being able to express an interest in using the Reapers for the good of all, or just being an ego maniac.

Lord Goose wrote...

Be realistic.
Giving epic story downer ending is just against human nature.

Erm... but a downer ending is what we got.

This is the very definition of a Gainax Ending.

Modifié par The Angry One, 31 mai 2012 - 10:58 .

[Seival]

Jamie9 wrote...

Seival wrote...

killage_wizard, ME3 story can't be understood correctly when you take everything literally... And this is the proof of good writing actually.

No, no, no, no, no.

Great writing, truly great writing can be interpreted literally and make sense. Then you can look deeper into it, and see it symbolically and get a totally different interpretation from it.

Only if it was an author's idea to make the ending understandable both literally and not literally. ME3 ending authors clearly wanted to shock player in the end. And they did it perfectly. And when the shock ends, player finally starts to understand... but only if he will not try to take everything literally again and again.

[Jamie9]

Lord Goose wrote...

Be realistic.
Giving epic story downer ending is just against human nature.

I have read many novels, watched many films and TV series, played many video games. If the protagonists won every single time, I'd expect it. Knowing that every now and then, we lose, keeps the suspense high for every piece of media I experience. When done well, it can leave a more emotional experience on the reader/player/viewer than if they were to simply "win".

Basically, as long as the ending is done well, it can be a joyful ending or an unhappy one. If it's badly written, it doesn't matter what mood the end is because you will be left with the feeling of disappointment, which is what most got here.

It took the entire fleets of the combined Citadel races to defeat Sovereign. I fully expected every Reaper to be just as powerful. Our technology apparently increased by about 20,000 years with the Thanix Cannon though.

[Jamie9]

Seival wrote...

Only if it was an author's idea to make the ending understandable both literally and not literally. ME3 ending authors clearly wanted to shock player in the end. And they did it perfectly. And when the shock ends, player finally starts to understand... but only if he will not try to take everything literally again and again.

That only works if you set the story to be experienced symbollicaly from the very beginning. That only works on a niche market too.

The reason a story has to work both literally and symbolically is you have to try and satisfy your audience. Your whole audience. And the literal interpretation is almost always picked up on first. And then a percentage of your audience will walk away from your story and not return.

But you still want them back for the sequel. So you make sure they walk away satisfied.

[killage_wizard]

Seival wrote...

killage_wizard, ME3 story can't be understood correctly when you take everything literally... And this is the proof of good writing actually.

Taking everything literally makes control completely contradict the entire game literally right up to the point when you meet the kid.  Five minutes before Shepard argues against control so conclusivley that he can get TIM to kill himself because of it.  How do you justify Shepard arguing TIM into killing himself, and then five minutes later doing exactly what TIM was trying to do, for no other reason than the thing that he has been fighting told him to?  That is terrible writing.

[The Angry One]

I sum it up thusly:

Catalyst: "Or do you think you can control us?"

Expected response: "... what? What's your angle, you little creep?"

Actual response: "So the Illusive Man was right."

Me: "WAT?!"

[killage_wizard]

Seival wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

Seival wrote...

killage_wizard, ME3 story can't be understood correctly when you take everything literally... And this is the proof of good writing actually.

No, no, no, no, no.

Great writing, truly great writing can be interpreted literally and make sense. Then you can look deeper into it, and see it symbolically and get a totally different interpretation from it.

Only if it was an author's idea to make the ending understandable both literally and not literally. ME3 ending authors clearly wanted to shock player in the end. And they did it perfectly. And when the shock ends, player finally starts to understand... but only if he will not try to take everything literally again and again.

Wait so what is it?  You told me the only way to understand the ending it to take everything literally, and now I am supppose to not try to take every literally?

[killage_wizard]

The Angry One wrote...

The problem here is the Catalyst is an AI designed to oversee the Reapers. It would have no issues. Having Shepard, one human, control all Reapers with no explanation is pure magic.

And why would the catalyst just give up the control?  Out of the niceness of his Reaper heart?

Even if we knew absolutely nothing about what the Crucible could do, it doesn't stop TIM from trying.
Neither should it stop Shepard from being able to express an interest in using the Reapers for the good of all, or just being an ego maniac.  

And this is EXACTLY why Shepard argues that it is too dangerous to bet all of humanity on trying to control them.  The risk FAR outweighs the reward.  The only thing anybody knows about the catalyst is that many cycles have contributed to it's design.  That sounds awfully fishy to me when the Reapers claim they make sure the racees all develop their technology down a pre determined path.  You woulld think if they kept wiping out races they could have wiped out any trace of one of the cycles developing a weapon that could destroy them.

Modifié par killage_wizard, 31 mai 2012 - 11:47 .

[Seival]

Jamie9 wrote...

Seival wrote...

Only if it was an author's idea to make the ending understandable both literally and not literally. ME3 ending authors clearly wanted to shock player in the end. And they did it perfectly. And when the shock ends, player finally starts to understand... but only if he will not try to take everything literally again and again.

That only works if you set the story to be experienced symbollicaly from the very beginning. That only works on a niche market too.

The reason a story has to work both literally and symbolically is you have to try and satisfy your audience. Your whole audience. And the literal interpretation is almost always picked up on first. And then a percentage of your audience will walk away from your story and not return.

But you still want them back for the sequel. So you make sure they walk away satisfied.

If you set the story to be experienced symbollicaly from the very beginning, then there will be no surprise or shock in the end. The ending would be too predictable... I'm sure that there was no players who could predict what will happen in the end of ME Trilogy. Everyone expected something else. So, the scenario maneuver was just perfect.

...And I'm sure it's impossible to make a scenario that will please 100% of audience.

Modifié par Seival, 01 juin 2012 - 09:39 .

[Seival]

The Angry One wrote...

And how is a human going to impose their will onto thousands of these Reaper minds again without it backfiring horribly?

Mass Effect deserves better than space magic. Do you think this ending would've flown in ME1? Hell no. 

This is not a "space magic", this is "Deus Ex Machina" concept: "God From the Machine" is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object.

BioWare implemented DEM concept in ME3 just perfectly.

[incinerator950]

incinerator950 wrote...

Also, hi Angry.  How's your Line Admiral Volus and your 18th Century Turian Staff and Kwunu headcanon doing?