Blueprotoss wrote...
If you listened and say the signs then you knew the child in th beginning of ME3 wasn't a random thing.
The Angry One wrote...
Blueprotoss wrote...
If you listened and say the signs then you knew the child in th beginning of ME3 wasn't a random thing.
The child has absolutely nothing to do with the ending other than a ham-fisted attempt at misplaced symbolism.
That is not foreshadowing.
Also I notice you're using the intro of ME3 to defend the ending. That's nice, except the intro is also badly written.
Blueprotoss wrote...
Yet I could say the same thing if I wanted to be ignorant just ike you.Stornskar wrote...
Blueprotoss wrote...
If you didn't expect the ending to happen that way in one way or another then you missed a lot of the symbolism and foreshadowing thorughout the series. Its like saying you never expected the One Ring to be destroyed, Cheif wouldn't defeat the Covenant, or Skynet wouldn't be activated.Stornskar wrote...
There is a difference between applying symbolism subtly, with deftness so that it is an integral part of the story, and taking a symbolic mallet and hitting us in the face with it. The ME3 ending was the latter ...
Did you read what I said, or did you just write down a bunch of random crap and hope it made sense?
Almostfaceman wrote...
Angry One, it is good to see you're still here. I come back occasionaly on the extreme-off-chance that there might be news of Bioware pulling their heads out of their asses.
ME3 is just as self-contained as ME1 and M2 while the whole Alpha and Omega was about how there is always a beginning and an ending.Nimori wrote...
I have no idea what you're referring to with these "Alpha" and "Omega" archetypes. The reason why the ending must take into account the entirety of the series is because it is the ending of the series. I more or less agree with the review if ME3 is viewed as a self-contained story, but it's not.
EDI and the Geth have Reaper tech in them which is why they died rather then them being synthectic. Neither the Reapers no the Catalyst went against their roles in the Creator vs the Created theme.Nimori wrote...
For example, if during the explanation of the Destroy option, the Starchild tells you that this will destroy the Geth and EDI because they are synthetic. However, if you examine the entiry trilogy you see a number of instances, dialogues, etc that raise the question as to whether or not the Geth or EDI are "alive" by the traditional definition of the term. During ME3, depending upon your choices, the story plays out to portray the Geth and EDI as becoming more human. Conversely, the Reapers were once organics who have lost all of their "humanity," so to speak, and have an extremely narrow viewpoint on conflict resolution. The inability of Starchild/Repears to think outside of their narrow "programming" stands in direct opposition to the diveristy that the current cycle champions. Now one way that this could have been addressed would have been to make the Destroy ending affect only those with an unaltered Reaper code, which could have allowed a "perfect" ending whereby upgrading the Geth and EDI allowed them to evolve the Reaper code, again referring back to the theme of being alive, which prevented them from being destroyed by the Crucible's energy. This also allows for a more interesting (in my opinion) form of Synthesis.
Yet most of the major and minor questions are answered while every questioned won't be answered in ME just like in Star Wars and LotR. The only fallacies are some people acting as if they're the experts of ME when they haven't created the ME universe.Nimori wrote...
Because the endings seem to not fully consider a number of previous themes and questions already raised by the previous ~90 hours, the outcomes are quite jarring and disjointed with the whole. This is where the symbolism breaks down. For 90% of the series we're being asked to consider one set of questions/ideas, and then the ending suddenly disregards those questions and asks us to consider a new set of questions/ideas while only giving us a superficial explanation as to why the old questions/ideas are no longer relevant. For example, Starchild claims that organics and synthetics will always come into conflict and that his solution was the only thing he could come up with to prevent synthetics from completely wiping out organics. All logical fallacies aside, this particular claim ignores that fact that the Geth and EDI are no longer purely synthetic. Shephard, at the very least, has shown that there may be another means to conflict resolution between organics and synthetics. That means is to reconsider what exactly it means to be synthetic or organic. While this idea is somewhat raised by the Synthesis ending, it's so poorly executed that it detracts from the significance of the question.
No I'm really not, and I'm done wasting my time with you for now.Blueprotoss wrote...
Yet you're just proving that some people can't and don't want to be pleased no matter what happens.Greylycantrope wrote...
No but they could have made a better attempt. There's also a difference between not pleasing and down right pissing off. They knew this would be the case too http://www.eurogamer...me-people-angryBlueprotoss wrote...
You can't please everyone.
IfThe Angry One wrote...
The child has absolutely nothing to do with the ending other than a ham-fisted attempt at misplaced symbolism.
That is not foreshadowing.
Writing is subjective even when each ME really didn't have a strong beginning or ending.The Angry One wrote...
Also I notice you're using the intro of ME3 to defend the ending. That's nice, except the intro is also badly written.
Modifié par Blueprotoss, 07 août 2012 - 05:49 .
Again if thats true then why were signs of indoctrination attempts everytime when you saw the boy and he wouldn't have been used at the end without a purpose.Ticonderoga117 wrote...
Blueprotoss wrote...
If you listened and say the signs then you knew the child in th beginning of ME3 wasn't a random thing.
That was just some overt attempt at a pull to your heart strings in an attempt to invoke some emotion other than anger. Says so in the art book.
The fact he would be the form of GlowBoy, or that GlowBoy even exists, is never foreshadowed.
Modifié par Blueprotoss, 07 août 2012 - 05:49 .
Here's the best part, they wanted an emotional response they were expecting some anger. They got more than they were expecting and started back peddling. We are their money paw, we are what they wished for, which maked Chris Priestly's statement about us moving on hilarious.Conniving_Eagle wrote...
Greylycantrope wrote...
No but they could have made a better attempt. There's also a difference between not pleasing and down right pissing off. They knew this would be the case too http://www.eurogamer...me-people-angryBlueprotoss wrote...
You can't please everyone.
Nothing like pre-release promises to get your blood pumping.
Gamble is on my Top 10 list for people who deserve to be kicked in the mouth.
Modifié par Greylycantrope, 07 août 2012 - 05:52 .
If I'm "ignorant" then I would only insult people and try to turn opinions into facts, which I haven't done while you have.AresKeith wrote...
yet you are ignorant since when people do show you proof to back up their comment you claim it to be false or taken out of content, while you never show anything and resort to using pointless phrases and say that we insulted you
Modifié par MizzNaaa, 07 août 2012 - 05:53 .
Everyone always expect a small level of anger based on how there are some people that overeact especiallly when we're talking about the Internet and Bioware has noticed that since Baldur's Gate 1..Greylycantrope wrote...
Here's the best part, they wanted an emotional response they were expecting some anger. They got more than they were expecting and started back peddling. We are their money paw, we are what they wished for, which maked Chris Priestly's statement about us moving on hilarious.Conniving_Eagle wrote...
Greylycantrope wrote...
No but they could have made a better attempt. There's also a difference between not pleasing and down right pissing off. They knew this would be the case too http://www.eurogamer...me-people-angryBlueprotoss wrote...
You can't please everyone.
Nothing like pre-release promises to get your blood pumping.
Gamble is on my Top 10 list for people who deserve to be kicked in the mouth.
Rejoice my fellow BSN undesriables we are exactly what they wanted to achieve with their art.
Blueprotoss wrote...
Again if thats true then why were signs of indoctrination attempts everytime when you saw the boy and he wouldn't have been used at the end without a purpose.
If thats the case then he would be the "person is giving you are "Because I said so"...just...move on" based on how his view is based on opinion.MizzNaaa wrote...
@Nimori, I read your argument, and pretty much the whole thread. I do have a question, for someone seemingly smart enough to be able to post a very nice post like this one, why are you having this discussion with people, whom if their answers are any indication, lack the little bit of sense to form coherent replies to your well thought out arguments? Dude, (or dudette) don't waist your breath, there are better things to do. It's clear that the only counter arguments this person is giving you are "Because I said so"...just...move on.
Blueprotoss wrote...
If
thats true then why were signs of indoctrination attempts everytime when you saw the boy and he wouldn't have been used at the end without a purpose.
If you read any of the novels or comics then you would notice the signs of indoctrination in the ME games. Heck you could notice most of those signs by playing ME1 and ME2. Btw Bioware has neither confirmed nor denied the IT while I'm not an IT supporter while its not impossible.Ticonderoga117 wrote...
Blueprotoss wrote...
Again if thats true then why were signs of indoctrination attempts everytime when you saw the boy and he wouldn't have been used at the end without a purpose.
A holdover from the plan to have Shepard be indoctrinated at the end of ME3. They couldn't make it work and dropped it. Since re-doing things would take money, they kept that stuff in there.
Haters gonna hate.Greylycantrope wrote...
^
Considering Protoss's arguments are akin to Hanar poetry, can this now be a monocle thread?
Blueprotoss wrote...
If I'm "ignorant" then I would only insult people and try to turn opinions into facts, which I haven't done while you have.AresKeith wrote...
yet you are ignorant since when people do show you proof to back up their comment you claim it to be false or taken out of content, while you never show anything and resort to using pointless phrases and say that we insulted you
Blueprotoss wrote...
Its not my fault that you're not using common sense since your comparison with food and video games was bad before you started. Its petty to insult people based on how you don't know the meaning of the word "troll" and nothing will have a 100% satisfactory rating.Leon Felps wrote...
You got to be a troll or something because that could be one of the most retarded statements I've ever read. I don't care what the context, you're broken if you do not feel entitled to have an expectation met. I never mentioned any unreasonable expectation, which would then make a case as being bad, but thanks for putting words in my mouth while you take BW's bean bags in yours.If you actually think that BW doesn't owe anyone anything then why are you bringing up entitlement still because you don't think like that. Again your comparison with food and video games was bad when you used it in your previous comment.Leon Felps wrote...
I don't think BW owes anyone anything. If they can get paid and do their thing, they should. Just like cooks that made that steak wouldn't own me anything if I had paid for the garbage meal before hand. I'm still not wrong wanting it my way, they just don't have to oblige.
Guest_Nyoka_*
Modifié par Nyoka, 07 août 2012 - 06:06 .
Nyoka wrote...
There you have it. Coherent plot, convincing characters, believable worlds... DON'T MATTER.
To Hulk, anyway.
Doesn't matter if you want to make a babbling idiot out of the protagonist and fill the ten last minutes with nonsense, because the only thing that matters is the metaphors and the ideas.
ld1449 wrote...
I personally disagree with the review however. Symbolism is subtle, this symbolism we see in the ending of ME3 is shoehorned in there like a square in a round shaped hole.
Furthermore, while Symbolism in literature is praiseworthy, its only praiseworthy when the symbolism is a cherry over a delicious desert. A bonus, not necessary to enjoy the desert itself.
Mass Effect 3's symbolism gives you nothing but the cherry, and you must imagine the desert.
The primary reason symbolism cannot be something you base the backbone of your story on is because symbolism is fully malleable to each individual person. That's why its considered an abstract concept within literature. It'd be like me holding up an ink blot picture. Someone will say they see two people dancing, someone else will say they see nothing but an inkblot.
This is why your story must be based solely on the concrete pieces of literature, exposition, central themes, character development, dialogue, plot and plot progression. Things that arent malleable, they happen in the story so they happen.
Think of a story as you would a building, with symbolism being the minor things, like a coffe table, curtains, a night table, things like that.
Mass effect three just foreclosed your home and left you with the night table, curtains and coffee table. Hardly a good trade off.
Whenever an Author cries symbolism as part of a defense of his work, most other authors don't take him seriously, or damn near outright dismiss it as crap right off the bat. Any person that can defend criticism with facts (X thing did not happen because of X or Y thing did happen because of Y) That's fine.
But the moment an author has to say to a major piece of story "Its symbolic"
Then he's most likely full of ****.
And before some of you people jump down my throat that symbolism is used all the time, take note that I specified major pieces of the story. If someone were to ask in a story why did you name the character So and so, and the author says
Well his name is kinda symbolic because it derives from such and such who did X thing in his lifetime so it kinda paralells that"
That's symbolism that can and should be used. Cherry over a delicious desert.
Modifié par Jonata, 07 août 2012 - 06:46 .
Retour en haut