o Ventus wrote...
I still haven't seen a pro-ender defend the thematicassassinationsuicide, character assassination of the protagonist, or confusion of genre in the endings.
I am still waiting, wherever you may be.
webhead921 wrote...
I wouldn't necessarily say its character assassination. It's mostly that sheaprdnis forced into a poorly written situation. I agree with thematic inconsistency, though.
AlanC9 wrote...
I'm not even sure what "confusion of genre" is supposed to mean there. Though I guess it sounds cool.
o Ventus wrote...
inko1nsiderate wrote...
You actually staked the claim by asserting the endings were thematic assassination, character assassination of the protagonist, or confusion of genre in the endings.
Since this isn't a scientific issue, I'm not sure how to evaluate who has the burden of proof, but it certainly seems to be the one trying to claim a specific hypothesis (you) rather than the null hypothesis.
But I was also the first one to ask for elaboration, which was my point. I should have clarified, my bad. In a sense, I really did ask first.
I can point to a number of youtube videos, articles, blogs, etc pointing out the same flaws I mentioned earlier (I think I'll create a list on a BSN blog tomorrow morning, it's almost midnight in my timezone), some of which going into excruciating detail.
o Ventus wrote...
inko1nsiderate wrote...
You actually staked the claim by asserting the endings were thematic assassination, character assassination of the protagonist, or confusion of genre in the endings.
Since this isn't a scientific issue, I'm not sure how to evaluate who has the burden of proof, but it certainly seems to be the one trying to claim a specific hypothesis (you) rather than the null hypothesis.
But I was also the first one to ask for elaboration, which was my point. I should have clarified, my bad. In a sense, I really did ask first.
I can point to a number of youtube videos, articles, blogs, etc pointing out the same flaws I mentioned earlier (I think I'll create a list on a BSN blog tomorrow morning, it's almost midnight in my timezone), some of which going into excruciating detail.
o Ventus wrote...
I still haven't seen a pro-ender defend the thematicassassinationsuicide, character assassination of the protagonist, or confusion of genre in the endings.
I am still waiting, wherever you may be.
o Ventus wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
I'm not even sure what "confusion of genre" is supposed to mean there. Though I guess it sounds cool.
It's just my own term for when a writer "confuses" multiple genres within a story.
Case in point: The Crucible and its functions. The Crucible appears (strongly, imo) to be more a construct of science-fantasy (a la Star Wars) than moderately hard science fiction.
inko1nsiderate wrote...
Look, I could argue the point, but at some point trying to argue against 100+ hours of writing and thought becomes impossible to do for a single poster when the question is essentially open ended. If you bring up a concrete point that is specific about the ending, I'll probably debate it, but this vauge prompt you have is like "given all observed symmmetries of the unvierse, prove the following lagrangian recreates all experimental observed results in particle physics".
You're basically setting the bar higher for opponents than you would for allies, and I'd have to write a 10 page essay linking back to existing reviews to do it in a way I'd consider substantial enough. But then the rebuttal of such an essay would likely be a single sentence using something like 'headcanon'. At some point, the exercise becomes one in self-loathing.
MegaSovereign wrote...
Thematic suicide? ....Where? Themes seemed pretty consistent with the rest of the game.
Character Assassination of Protagonist? Again....Where?
Confusion of genre....What does that even mean in relation to the ME3 endings?
Maybe I'm just missing something, or I'm stupid...bla bla bla.
Link Ashland 614 wrote...
I did, even without EC. Maybe because I always look beyond the flaws, or I'm open-minded with different stuff and views.
Or, as some put it, I have very low standards, and I'm an idiot blah blah bla.
o Ventus wrote...
MegaSovereign wrote...
Thematic suicide? ....Where? Themes seemed pretty consistent with the rest of the game.
Character Assassination of Protagonist? Again....Where?
Confusion of genre....What does that even mean in relation to the ME3 endings?
Maybe I'm just missing something, or I'm stupid...bla bla bla.
Where in the rest of the game is it pressed that synthetics are -always- going to enter into conflict with organics (Their creators, more specifically)?
Shepard, up to this point, has always been able to ask for relevant information on the situation at hand (though in ME3 it seems the autodialogue and occasional left-side dialogue pick does this). Previously, this wasn't possible during Shepard's conversation with the Catalyst. The EC did put forth respectable effort to rectify this (And I appreciate what IS there for the most part), but Shepard, as a vehicle for the player, is still not able to ask a number of questions (the relevance of those questions is more or less subjective), whether it be through dialogue choices or autodialogue. Shepard's ability to ask questions is a major character device for Shepard, and in the end, it was removed.
I already talked about the final point.
o Ventus wrote...
Fine then. Rough question-
From the content provided in the endings (in this context, "endings" meaning the post-choice cutscene and epilogue narrations), which would you consider to be thematically related to the rest of the series, and to which similar pieces would it be related?
Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 25 août 2012 - 04:21 .
Got a problem right there. Why would a theme not in the epilogue indicate that the theme was "assassinated"?o Ventus wrote...
Fine then. Rough question-
From the content provided in the endings (in this context, "endings" meaning the post-choice cutscene and epilogue narrations), which would you consider to be thematically related to the rest of the series, and to which similar pieces would it be related?
Modifié par Obadiah, 25 août 2012 - 04:34 .
Modifié par Shinobu, 25 août 2012 - 04:45 .
inko1nsiderate wrote...
o Ventus wrote...
Fine then. Rough question-
From the content provided in the endings (in this context, "endings" meaning the post-choice cutscene and epilogue narrations), which would you consider to be thematically related to the rest of the series, and to which similar pieces would it be related?
This is long, and largely off the cuff, so I appologize if it reads more as stream of consciousness as opposed to making a coherent point. And it should go without saying this is my opinion, I'm not saying this is what the theme of ME is, just what I think a few of the themes are.
The theme of created vs creators relates to themes presented in the books (there are several pages of Anderson talking about the fear of illegal AI in the council and how true AI, which the Geth are not, being the largest threat to life in the galaxy). It also relates to incidents seen in ME1, ME2, and ME3, paricularly the crazy AI on the Citadel, the Luna AI, the Rachni rebelling on Noveria (they were created to be war slaves, afterall).
But I think there is a theme that encapsulates that theme, namely, how cycles of violence make us their slaves. The most obvious example is the Reapers themselves. We are very literally stuck in a cycle of extinction. But then there are examples of this everywhere. The Batarians and Humans are stuck in a cycle of loathing and mistrust, the Krogans and the Turians + Salarians are stuck in a cycle of covert action and open hostility, the Geth and the Quarian are stuck in a cycle of action and re-action that has lead to the death of many Geth and Quarians.
This theme is ever present, and the synthetic/organic conflict is merely a subset (something hinted at on Thessia by Vendetta). Cycles of violence permeate the Mass Effect universe, but the one common factor is that Shepard is able to affect some of these and break them. Take the Geth/Quarian peace, Shepard allows this peace to happen by allowing the Geth to develop individuality (thus personal understanding and greated diversity among the Geth) and then forcibly opening lines of communication between the Quarian and the Geth by persuading/intimidating the Quarians to stop fighting for a second. Other cycles that can be ended by Shepard are the cycles of violence the Krogan are stuck in, and the cylce of the Reapers themselves. In these instances a few key ideas come about:
1) There are paths of least resistance with immediate short term pay-off but long term consequence
2) Peace can only be acheived by a combination of understanding and action by both parties.
3) There are risky choices that have grave danger, but can have long term payoff.
4) Sometimes hard decisions that lead to death are unavoidable.
Examples of 1 include:
Killing Wrex (leads to Wreav), destroying Maelon's data (leads to Eve's death), siding with Cerberus to end the Collector threat (breeds mistrust amongst Shepard and potential allies), etc.
Examples of 2 include:
Ending the Geth/Quarian conflict, ending the Genophage, the failure of Batarians and Humans to come to peaceful relations until the Reapers show up, and in the books Grayson's decision to turn against TIM and save his daughter.
Examples of 3 include:
Saving the Feros colonists despite them trying to kill you, saving the Rachni queen (leads to an allie that will not turn on you in ME3), saving Maelon's data (the danger here is more of a moral hazard), activating Legion instead of spacing him, letting Grunt out of his tank, and curing the Genophage.
Examples of 4 include:
Virmire decision, the Alpha Relay incident, Rannoch, Tuchunka, and the end decisions of the game.
Now that I've justified some of these ideas, I can specifically talk about how they relate to the endings. In my opinion Synthesis is a risk with grave danger, afterall the Reapers are not dead, but it allows two things to happen: it forces new lines of communication to open, and allows better personal understanding, thus allows a way for a viciuous cycle to be broken. This is mirrored in how Rannoch plays out, Tuchunka, and various other themes of cycles of violence in ME. Thus synthesis reflects ideas 2 and 3 as action by synthetics and organics is simultaneous and happens at the beginning of syntehsis. Control represents a two-fold risk, not only are the Reapers still around, but you have to bet on your ability to control them forever. But the pay-off is huge. This is obviously a reflection of TIM's entire idelogoy. He takes very large risks, like bringing back Shepard, with the hope of a large payoff. This is presented a dangerous throughout the series, but it has also paid off when Shepard has trusted people like Legion, Wrex, or Grunt. The dangers of Control are fairly obvious, so I won't go into it. Destroy represents 4 and 1. The short-term pay-off is the Reapers are dead, there is no risk of them coming back, but you risk future dangers because you've shown the galaxy is willing to sacrifice synthetic life when the going gets tough. That sets a scary precedent for any future synthetics because they are aware they are expendable. Refuse is basically 4, and is obviously summed up by "I won't let fear compromise who I am". You refuse to believe anything the Reapers say, you know what is right, and you know death is preferable to compromise. This can be seen in the VS's dismissal of you for working for Cerberus and other principaled stands that can be taken throughout the series.
Another point, is that the transhumanist aspects of synthesis can already be seen existing starting with ME2. Shepard has extensive cybernetic implants, it is something that must be addressed at some point. But with these implants a question is posed to the player, what is the relationship between identity and reliance on technology, and how can Shepard reconcile this identity crisis? This question is potificated upon by Mordin, but you are presented with viewpoints that differ from his in the form of EDI in ME3. EDI can fix any of her problems with tech, yet she blosoms and grows as a character, similar situation for the Geth yet when they become individuals they are able to do something similar. Another point is that the idea of AI acheiving a singularity is presented in the very first ME book, and reinforced in dialogue with Legion in which he discusses the Dyson sphere thing.
Modifié par Shinobu, 25 août 2012 - 04:44 .
Retour en haut