No you're missing mine, and you're still ignoring the voice box thing. They both provide exposition yes, what of it? For them to be identical concepts Vigil would have to show up after the fight with Saren. Amongst other things.dreman9999 wrote...
Your missing my point. He is like Virgil because he is there to expline the reapers like Virgil is there to explain the protheans and the cypher.
That is how they are the same.
Modifié par Greylycantrope, 18 septembre 2012 - 06:34 .
Placement has nothing to do with identity. What it trying to do is.Greylycantrope wrote...
No you're missing mine, and you're still ignoring the voice box thing. They both provide exposition yes, what of it? For them to be identical concepts Vigil would have to show up after the fight with Saren. Amongst other things.dreman9999 wrote...
Your missing my point. He is like Virgil because he is there to expline the reapers like Virgil is there to explain the protheans and the cypher.
That is how they are the same.
Yes it can.Chaotic-Fusion wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Fall action can be part of the climax.Greylycantrope wrote...
Too bad he changed he argument a few post up, Vigil is now part of the falling action.CronoDragoon wrote...
Oh, I see now. I misunderstood exposition as meaning exposition one typically gets towards the end.
To be honest I'm inclined to believe dreman that he's the start of the climax, where you learn the true motivations of the antagonist and are equipped with the means to defeat him.
No, it really can't.
Modifié par Fawx9, 18 septembre 2012 - 06:37 .
Mdoggy1214 wrote...
http://www.writersdi...f-novel-endings
When you look at the Mass Effect 3 ending, and then check out this article, it's a pretty funny read. If only because you see how much someone over at the ME3 team has no idea what they're doing, when it comes to endings. Such as:
Don’t introduce any new characters or subplots. (Catalyst)
Don’t describe, muse, explain or philosophize. (Catalyst)
Do Afford redemption to your heroic character. (Seeing as how most players weren't satisfied or felt guilty for their choice at the end, i'm gonna write this off as a fail)
Do Tie up loose ends of significance. (Post EC is up for debate, but Pre EC this was definitely not accomplished)
Don’t change voice, tone or attitude. (Catalyst, among many things)
Don’t resort to gimmicks. ("No quirky twists or trick endings. You’re at the end of your story, and if your reader has stuck with you the whole time, it’s because you’ve engaged her, because she has participated. The final impression you want to create is a positive one. Don’t leave your reader feeling tricked or cheated.")
No, the climax is where Shepard decides to disobly the concule and go to Illos.Chaotic-Fusion wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
1. Virgil is part of the fall action.
http://en.wikipedia....#Falling_action
Falling actionFrey-tag called this phase "falling action" in the sense that the loose ends are being tied up. However, it is often the time of greatest overall tension in the play, because it is the phase in which everything goes most wrong.In this phase, the villain has the upper hand. It seems that evil will triumph. The protagonist has never been further from accomplishing the goal. For Frey-tag, this is true both in tragedies and comedies, because both of these types of play classically show good winning over evil. The question is which side the protagonist has put himself on, and this may not be immediately clear to the audience.
2.He is every reapers at once. He tells you this.
"I embody the collective inteligence of the reapers."
3. The catalyst is also interchangable. You would have the same 3 choices even if BW dicided not to use the catalyst character. He is not the problem with the end of the game. They could have EDI give use the choices and it would not change to thechoices we get.
4. He is just there to exlplain the reapers. That's what make him like Virgil because he is there just to explain the protheans.
Sigh, changing your argument now, are you?
You were right the first time though, Vigil is part of the climax. The turning point, where we learn of the Protheans and of the conduit.
No, he really is, along with the Synthesis nonsense, the problem with the endings.
Vigil provides explanation. The catalyst provides 3 choices. See the difference?
dreman9999 wrote...
Yes it can.Chaotic-Fusion wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Fall action can be part of the climax.Greylycantrope wrote...
Too bad he changed he argument a few post up, Vigil is now part of the falling action.CronoDragoon wrote...
Oh, I see now. I misunderstood exposition as meaning exposition one typically gets towards the end.
To be honest I'm inclined to believe dreman that he's the start of the climax, where you learn the true motivations of the antagonist and are equipped with the means to defeat him.
No, it really can't.
Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 18 septembre 2012 - 06:47 .
1.That's was part of the problem the catalyst was trying to solve.sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
Mdoggy1214 wrote...
http://www.writersdi...f-novel-endings
When you look at the Mass Effect 3 ending, and then check out this article, it's a pretty funny read. If only because you see how much someone over at the ME3 team has no idea what they're doing, when it comes to endings. Such as:
Don’t introduce any new characters or subplots. (Catalyst)
Don’t describe, muse, explain or philosophize. (Catalyst)
Do Afford redemption to your heroic character. (Seeing as how most players weren't satisfied or felt guilty for their choice at the end, i'm gonna write this off as a fail)
Do Tie up loose ends of significance. (Post EC is up for debate, but Pre EC this was definitely not accomplished)
Don’t change voice, tone or attitude. (Catalyst, among many things)
Don’t resort to gimmicks. ("No quirky twists or trick endings. You’re at the end of your story, and if your reader has stuck with you the whole time, it’s because you’ve engaged her, because she has participated. The final impression you want to create is a positive one. Don’t leave your reader feeling tricked or cheated.")
They didn't tie up any loose ends in the EC. They just sugar coated stuff. They said we were bunch of idiots for not understanding the original ending and explained it to us. They did retcon some of the stuff so it didn't look quite so dire, but still it was dire. Synthesis looked much more shiny. Control looked better. Destroy still looked like a turd in a punch bowl although they made the narrative sound good -- one just has to look at the details in the cutscenes. The slides are the same except with different words and music and coloring.
I feel tricked and cheated. I do not feel redeemed. I felt depressed for several days after finishing the game. I blew up the galaxy on March 22 at 3:20 am PST. "It's a wasteland!" "Will I ever get to the stars?" "Some day my sweet." "Buy DLC."
I'm not even going to bother reading the Dreman posts because he's just droning on and on and on again and my eyes glaze over and I think his posts are a threat to my IQ. I destroyed enough of my brain cells back in the 60s.
1. The Catalyst -- it is introduced at the end. The very end of the game. It was created by a bunch of giant stupid arrogant cuttlefish to solve a problem they couldn't be bothered to figure out.
2. You then have to listen to this thing explain all the reasons for the existence of the reapers, its existence etc. Many of these reasons contradict what you have been told throughout the entire series. This is way way too much for the player to absorb at one time. This is extremely bad writing.
3. The player has no opportunity to even challenge the thing. Well one but is met with "Is fire at war when it burns, or is it just doing what it was created to do?" (nevermind the tree is at war with the fire trying to save itself) What the **** does that have to do with anything? What if Shepard isn't a Creationist?
4. So it decides its old solution is flawed. It's been making marmalade out of intelligent species every 50,000 years and putting it into ships then then using the ships to go get more intelligent species to make more marmalade 50,000 years later, like this is going to solve some problem. And just now it figures out it is not working. Duh? It took it a billion years to figure that out, and now it gives us three new solutions which are probably equally flawed.
The only way to save the game is a successful refuse with Puzzle Theory (no and I'm not talking about a conventional victory becaust they're not going to give us one -- I'm talking about a James T. Kirk successful refuse: Steal from Star Trek because why not they stole the rest of the game from Star Control 2).
The entire ending was a total disaster both pre and post EC. But Genius Boys (Mac & Casey) absolutely refused to change the ending and give us a decent one. You know one that actually made some sense.
Placement has everything to do with this argument. "Don’t introduce any new characters or subplots" It doesn't get much more end then the last scene before the resolution. Notice how vigil doesn't appear in the very last scene before the resolution.dreman9999 wrote...
Placement has nothing to do with identity. What it trying to do is.
dreman9999 wrote...
No, the climax is where Shepard decides to disobly the concule and go to Illos.
http://en.wikipedia....rrative)#Climax
The point of climax is the turning point of the story, where the main character makes the single big decision that defines the outcome of their story and who they are as a person.
By that defination...that would may going to Illos the start of the climax.
And As I said before...
The catalyst is also interchangable. You would have the same 3 choices even if BW dicided not to use the catalyst character. He is not the problem with the end of the game. They could have EDI give use the choices and it would not change to thechoices we get.
And look at the defiantion of fall action.
http://en.wikipedia....#Falling_action
Falling actionFrey-tag called this phase "falling action" in the sense that the loose ends are being tied up. However, it is often the time of greatest overall tension in the play, because it is the phase in which everything goes most wrong.In this phase, the villain has the upper hand. It seems that evil will triumph. The protagonist has never been further from accomplishing the goal. For Frey-tag, this is true both in tragedies and comedies, because both of these types of play classically show good winning over evil. The question is which side the protagonist has put himself on, and this may not be immediately clear to the audience.
That is exactly what Virgil does.
DO understand that not all stories fallow the same format. How a stoy is told is not set in stone.The Night Mammoth wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Yes it can.Chaotic-Fusion wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Fall action can be part of the climax.Greylycantrope wrote...
Too bad he changed he argument a few post up, Vigil is now part of the falling action.CronoDragoon wrote...
Oh, I see now. I misunderstood exposition as meaning exposition one typically gets towards the end.
To be honest I'm inclined to believe dreman that he's the start of the climax, where you learn the true motivations of the antagonist and are equipped with the means to defeat him.
No, it really can't.
Well no, that's why you have to clearly defined parts of a narrative called falling action and climax.
I'd argue that the latter occurs when Sovereign attacks the Citadel and Shepard uses the Conduit.
Greylycantrope wrote...
Placement has everything to do with this argument. "Don’t introduce any new characters or subplots" It doesn't get much more end then the last scene before the resolution. Notice how vigil doesn't appear in the very last scene before the resolution.dreman9999 wrote...
Placement has nothing to do with identity. What it trying to do is.
And as I said before, teh catalystis too interchangable to effect the ending the way you statehe does. Even if BW cut the catalyst, we would have the same 3 choices. He is just there to be a voice box.Chaotic-Fusion wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
No, the climax is where Shepard decides to disobly the concule and go to Illos.
http://en.wikipedia....rrative)#Climax
The point of climax is the turning point of the story, where the main character makes the single big decision that defines the outcome of their story and who they are as a person.
By that defination...that would may going to Illos the start of the climax.
And As I said before...
The catalyst is also interchangable. You would have the same 3 choices even if BW dicided not to use the catalyst character. He is not the problem with the end of the game. They could have EDI give use the choices and it would not change to thechoices we get.
And look at the defiantion of fall action.
http://en.wikipedia....#Falling_action
Falling actionFrey-tag called this phase "falling action" in the sense that the loose ends are being tied up. However, it is often the time of greatest overall tension in the play, because it is the phase in which everything goes most wrong.In this phase, the villain has the upper hand. It seems that evil will triumph. The protagonist has never been further from accomplishing the goal. For Frey-tag, this is true both in tragedies and comedies, because both of these types of play classically show good winning over evil. The question is which side the protagonist has put himself on, and this may not be immediately clear to the audience.
That is exactly what Virgil does.
I won't waste time on this, so just carry on. But a question: so, were you wrong before?
Furthermore, the important part is that the catalyst is part of the resolution and Vigil clearly wasn't. Again, therein lies the problem.
dreman9999 wrote...
DO understand that not all stories fallow the same format. How a stoy is told is not set in stone.
Look at Pulp fiction...When is the clinax and fall action shown?
The catalyst is just there to explain the reapers nothing more. He is not needed to work the crucible. We could easily have EDI do it.The Night Mammoth wrote...
Greylycantrope wrote...
Placement has everything to do with this argument. "Don’t introduce any new characters or subplots" It doesn't get much more end then the last scene before the resolution. Notice how vigil doesn't appear in the very last scene before the resolution.dreman9999 wrote...
Placement has nothing to do with identity. What it trying to do is.
Notice how Vigil only exists for that scene. It's an expositionary tool, whereas the Catalyst is far more important to the plot.
Tried arguing that with him already.The Night Mammoth wrote...
Greylycantrope wrote...
Placement has everything to do with this argument. "Don’t introduce any new characters or subplots" It doesn't get much more end then the last scene before the resolution. Notice how vigil doesn't appear in the very last scene before the resolution.dreman9999 wrote...
Placement has nothing to do with identity. What it trying to do is.
Notice how Vigil only exists for that scene. It's an expositionary tool, whereas the Catalyst is far more important to the plot.
The catalyst is just there to explain the reapers nothing more. He is not needed to work the crucible. We could easily have EDI do it.Greylycantrope wrote...
Placement has everything to do with this argument. "Don’t introduce any new characters or subplots" It doesn't get much more end then the last scene before the resolution. Notice how vigil doesn't appear in the very last scene before the resolution.dreman9999 wrote...
Placement has nothing to do with identity. What it trying to do is.
dreman9999 wrote...
And as I said before, teh catalystis too interchangable to effect the ending the way you statehe does. Even if BW cut the catalyst, we would have the same 3 choices. He is just there to be a voice box.Chaotic-Fusion wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
No, the climax is where Shepard decides to disobly the concule and go to Illos.
http://en.wikipedia....rrative)#Climax
The point of climax is the turning point of the story, where the main character makes the single big decision that defines the outcome of their story and who they are as a person.
By that defination...that would may going to Illos the start of the climax.
And As I said before...
The catalyst is also interchangable. You would have the same 3 choices even if BW dicided not to use the catalyst character. He is not the problem with the end of the game. They could have EDI give use the choices and it would not change to thechoices we get.
And look at the defiantion of fall action.
http://en.wikipedia....#Falling_action
Falling actionFrey-tag called this phase "falling action" in the sense that the loose ends are being tied up. However, it is often the time of greatest overall tension in the play, because it is the phase in which everything goes most wrong.In this phase, the villain has the upper hand. It seems that evil will triumph. The protagonist has never been further from accomplishing the goal. For Frey-tag, this is true both in tragedies and comedies, because both of these types of play classically show good winning over evil. The question is which side the protagonist has put himself on, and this may not be immediately clear to the audience.
That is exactly what Virgil does.
I won't waste time on this, so just carry on. But a question: so, were you wrong before?
Furthermore, the important part is that the catalyst is part of the resolution and Vigil clearly wasn't. Again, therein lies the problem.
Modifié par Chaotic-Fusion, 18 septembre 2012 - 06:55 .
My point still stands.The Night Mammoth wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
DO understand that not all stories fallow the same format. How a stoy is told is not set in stone.
Look at Pulp fiction...When is the clinax and fall action shown?
I edited my post whilst you were in the process of replying.
dreman9999 wrote...
The catalyst is just there to explain the reapers nothing more. He is not needed to work the crucible. We could easily have EDI do it.The Night Mammoth wrote...
Greylycantrope wrote...
Placement has everything to do with this argument. "Don’t introduce any new characters or subplots" It doesn't get much more end then the last scene before the resolution. Notice how vigil doesn't appear in the very last scene before the resolution.dreman9999 wrote...
Placement has nothing to do with identity. What it trying to do is.
Notice how Vigil only exists for that scene. It's an expositionary tool, whereas the Catalyst is far more important to the plot.
And as I just stated the catalyst is not the problem with then end of ME. It 's too interchangeble to be. It matter not when it was places. We would still get the 3 choices any way.Chaotic-Fusion wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
And as I said before, teh catalystis too interchangable to effect the ending the way you statehe does. Even if BW cut the catalyst, we would have the same 3 choices. He is just there to be a voice box.Chaotic-Fusion wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
No, the climax is where Shepard decides to disobly the concule and go to Illos.
http://en.wikipedia....rrative)#Climax
The point of climax is the turning point of the story, where the main character makes the single big decision that defines the outcome of their story and who they are as a person.
By that defination...that would may going to Illos the start of the climax.
And As I said before...
The catalyst is also interchangable. You would have the same 3 choices even if BW dicided not to use the catalyst character. He is not the problem with the end of the game. They could have EDI give use the choices and it would not change to thechoices we get.
And look at the defiantion of fall action.
http://en.wikipedia....#Falling_action
Falling actionFrey-tag called this phase "falling action" in the sense that the loose ends are being tied up. However, it is often the time of greatest overall tension in the play, because it is the phase in which everything goes most wrong.In this phase, the villain has the upper hand. It seems that evil will triumph. The protagonist has never been further from accomplishing the goal. For Frey-tag, this is true both in tragedies and comedies, because both of these types of play classically show good winning over evil. The question is which side the protagonist has put himself on, and this may not be immediately clear to the audience.
That is exactly what Virgil does.
I won't waste time on this, so just carry on. But a question: so, were you wrong before?
Furthermore, the important part is that the catalyst is part of the resolution and Vigil clearly wasn't. Again, therein lies the problem.
Just answer the question. Where you wrong before? I haven't actually ever heard you admit that.
You do understand what the OP's thesis was, right? Do not introduce a new character in the resolution. You refute that or you do not. Whether he is "interchangable", whatever that means, is irrelevant.
Daring doesn't always pay off. Sometimes it falls flat on it's face.Hudathan wrote...
So every single story should follow the exact same structure and never do anything daring or unexpected? Stuff like this is why I rarely go to the movies anymore
Retour en haut