Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 22 octobre 2012 - 04:48 .
Biotic Sage wrote...
The Matrix Revolutions was a truly horrendous film. However, none of its horrendousness is due to Neo's death at the end. Sadly, it has a myriad of other aspects that step up to create its horrendoussness.
Did you forget about Gladiator by the way? How about Saving Private Ryan? Children of Men (which I hate but everyone seems to consider a great film)? 300 (another one I hate)? Troy?
The point is, if sacrifice fits the theme, then a hero's death, a hero's sacrifice has literary significance within the context of the narrative. Shepard is the embodiment of sacrifice. No matter how you play Shepard, he is always sacrificing. He sacrifices his body, his own personal needs and desires, and most of all his time and energy into saving the galaxy and all sentient life. When you have a character that is the embodiment of sacrifice (like Shepard or Batman), then a hero's death is a perfectly acceptable and more than that it is a poeticallly sound epilogue. Sometimes you can subvert this (like in the Dark Knight Rises), but by subverting it you must do so in a way that acknowledges that it is being subverted and thus create a new poetic salience. In the case of the Dark Knight Rises, they chose to focus on Bruce Wayne himself and how he rose above his pain and anger and learned to let go of Batman. He was able to find some personal happiness, and this goal was a theme throughout the entire trilogy. Shepard dying makes complete sense within the parameters of the story told in Mass Effect, sorry.
Modifié par iakus, 22 octobre 2012 - 04:49 .
It isn't that he died, it's how.Biotic Sage wrote...
The Matrix Revolutions was a truly horrendous film. However, none of its horrendousness is due to Neo's death at the end. Sadly, it has a myriad of other aspects that step up to create its horrendoussness.
Did you forget about Saving Private Ryan? Children of Men (which I hate but everyone seems to consider a great film)? Troy?
The point is, if sacrifice fits the theme, then a hero's death, a hero's sacrifice has literary significance within the context of the narrative. Shepard is the embodiment of sacrifice. No matter how you play Shepard, he is always sacrificing. He sacrifices his body, his own personal needs and desires, and most of all his time and energy into saving the galaxy and all sentient life. When you have a character that is the embodiment of sacrifice (like Shepard or Batman), then a hero's death is a perfectly acceptable and more than that it is a poeticallly sound epilogue. Sometimes you can subvert this (like in the Dark Knight Rises), but by subverting it you must do so in a way that acknowledges that it is being subverted and thus create a new poetic salience. In the case of the Dark Knight Rises, they chose to focus on Bruce Wayne himself and how he rose above his pain and anger and learned to let go of Batman. He was able to find some personal happiness, and this goal was a theme throughout the entire trilogy. Shepard dying makes complete sense within the parameters of the story told in Mass Effect, sorry.
Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 22 octobre 2012 - 04:49 .
iakus wrote...
Biotic Sage wrote...
The Matrix Revolutions was a truly horrendous film. However, none of its horrendousness is due to Neo's death at the end. Sadly, it has a myriad of other aspects that step up to create its horrendoussness.
Did you forget about Gladiator by the way? How about Saving Private Ryan? Children of Men (which I hate but everyone seems to consider a great film)? 300 (another one I hate)? Troy?
The point is, if sacrifice fits the theme, then a hero's death, a hero's sacrifice has literary significance within the context of the narrative. Shepard is the embodiment of sacrifice. No matter how you play Shepard, he is always sacrificing. He sacrifices his body, his own personal needs and desires, and most of all his time and energy into saving the galaxy and all sentient life. When you have a character that is the embodiment of sacrifice (like Shepard or Batman), then a hero's death is a perfectly acceptable and more than that it is a poeticallly sound epilogue. Sometimes you can subvert this (like in the Dark Knight Rises), but by subverting it you must do so in a way that acknowledges that it is being subverted and thus create a new poetic salience. In the case of the Dark Knight Rises, they chose to focus on Bruce Wayne himself and how he rose above his pain and anger and learned to let go of Batman. He was able to find some personal happiness, and this goal was a theme throughout the entire trilogy. Shepard dying makes complete sense within the parameters of the story told in Mass Effect, sorry.
Shepard wasn't the embodiment of sacrifice. He's the embodiment of achieving the impossible. Sometimes that requires sacrifice, sometimes not.
But a willingness to sacrifice doesn't necessitate a sacrifice. Look at Conrad Verner. He's willing to take a bullet for Shepard, sacrificing his life for Shep's. but it doesn't have to be. Jenna can be there to overload the gun and save Conrad.
Sure heroes who put it all on the line and sacrifice themselves make great stories. Me I find better stories come from those who put it all on the line, and somehow manage to walk away again. Up until the last ten minutes, that was Shepard.
Biotic Sage wrote...
The reason why Shepard and Batman can achieve the impossible is through sacrifice. That's what makes them compelling and that's why they resonate with so many people. This is why Superman is an inferior "hero."
Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
It isn't that he died, it's how.Biotic Sage wrote...
The Matrix Revolutions was a truly horrendous film. However, none of its horrendousness is due to Neo's death at the end. Sadly, it has a myriad of other aspects that step up to create its horrendoussness.
Did you forget about Saving Private Ryan? Children of Men (which I hate but everyone seems to consider a great film)? Troy?
The point is, if sacrifice fits the theme, then a hero's death, a hero's sacrifice has literary significance within the context of the narrative. Shepard is the embodiment of sacrifice. No matter how you play Shepard, he is always sacrificing. He sacrifices his body, his own personal needs and desires, and most of all his time and energy into saving the galaxy and all sentient life. When you have a character that is the embodiment of sacrifice (like Shepard or Batman), then a hero's death is a perfectly acceptable and more than that it is a poeticallly sound epilogue. Sometimes you can subvert this (like in the Dark Knight Rises), but by subverting it you must do so in a way that acknowledges that it is being subverted and thus create a new poetic salience. In the case of the Dark Knight Rises, they chose to focus on Bruce Wayne himself and how he rose above his pain and anger and learned to let go of Batman. He was able to find some personal happiness, and this goal was a theme throughout the entire trilogy. Shepard dying makes complete sense within the parameters of the story told in Mass Effect, sorry.
It was a gameshow death, pick a color and die.
If it were a sacrifice there would have to be an option out, a way to live but the death was chosen because it was neccesary.
Couldn't put it better myself iakus.
DeinonSlayer wrote...
Shepard's only dead in Destroy if you want to believe that. I don't need to see Tali feeding him applesauce in a med bay to know he survives. I've headcanoned exactly where they go from there, and I'm happy with it - the first one set it right (no starvation, etc.), but another expansion would only risk breaking what I've worked out.
Some people might need to see more than we're shown to accept that Shepard survives, but I don't. Honestly, I think IT is to blame for them not expanding the breath scene in the Extended Cut. They couldn't do anything with it without either pissing off the IT faction (which was bigger back then), or pissing off EVERYONE ELSE.
I'm of the persuasion that Shepard survives it, but it's still pretty dumb to walk into the explosion.Biotic Sage wrote...
There was an option out. The option out was "do nothing." However, Bioware didn't think anyone would actually be interested in picking that option because it is not heroic at all (little did they suspect the desire for people to tell the Catalyst to eff off completely overriding any logic or heroic behavior). They gave you different choices on how you chose to be heroic.
iakus wrote...
Biotic Sage wrote...
The reason why Shepard and Batman can achieve the impossible is through sacrifice. That's what makes them compelling and that's why they resonate with so many people. This is why Superman is an inferior "hero."
And again and again both Shepard and Batman beat the odds and come back.
Plus, in Shepard's case, player chocie. WHen it's not getting ripped from our hands.
I'm of the opinion that Shepard was just mad as balls, and was trying to make the bullets move faster by walking directly at the pipe.DeinonSlayer wrote...
I'm of the persuasion that Shepard survives it, but it's still pretty dumb to walk into the explosion.Biotic Sage wrote...
There was an option out. The option out was "do nothing." However, Bioware didn't think anyone would actually be interested in picking that option because it is not heroic at all (little did they suspect the desire for people to tell the Catalyst to eff off completely overriding any logic or heroic behavior). They gave you different choices on how you chose to be heroic.
Perhaps it was part of a brilliant plan to cauterize his wounds? :innocent:
refuse is a cop out and you know it.Biotic Sage wrote...
Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
It isn't that he died, it's how.Biotic Sage wrote...
The Matrix Revolutions was a truly horrendous film. However, none of its horrendousness is due to Neo's death at the end. Sadly, it has a myriad of other aspects that step up to create its horrendoussness.
Did you forget about Saving Private Ryan? Children of Men (which I hate but everyone seems to consider a great film)? Troy?
The point is, if sacrifice fits the theme, then a hero's death, a hero's sacrifice has literary significance within the context of the narrative. Shepard is the embodiment of sacrifice. No matter how you play Shepard, he is always sacrificing. He sacrifices his body, his own personal needs and desires, and most of all his time and energy into saving the galaxy and all sentient life. When you have a character that is the embodiment of sacrifice (like Shepard or Batman), then a hero's death is a perfectly acceptable and more than that it is a poeticallly sound epilogue. Sometimes you can subvert this (like in the Dark Knight Rises), but by subverting it you must do so in a way that acknowledges that it is being subverted and thus create a new poetic salience. In the case of the Dark Knight Rises, they chose to focus on Bruce Wayne himself and how he rose above his pain and anger and learned to let go of Batman. He was able to find some personal happiness, and this goal was a theme throughout the entire trilogy. Shepard dying makes complete sense within the parameters of the story told in Mass Effect, sorry.
It was a gameshow death, pick a color and die.
If it were a sacrifice there would have to be an option out, a way to live but the death was chosen because it was neccesary.
Couldn't put it better myself iakus.
There was an option out. The option out was "do nothing." However, Bioware didn't think anyone would actually be interested in picking that option because it is not heroic at all (little did they suspect the desire for people to tell the Catalyst to eff off completely overriding any logic or heroic behavior). They gave you different choices on how you chose to be heroic.
Not saying IT believers don't want closure. Just that their idea of closure would clash with those of the Control/Synthesis persuasion. In that respect, Bioware's hands were tied.Jade8aby88 wrote...
DeinonSlayer wrote...
Shepard's only dead in Destroy if you want to believe that. I don't need to see Tali feeding him applesauce in a med bay to know he survives. I've headcanoned exactly where they go from there, and I'm happy with it - the first one set it right (no starvation, etc.), but another expansion would only risk breaking what I've worked out.
Some people might need to see more than we're shown to accept that Shepard survives, but I don't. Honestly, I think IT is to blame for them not expanding the breath scene in the Extended Cut. They couldn't do anything with it without either pissing off the IT faction (which was bigger back then), or pissing off EVERYONE ELSE.
Wrong, a lot of IT believers want closure for Shepard above all else.
Irregardless the whole "Don't do this because it will ruin my headcanon" argument is totally bull****.
If BioWare have a story to tell, they will tell it. If that includes an expansion of some sort with a twist on the endings, then you'll just have to suck it up.
Pre-release, I had my own headcanon of how things would play out, and after initially beating ME2 and Arrival dlc, I wrote my own little story of Shepard going to trial and getting released because she weaved her magic as always. She then told her crew to go on vacation and docked the Normandy at the Citadel indefinitely. Then went to the Shadow Broker's lair and spent a lot of time hanging out with Liara and finding a way to stop the Reapers. Then, in my story. The Reapers invaded just as she was getting back to the Citadel with her new information about how to stop the Reapers with Liara.
So did I complain when ME3 began and Shepard was still in lock-up on Earth?
Well, yes. But it was because of the ****ty writing, and lines like "we fight or we die" (srsly BW!?), not because it destroyed my fanfiction/headcanon.
Biotic Sage wrote...
iakus wrote...
Biotic Sage wrote...
The Matrix Revolutions was a truly horrendous film. However, none of its horrendousness is due to Neo's death at the end. Sadly, it has a myriad of other aspects that step up to create its horrendoussness.
Did you forget about Gladiator by the way? How about Saving Private Ryan? Children of Men (which I hate but everyone seems to consider a great film)? 300 (another one I hate)? Troy?
The point is, if sacrifice fits the theme, then a hero's death, a hero's sacrifice has literary significance within the context of the narrative. Shepard is the embodiment of sacrifice. No matter how you play Shepard, he is always sacrificing. He sacrifices his body, his own personal needs and desires, and most of all his time and energy into saving the galaxy and all sentient life. When you have a character that is the embodiment of sacrifice (like Shepard or Batman), then a hero's death is a perfectly acceptable and more than that it is a poeticallly sound epilogue. Sometimes you can subvert this (like in the Dark Knight Rises), but by subverting it you must do so in a way that acknowledges that it is being subverted and thus create a new poetic salience. In the case of the Dark Knight Rises, they chose to focus on Bruce Wayne himself and how he rose above his pain and anger and learned to let go of Batman. He was able to find some personal happiness, and this goal was a theme throughout the entire trilogy. Shepard dying makes complete sense within the parameters of the story told in Mass Effect, sorry.
Shepard wasn't the embodiment of sacrifice. He's the embodiment of achieving the impossible. Sometimes that requires sacrifice, sometimes not.
But a willingness to sacrifice doesn't necessitate a sacrifice. Look at Conrad Verner. He's willing to take a bullet for Shepard, sacrificing his life for Shep's. but it doesn't have to be. Jenna can be there to overload the gun and save Conrad.
Sure heroes who put it all on the line and sacrifice themselves make great stories. Me I find better stories come from those who put it all on the line, and somehow manage to walk away again. Up until the last ten minutes, that was Shepard.
The reason why Shepard and Batman can achieve the impossible is through sacrifice. That's what makes them compelling and that's why they resonate with so many people. This is why Superman is an inferior "hero."
Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
refuse is a cop out and you know it.Biotic Sage wrote...
Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
It isn't that he died, it's how.Biotic Sage wrote...
The Matrix Revolutions was a truly horrendous film. However, none of its horrendousness is due to Neo's death at the end. Sadly, it has a myriad of other aspects that step up to create its horrendoussness.
Did you forget about Saving Private Ryan? Children of Men (which I hate but everyone seems to consider a great film)? Troy?
The point is, if sacrifice fits the theme, then a hero's death, a hero's sacrifice has literary significance within the context of the narrative. Shepard is the embodiment of sacrifice. No matter how you play Shepard, he is always sacrificing. He sacrifices his body, his own personal needs and desires, and most of all his time and energy into saving the galaxy and all sentient life. When you have a character that is the embodiment of sacrifice (like Shepard or Batman), then a hero's death is a perfectly acceptable and more than that it is a poeticallly sound epilogue. Sometimes you can subvert this (like in the Dark Knight Rises), but by subverting it you must do so in a way that acknowledges that it is being subverted and thus create a new poetic salience. In the case of the Dark Knight Rises, they chose to focus on Bruce Wayne himself and how he rose above his pain and anger and learned to let go of Batman. He was able to find some personal happiness, and this goal was a theme throughout the entire trilogy. Shepard dying makes complete sense within the parameters of the story told in Mass Effect, sorry.
It was a gameshow death, pick a color and die.
If it were a sacrifice there would have to be an option out, a way to live but the death was chosen because it was neccesary.
Couldn't put it better myself iakus.
There was an option out. The option out was "do nothing." However, Bioware didn't think anyone would actually be interested in picking that option because it is not heroic at all (little did they suspect the desire for people to tell the Catalyst to eff off completely overriding any logic or heroic behavior). They gave you different choices on how you chose to be heroic.
Yeah to quote Humanoid_Typhoon: " Pick a color, but choose wisely, if you don't have enough points saved up you'll destroy the Earth!"Jade8aby88 wrote...
Biotic Sage wrote...
iakus wrote...
Biotic Sage wrote...
The Matrix Revolutions was a truly horrendous film. However, none of its horrendousness is due to Neo's death at the end. Sadly, it has a myriad of other aspects that step up to create its horrendoussness.
Did you forget about Gladiator by the way? How about Saving Private Ryan? Children of Men (which I hate but everyone seems to consider a great film)? 300 (another one I hate)? Troy?
The point is, if sacrifice fits the theme, then a hero's death, a hero's sacrifice has literary significance within the context of the narrative. Shepard is the embodiment of sacrifice. No matter how you play Shepard, he is always sacrificing. He sacrifices his body, his own personal needs and desires, and most of all his time and energy into saving the galaxy and all sentient life. When you have a character that is the embodiment of sacrifice (like Shepard or Batman), then a hero's death is a perfectly acceptable and more than that it is a poeticallly sound epilogue. Sometimes you can subvert this (like in the Dark Knight Rises), but by subverting it you must do so in a way that acknowledges that it is being subverted and thus create a new poetic salience. In the case of the Dark Knight Rises, they chose to focus on Bruce Wayne himself and how he rose above his pain and anger and learned to let go of Batman. He was able to find some personal happiness, and this goal was a theme throughout the entire trilogy. Shepard dying makes complete sense within the parameters of the story told in Mass Effect, sorry.
Shepard wasn't the embodiment of sacrifice. He's the embodiment of achieving the impossible. Sometimes that requires sacrifice, sometimes not.
But a willingness to sacrifice doesn't necessitate a sacrifice. Look at Conrad Verner. He's willing to take a bullet for Shepard, sacrificing his life for Shep's. but it doesn't have to be. Jenna can be there to overload the gun and save Conrad.
Sure heroes who put it all on the line and sacrifice themselves make great stories. Me I find better stories come from those who put it all on the line, and somehow manage to walk away again. Up until the last ten minutes, that was Shepard.
The reason why Shepard and Batman can achieve the impossible is through sacrifice. That's what makes them compelling and that's why they resonate with so many people. This is why Superman is an inferior "hero."
Shepard didn't sacrifice themselves. They commited suicide. For the sacrifice to mean something it had to arrive naturally through the story.
For example Primarch Victus' son, Tarquin Victus. That's was a meaningful sacrifice because it arose from the flow of the story.
Going, "here are your choices, have fun with them." totally diminishes any emtional sacrifice that could be had.
There was a thread a few days ago where we [not you and I] were discussing the semantics of refuse and how of course conventional victory wouldn't be possible because that is not how BW wanted the story to end, it's a good read.Biotic Sage wrote...
Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
refuse is a cop out and you know it.Biotic Sage wrote...
Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
It isn't that he died, it's how.Biotic Sage wrote...
The Matrix Revolutions was a truly horrendous film. However, none of its horrendousness is due to Neo's death at the end. Sadly, it has a myriad of other aspects that step up to create its horrendoussness.
Did you forget about Saving Private Ryan? Children of Men (which I hate but everyone seems to consider a great film)? Troy?
The point is, if sacrifice fits the theme, then a hero's death, a hero's sacrifice has literary significance within the context of the narrative. Shepard is the embodiment of sacrifice. No matter how you play Shepard, he is always sacrificing. He sacrifices his body, his own personal needs and desires, and most of all his time and energy into saving the galaxy and all sentient life. When you have a character that is the embodiment of sacrifice (like Shepard or Batman), then a hero's death is a perfectly acceptable and more than that it is a poeticallly sound epilogue. Sometimes you can subvert this (like in the Dark Knight Rises), but by subverting it you must do so in a way that acknowledges that it is being subverted and thus create a new poetic salience. In the case of the Dark Knight Rises, they chose to focus on Bruce Wayne himself and how he rose above his pain and anger and learned to let go of Batman. He was able to find some personal happiness, and this goal was a theme throughout the entire trilogy. Shepard dying makes complete sense within the parameters of the story told in Mass Effect, sorry.
It was a gameshow death, pick a color and die.
If it were a sacrifice there would have to be an option out, a way to live but the death was chosen because it was neccesary.
Couldn't put it better myself iakus.
There was an option out. The option out was "do nothing." However, Bioware didn't think anyone would actually be interested in picking that option because it is not heroic at all (little did they suspect the desire for people to tell the Catalyst to eff off completely overriding any logic or heroic behavior). They gave you different choices on how you chose to be heroic.
I don't think of it as a "cop out," but I do find it very funny. People were begging and demanding and kicking and screaming for "Refuse," even in the face of the facts: that the Reapers could not be defeated through military might. So Bioware's like, "...OK, fine we'll give it to you. We didn't think you guys were THAT masochistic, but here you go!" And I laughed my ass off when I saw it on YouTube.
DeinonSlayer wrote...
Not saying IT believers don't want closure. Just that their idea of closure would clash with those of the Control/Synthesis persuasion. In that respect, Bioware's hands were tied.Jade8aby88 wrote...
DeinonSlayer wrote...
Shepard's only dead in Destroy if you want to believe that. I don't need to see Tali feeding him applesauce in a med bay to know he survives. I've headcanoned exactly where they go from there, and I'm happy with it - the first one set it right (no starvation, etc.), but another expansion would only risk breaking what I've worked out.
Some people might need to see more than we're shown to accept that Shepard survives, but I don't. Honestly, I think IT is to blame for them not expanding the breath scene in the Extended Cut. They couldn't do anything with it without either pissing off the IT faction (which was bigger back then), or pissing off EVERYONE ELSE.
Wrong, a lot of IT believers want closure for Shepard above all else.
Irregardless the whole "Don't do this because it will ruin my headcanon" argument is totally bull****.
If BioWare have a story to tell, they will tell it. If that includes an expansion of some sort with a twist on the endings, then you'll just have to suck it up.
Pre-release, I had my own headcanon of how things would play out, and after initially beating ME2 and Arrival dlc, I wrote my own little story of Shepard going to trial and getting released because she weaved her magic as always. She then told her crew to go on vacation and docked the Normandy at the Citadel indefinitely. Then went to the Shadow Broker's lair and spent a lot of time hanging out with Liara and finding a way to stop the Reapers. Then, in my story. The Reapers invaded just as she was getting back to the Citadel with her new information about how to stop the Reapers with Liara.
So did I complain when ME3 began and Shepard was still in lock-up on Earth?
Well, yes. But it was because of the ****ty writing, and lines like "we fight or we die" (srsly BW!?), not because it destroyed my fanfiction/headcanon.
The autodialogue had problems which fall outside the scope of this topic. The original ending sucked; no argument there. The EC makes it suck less. I found a way to be satisfied with what we got. Seems healthier to me than moping about it for months on end hoping they'll make a second one.
Jade8aby88 wrote...
Biotic Sage wrote...
iakus wrote...
Biotic Sage wrote...
The Matrix Revolutions was a truly horrendous film. However, none of its horrendousness is due to Neo's death at the end. Sadly, it has a myriad of other aspects that step up to create its horrendoussness.
Did you forget about Gladiator by the way? How about Saving Private Ryan? Children of Men (which I hate but everyone seems to consider a great film)? 300 (another one I hate)? Troy?
The point is, if sacrifice fits the theme, then a hero's death, a hero's sacrifice has literary significance within the context of the narrative. Shepard is the embodiment of sacrifice. No matter how you play Shepard, he is always sacrificing. He sacrifices his body, his own personal needs and desires, and most of all his time and energy into saving the galaxy and all sentient life. When you have a character that is the embodiment of sacrifice (like Shepard or Batman), then a hero's death is a perfectly acceptable and more than that it is a poeticallly sound epilogue. Sometimes you can subvert this (like in the Dark Knight Rises), but by subverting it you must do so in a way that acknowledges that it is being subverted and thus create a new poetic salience. In the case of the Dark Knight Rises, they chose to focus on Bruce Wayne himself and how he rose above his pain and anger and learned to let go of Batman. He was able to find some personal happiness, and this goal was a theme throughout the entire trilogy. Shepard dying makes complete sense within the parameters of the story told in Mass Effect, sorry.
Shepard wasn't the embodiment of sacrifice. He's the embodiment of achieving the impossible. Sometimes that requires sacrifice, sometimes not.
But a willingness to sacrifice doesn't necessitate a sacrifice. Look at Conrad Verner. He's willing to take a bullet for Shepard, sacrificing his life for Shep's. but it doesn't have to be. Jenna can be there to overload the gun and save Conrad.
Sure heroes who put it all on the line and sacrifice themselves make great stories. Me I find better stories come from those who put it all on the line, and somehow manage to walk away again. Up until the last ten minutes, that was Shepard.
The reason why Shepard and Batman can achieve the impossible is through sacrifice. That's what makes them compelling and that's why they resonate with so many people. This is why Superman is an inferior "hero."
Shepard didn't sacrifice themselves. They commited suicide. For the sacrifice to mean something it had to arrive naturally through the story.
For example Primarch Victus' son, Tarquin Victus. That's was a meaningful sacrifice because it arose from the flow of the story.
Going, "here are your choices, have fun with them." totally diminishes any emtional sacrifice that could be had.
If Shep would have simply died with Anderson in the control room this whole debacle could have been avoided, what the catalyst does is give you the oppurtunity to be the hero, you don't earn it like you did for 2.9 games.Biotic Sage wrote...
Jade8aby88 wrote...
Biotic Sage wrote...
iakus wrote...
Biotic Sage wrote...
The Matrix Revolutions was a truly horrendous film. However, none of its horrendousness is due to Neo's death at the end. Sadly, it has a myriad of other aspects that step up to create its horrendoussness.
Did you forget about Gladiator by the way? How about Saving Private Ryan? Children of Men (which I hate but everyone seems to consider a great film)? 300 (another one I hate)? Troy?
The point is, if sacrifice fits the theme, then a hero's death, a hero's sacrifice has literary significance within the context of the narrative. Shepard is the embodiment of sacrifice. No matter how you play Shepard, he is always sacrificing. He sacrifices his body, his own personal needs and desires, and most of all his time and energy into saving the galaxy and all sentient life. When you have a character that is the embodiment of sacrifice (like Shepard or Batman), then a hero's death is a perfectly acceptable and more than that it is a poeticallly sound epilogue. Sometimes you can subvert this (like in the Dark Knight Rises), but by subverting it you must do so in a way that acknowledges that it is being subverted and thus create a new poetic salience. In the case of the Dark Knight Rises, they chose to focus on Bruce Wayne himself and how he rose above his pain and anger and learned to let go of Batman. He was able to find some personal happiness, and this goal was a theme throughout the entire trilogy. Shepard dying makes complete sense within the parameters of the story told in Mass Effect, sorry.
Shepard wasn't the embodiment of sacrifice. He's the embodiment of achieving the impossible. Sometimes that requires sacrifice, sometimes not.
But a willingness to sacrifice doesn't necessitate a sacrifice. Look at Conrad Verner. He's willing to take a bullet for Shepard, sacrificing his life for Shep's. but it doesn't have to be. Jenna can be there to overload the gun and save Conrad.
Sure heroes who put it all on the line and sacrifice themselves make great stories. Me I find better stories come from those who put it all on the line, and somehow manage to walk away again. Up until the last ten minutes, that was Shepard.
The reason why Shepard and Batman can achieve the impossible is through sacrifice. That's what makes them compelling and that's why they resonate with so many people. This is why Superman is an inferior "hero."
Shepard didn't sacrifice themselves. They commited suicide. For the sacrifice to mean something it had to arrive naturally through the story.
For example Primarch Victus' son, Tarquin Victus. That's was a meaningful sacrifice because it arose from the flow of the story.
Going, "here are your choices, have fun with them." totally diminishes any emtional sacrifice that could be had.
I would disagree with your assertion that the sacrifice "didn't arrive naturally through the story." When Shepard decides to make that run to the beam, he knows that it's likely a one way trip. Everything that happens after that is the "revelation," but Shepard has already in his mind made the hero's sacrifice. He is willing to die to activate the Crucible. The nature of the activation was a surprise to us, and maybe others like yourself would have liked a different version of the essential outcome (Shepard dies to activate Crucible, saves galaxy) I certainly don't begrudge you that because it's a matter of taste, but if you look at the narrative this essential outcome is inevitable.
Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
There was a thread a few days ago where we [not you and I] were discussing the semantics of refuse and how of course conventional victory wouldn't be possible because that is not how BW wanted the story to end, it's a good read.
Modifié par Biotic Sage, 22 octobre 2012 - 05:13 .
Jade8aby88 wrote...
DeinonSlayer wrote...
Not saying IT believers don't want closure. Just that their idea of closure would clash with those of the Control/Synthesis persuasion. In that respect, Bioware's hands were tied.
The autodialogue had problems which fall outside the scope of this topic. The original ending sucked; no argument there. The EC makes it suck less. I found a way to be satisfied with what we got. Seems healthier to me than moping about it for months on end hoping they'll make a second one.
I understand that. Many fans have kind of accepted it and forced themselves to like it.
Personally, I don't believe I'm so much moping, as I am trying to understand.
Whether someone likes them or not, they still make little to no sense. No, what I seek now is understanding. I really want to know where this vision came from, because it certainly didn't come from the plot that preceeded it.
Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 22 octobre 2012 - 05:16 .
TheNexus wrote...
It's interesting. After my very first playthrough of ME3, the only thing I could think was "I died. I freaking died". That was my initial gut reaction.
I'm not even someone that believes every ending needs to be happy, but there was something very bitter about how I felt after finishing the game. It wasn't a good feeling, like when I finished ME1 and ME2. I just don't think it's what Bioware was going for... almost as if they had misguided their own intentions. At least I think that's one of the reasons they made the EC.
Modifié par Biotic Sage, 22 octobre 2012 - 05:17 .
Retour en haut