889 réponses à ce sujet

[Dr_Extrem]

Seival wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Seival wrote...

Fireblader70 wrote...

Here's the thing - when people have to make up an 'Indoctrination Theory' to be content with the ending, that in itself should be an indicator that something is a little off.

Lack of desire to understand the ideas behind the story is what a "little off" here. The ending itself is fine.

isolated, it may be fine - but it is inconsistent to the massage and story of the series as a whole.

The entire story goes to those last minutes when we finally know all the truth. The ending fits the entire trilogy just perfectly. We have the best ending possible, and any change can only ruin the story.

i respect your opinion but i see it differently.

the series as a whole was about shepards fight against the reapers and its agents, to stop a cycle of extinction, that repeated itself over counless millenia.

the first 2 games were build up a different outcome and plot - dark energy. this plot was abandoned during the work on me3. but the other 2 games could not be changed anymore., so the hints stayed.

shepard fought against indoctrination and the idea that the reapers could be controled. (saren, alpha relay, mars). shepard was disgusted by the idea having a control chip in his /her brain as well.

during mass effect 3, shepard fought to stop the reapers - it was a fight for survival. shepard tired to convince tim to join him/her to enhance the chances to win the war.

even if shepard had the urge to control the reapers, it was badly implemented. there is a reason that the use of a deus es machina is something smiled at. it is broadly considered as lazy, bad writing or the absence of a good idea to solve a plot problem.

the endings are poorly presented.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 04 novembre 2012 - 11:04 .

[JamesFaith]

Fireblader70 wrote...

Here's the thing - when people have to make up an 'Indoctrination Theory' to be content with the ending, that in itself should be an indicator that something is a little off.

Hmm, so when people came up with Deckard is replicant in theory in Blade runner to be more content with happy-end in first public version, does it mean that that Blade runner is little off?

[OMGsideboob]

Ajensis wrote...

Sci-fi writers aren't any different from other writers, and one of the safe things you can assume is that they have *widely* different opinions and points of view. So the idea that 'any good sci-fi writer would love the ending' is something I find very hard to agree with.

Also, can't we put an end to the superiority stance? For both sides. I'm not intellectually inferior just because you see some genius aspects in the ending where I don't, just like you're not [insert whatever veiled insult an anti-ender would throw your way] because you liked it. We're both fans of the same game with different opinions on its last few minutes.

Agreed with this...

I can say that people really get way too heated in these forums over a video game.

Fireblader70 wrote...
Here's the thing - when people have to
make up an 'Indoctrination Theory' to be content with the ending, that
in itself should be an indicator that something is a little off.

I also agree with this... I kinda find the IT really sad. It's like people so don't want to believe THAT was the ending, they made that up and are hoping and praying Bioware rethinks their ending to Shepard/ME3.

Modifié par OMGsideboob, 04 novembre 2012 - 11:16 .

[darkchief10]

i'll come back when we can actually discuss this topic, as it was really in teresting before it got so hideously derailed

[drayfish]

Seival wrote...

(1) "I'll give you my conclusions," Jason said, twisting in the chair, trying to find a comfortable position for his aching bones. "I've been doing a lot of thinking the last day or two, searching for the answer. The very first thing I realized, was that the perfect and logical solution wouldn't do at all. I'm afraid the old ideal of the lion lying down with the lamb doesn't work out in practice. About all it does is make a fast lunch for the lion. Ideally, now that you all know the real causes of your trouble, you should tear down the perimeter and have the city and forest people mingle in brotherly love. Makes just as pretty a picture as the one of lion and lamb. And would undoubtedly have the same result. Someone would remember how really filthy the grubbers are, or how stupid junkmen can be, and there would be a fresh corpse cooling. The fight would spread and the victors would be eaten by the wildlife that swarmed over the undefended perimeter. No, the answer isn't that easy."

(2) "If we're going to find a decent plan for the future, we'll have to take inertia into consideration. Mental inertia for one. Just because you know a thing is true in theory, doesn't make it true in fact. The barbaric religions of primitive worlds hold not a germ of scientific fact, though they claim to explain all. Yet if one of these savages has all the logical ground
for his beliefs taken away—he doesn't stop believing. He then calls his mistaken beliefs 'faith' because he knows they are right. And he knows they are right because he has faith. This is an unbreakable circle of false logic that can't be touched. In reality, it is plain mental inertia. A case of thinking 'what always was' will also 'always be.' And not wanting to blast the thinking patterns out of the old rut.

(3) "Mental inertia alone is not going to cause trouble—there is cultural inertia, too. Some of you in this room believe my conclusions and would like to change. But will all your people change? The unthinking ones, the habit-ridden, reflex-formed people who know what is now, will always be. They'll act like a drag on whatever plans you make, whatever attempts you undertake to progress with the new knowledge you have." "Then it's useless—there's no hope for our world?" Rhes asked.

...Harry Harrison, "Deathworld", 1960.


(1) Completely destroying one of two conflicting entities, or attempting to create an artificial empathy between them will never do anything good. Nature will always find the way, and the history will always repeat itself. Destroying or maintaining forever the "Perimeter" (Reapers) between those two entities is also bad idea.

(2) A nice analogy to IT: "Yet if one of these savages has all the logical ground for his beliefs taken away—he doesn't stop believing."... And to ME3 endings' misunderstanding in general: "And not wanting to blast the thinking patterns out of the old rut.".

(3) Will organics ever stop to make the same mistakes again if the Reapers will be destroyed? No. Will creating synthetics and AIs in case of Destroy will become a taboo? No. Is Destroy at least any different from Refusal? The only difference is the number of casualties. Other than that Destroy and Refusal are the same.

Thoughts?

I am sure that someone in the preceeding 14 pages has already pointed this out, but: Deathworld was a satire, was it not?

As I understand him, Harry Harrison (both personally and in his fiction) was staunchly against authoritarian and militaristic intrusion into basic freedoms. He would - I presume - have rather buckled in horror at the buffet of grotesquery on offer in Mass Effect's conclusion (unless he viewed it as a cynical gag).

...And if we can draw on parody as 'evidence' for the Mass Effect 3 ending's genius I call dibs on Monty Python sketches!

'This is a dead Reaper! It has ceased to be!'

Modifié par drayfish, 04 novembre 2012 - 11:21 .

[Killer3000ad]

JamesFaith wrote...

Fireblader70 wrote...

Here's the thing - when people have to make up an 'Indoctrination Theory' to be content with the ending, that in itself should be an indicator that something is a little off.

Hmm, so when people came up with Deckard is replicant in theory in Blade runner to be more content with happy-end in first public version, does it mean that that Blade runner is little off?

What? Regardless of whether Deckard is a replicant or not, the ending is unaffected. Either the original theatrical ending or the proper fade-to-black at the lift ending works whether he's human or replicant.

IT was created because the ME3's endings are full of retarded claptrap that having it all being an indoc attemp via a dream is the only way to make sense of it.

Modifié par Killer3000ad, 04 novembre 2012 - 11:22 .

[Seival]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Seival wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Seival wrote...

Fireblader70 wrote...

Here's the thing - when people have to make up an 'Indoctrination Theory' to be content with the ending, that in itself should be an indicator that something is a little off.

Lack of desire to understand the ideas behind the story is what a "little off" here. The ending itself is fine.

isolated, it may be fine - but it is inconsistent to the massage and story of the series as a whole.

The entire story goes to those last minutes when we finally know all the truth. The ending fits the entire trilogy just perfectly. We have the best ending possible, and any change can only ruin the story.

i respect your opinion but i see it differently.

the series as a whole was about shepards fight against the reapers and its agents, to stop a cycle of extinction, that repeated itself over counless millenia.

the first 2 games were build up a different outcome and plot - dark energy. this plot was abandoned during the work on me3. but the other 2 games could not be changed anymore., so the hints stayed.

shepard fought against indoctrination and the idea that the reapers could be controled. (saren, alpha relay, mars). shepard was disgusted by the idea having a control chip in his /her brain as well.

during mass effect 3, shepard fought to stop the reapers - it was a fight for survival. shepard tired to convince tim to join him/her to enhance the chances to win the war.

even if shepard had the urge to control the reapers, it was badly implemented. there is a reason that the use of a deus es machina is something smiled at. it is broadly considered as lazy, bad writing or the absence of a good idea to solve a plot problem.

the endings are poorly presented.

You missing the most important point. You can tell what the story is about only after you read it to the end. If the ending didn't justify your expectations, it doesn't mean it was poorly presented. It only means that you wanted to see something different in the end...

...That's why BioWare defend the endings no matter the vocal minority. And that's why pro-enders help BioWare to do so. BioWare clearly care about the ideas much more than about money, so we all have a hope to get more really strong stories in the future.

Modifié par Seival, 04 novembre 2012 - 11:28 .

[dreamgazer]

Oh, fantastic. It's turned into an IT assault.

[Seival]

drayfish wrote...

Seival wrote...

(1) "I'll give you my conclusions," Jason said, twisting in the chair, trying to find a comfortable position for his aching bones. "I've been doing a lot of thinking the last day or two, searching for the answer. The very first thing I realized, was that the perfect and logical solution wouldn't do at all. I'm afraid the old ideal of the lion lying down with the lamb doesn't work out in practice. About all it does is make a fast lunch for the lion. Ideally, now that you all know the real causes of your trouble, you should tear down the perimeter and have the city and forest people mingle in brotherly love. Makes just as pretty a picture as the one of lion and lamb. And would undoubtedly have the same result. Someone would remember how really filthy the grubbers are, or how stupid junkmen can be, and there would be a fresh corpse cooling. The fight would spread and the victors would be eaten by the wildlife that swarmed over the undefended perimeter. No, the answer isn't that easy."

(2) "If we're going to find a decent plan for the future, we'll have to take inertia into consideration. Mental inertia for one. Just because you know a thing is true in theory, doesn't make it true in fact. The barbaric religions of primitive worlds hold not a germ of scientific fact, though they claim to explain all. Yet if one of these savages has all the logical ground
for his beliefs taken away—he doesn't stop believing. He then calls his mistaken beliefs 'faith' because he knows they are right. And he knows they are right because he has faith. This is an unbreakable circle of false logic that can't be touched. In reality, it is plain mental inertia. A case of thinking 'what always was' will also 'always be.' And not wanting to blast the thinking patterns out of the old rut.

(3) "Mental inertia alone is not going to cause trouble—there is cultural inertia, too. Some of you in this room believe my conclusions and would like to change. But will all your people change? The unthinking ones, the habit-ridden, reflex-formed people who know what is now, will always be. They'll act like a drag on whatever plans you make, whatever attempts you undertake to progress with the new knowledge you have." "Then it's useless—there's no hope for our world?" Rhes asked.

...Harry Harrison, "Deathworld", 1960.


(1) Completely destroying one of two conflicting entities, or attempting to create an artificial empathy between them will never do anything good. Nature will always find the way, and the history will always repeat itself. Destroying or maintaining forever the "Perimeter" (Reapers) between those two entities is also bad idea.

(2) A nice analogy to IT: "Yet if one of these savages has all the logical ground for his beliefs taken away—he doesn't stop believing."... And to ME3 endings' misunderstanding in general: "And not wanting to blast the thinking patterns out of the old rut.".

(3) Will organics ever stop to make the same mistakes again if the Reapers will be destroyed? No. Will creating synthetics and AIs in case of Destroy will become a taboo? No. Is Destroy at least any different from Refusal? The only difference is the number of casualties. Other than that Destroy and Refusal are the same.

Thoughts?

I am sure that someone in the preceeding 14 pages has already pointed this out, but: Deathworld was a satire, was it not?

As I understand him, Harry Harrison (both personally and in his fiction) was staunchly against authoritarian and militaristic intrusion into basic freedoms. He would - I presume - have rather buckled in horror at the buffet of grotesquery on offer in Mass Effect's conclusion (unless he viewed it as a cynical gag).

...And if we can draw on parody as 'evidence' for the Mass Effect 3 ending's genius I call dibs on Monty Python sketches!

'This is a dead Reaper! It has ceased to be!'

No, Deathworld is not a satire. And I suggest you to read this book.

[Applepie_Svk]

darkchief10 wrote...

i'll come back when we can actually discuss this topic, as it was really in teresting before it got so hideously derailed

Still it´s funny, OPs is well known for derailing other threads by promoting of his own...

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 04 novembre 2012 - 11:29 .

[Redbelle]

Wiki Quote regarding HH:

Harrison has become much better known for his writing, particularly for his humorous and satirical science fiction, such as the Stainless Steel Rat series and his novel Bill, the Galactic Hero — which satirized Robert A. Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers. Priest wrote:

His most popular and best-known work is contained in fast-moving parodies, homages or even straight reconstructions of traditional space-opera adventures. He wrote several named series of these: notably the Deathworld series (three titles, starting in 1960), the Stainless Steel Rat books (12 titles, from 1961), and the sequence of books about Bill, the Galactic Hero (seven titles, from 1965). These books all present interesting contradictions: while being exactly what they might superficially seem to be, unpretentious action novels with a strong streak of humour, they are also satirical, knowing, subversive, unapologetically anti-military, anti-authority and anti-violence. Harrison wrote such novels in the idiom of the politically conservative hack writer, but in reality he had a liberal conscience and a sharp awareness of the lack of literary values in so much of the SF he was parodying.[3]

Adi Robertson agreed: "His books toed the line between science fiction adventure, humor, and satire, often with a strong anti-military bent informed by his time in the US Army Air Corps."

[drayfish]

Seival wrote...

drayfish wrote...

I am sure that someone in the preceeding 14 pages has already pointed this out, but: Deathworld was a satire, was it not?

As I understand him, Harry Harrison (both personally and in his fiction) was staunchly against authoritarian and militaristic intrusion into basic freedoms. He would - I presume - have rather buckled in horror at the buffet of grotesquery on offer in Mass Effect's conclusion (unless he viewed it as a cynical gag).

...And if we can draw on parody as 'evidence' for the Mass Effect 3 ending's genius I call dibs on Monty Python sketches!

'This is a dead Reaper! It has ceased to be!'

No, Deathworld is not a satire. And I suggest you to read this book.

'His most popular and best-known work is contained in fast-moving parodies, homages or even straight reconstructions of traditional space-opera adventures. He wrote several named series of these: notably the Deathworld series (three titles, starting in 1960), the Stainless Steel Rat books (12 titles, from 1961), and the sequence of books about Bill, the Galactic Hero (seven titles, from 1965). These books all present interesting contradictions: while being exactly what they might superficially seem to be, unpretentious action novels with a strong streak of humour, they are also satirical, knowing, subversive, unapologetically anti-military, anti-authority and anti-violence. Harrison wrote such novels in the idiom of the politically conservative hack writer, but in reality he had a liberal conscience and a sharp awareness of the lack of literary values in so much of the SF he was parodying.'

- Harry Harrison Obituary, by Christopher Priest, The Guardian (Wednesday 15 August, 2012)
(http://www.guardian..../harry-harrison)

I suggest you read his books more closely.  Your argument is moot.

[Fireblader70]

Seival wrote...

Fireblader70 wrote...

Here's the thing - when people have to make up an 'Indoctrination Theory' to be content with the ending, that in itself should be an indicator that something is a little off.

Lack of desire to understand the ideas behind the story is what a "little off" here. The ending itself is fine.

...In your opinion.

Depends what 'ideas' we're talking about here. All we have to go on is what stares us in the face - everything else is speculation and interpretation.

In my opinion, Mac Walters did not do the best of jobs with Mass Effect 3. I won't go into details about the main meat of the plot, as you made this an ending thread, so let's focus on that.

To start, let's cast our minds back to the Illusive Man. What was his plan? To use the Crucible, much like Shepard. Trouble is, he is also the one that allowed the Reapers to take control of the Citadel. This makes little sense, and even if we use his indoctrination as an explanation, it is still downright ridiculous.

Next is the heated debate. Having a spoken conflict of ideals is fine, and works well with the series. Trouble is - TIM is indoctrinated. His views mean nothing, because they are controlled by the Reapers. So the whole point of this confrontation is... well, there isn't one, except to provide a dramatic exit for the character. Great acting from Martin Sheen, though.

Now... the Catalyst. It appears as the child from Shepard's nightmares. How? It must be telepathic. Except it is just an AI, technically. This is already a bit of an eyebrow-raiser, but it really doesn't matter much.

So the Crucible docks, completely oblivious to Reaper fire. Okay. Why doesn't the Catalyst ensure that it is destroyed, rather than used? Oh, that's right. The Crucible 'changed' it. 'Created new possibilities'. Its programming has been overriden, somehow, so that it must obey Shepard's decision. Fine. Vague, but we'll go with it.

So... why are the three Crucible options laid out so neatly ready for Shepard to choose? Let us remember that Shepard was the first organic to ever stand there, so the cycle that incorporated the Citadel into the Crucible's design could not have twisted any knobs or raised any walkways in the manner that we are shown. It is done for gameplay convenience, but it makes little sense from a story standpoint.

And don't even get me started on synthesis. We know that control is gained from co-opting the Reaper indoctrination signal, and we know that destroy is just a large explosion deadly to synthetics. But synthesis? Hell if I know what that's about.

I'll stop now. That is partly why I think the ending is a 'little off'. Also, from a structural perspective, introducing the Catalyst right at that very end point just doesn't feel right. Not for a character of such monumental importance.

EDIT: Just remembered that control is not like that at all. In fact, I have no idea how it actually works - I was just thinking of how TIM believed it would work. Sorry.

Modifié par Fireblader70, 04 novembre 2012 - 11:44 .

[Seival]

Redbelle wrote...

Wiki Quote regarding HH:

Harrison has become much better known for his writing, particularly for his humorous and satirical science fiction, such as the Stainless Steel Rat series and his novel Bill, the Galactic Hero — which satirized Robert A. Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers. Priest wrote:

His most popular and best-known work is contained in fast-moving parodies, homages or even straight reconstructions of traditional space-opera adventures. He wrote several named series of these: notably the Deathworld series (three titles, starting in 1960), the Stainless Steel Rat books (12 titles, from 1961), and the sequence of books about Bill, the Galactic Hero (seven titles, from 1965). These books all present interesting contradictions: while being exactly what they might superficially seem to be, unpretentious action novels with a strong streak of humour, they are also satirical, knowing, subversive, unapologetically anti-military, anti-authority and anti-violence. Harrison wrote such novels in the idiom of the politically conservative hack writer, but in reality he had a liberal conscience and a sharp awareness of the lack of literary values in so much of the SF he was parodying.[3]

Adi Robertson agreed: "His books toed the line between science fiction adventure, humor, and satire, often with a strong anti-military bent informed by his time in the US Army Air Corps."

Wiki can't describe the true meanings of books. You can understand those books only by reading them.

Deathworld is not a "space-opera adventure" or a "parody".

Modifié par Seival, 04 novembre 2012 - 11:42 .

[DrGunjah]

Seival wrote...
The entire story goes to those last minutes when we finally know all the truth. The ending fits the entire trilogy just perfectly. We have the best ending possible, and any change can only ruin the story.

[drayfish]

Seival wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Wiki Quote regarding HH:

Harrison has become much better known for his writing, particularly for his humorous and satirical science fiction, such as the Stainless Steel Rat series and his novel Bill, the Galactic Hero — which satirized Robert A. Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers. Priest wrote:

His most popular and best-known work is contained in fast-moving parodies, homages or even straight reconstructions of traditional space-opera adventures. He wrote several named series of these: notably the Deathworld series (three titles, starting in 1960), the Stainless Steel Rat books (12 titles, from 1961), and the sequence of books about Bill, the Galactic Hero (seven titles, from 1965). These books all present interesting contradictions: while being exactly what they might superficially seem to be, unpretentious action novels with a strong streak of humour, they are also satirical, knowing, subversive, unapologetically anti-military, anti-authority and anti-violence. Harrison wrote such novels in the idiom of the politically conservative hack writer, but in reality he had a liberal conscience and a sharp awareness of the lack of literary values in so much of the SF he was parodying.[3]

Adi Robertson agreed: "His books toed the line between science fiction adventure, humor, and satire, often with a strong anti-military bent informed by his time in the US Army Air Corps."

Wiki can't describe the true meanings of books. You can understand those books only by reading them.

Deathworld is not a "space-opera adventure" or a "parody".

'His most popular and best-known work is contained in fast-moving parodies, homages or even straight reconstructions of traditional space opera adventures. He wrote several series of these: notably the Deathworld series (three titles, starting in 1960), The Stainless Steel Rat books (12 titles, from 1961), and the Bill, the Galactic Hero books (seven titles, from 1965).

- 'Satirical science-fiction author's work inspired Soylent Green' The Sydney Morning Herald (August 21 2012) (http://www.smh.com.a...?skin=text-only


'“Incompetent, unlettered, unskilled writers sell to unexacting editors. All of this is going completely unnoticed by an incompetent readership.” So wrote Harry Harrison in a 1990 essay that described science fiction, the genre in which he wrote more than 60 novels, as “rubbish.” .... But Mr. Harrison was best known for subverting his own genre.'

- 'Harry Harrison, a Prolific Writer of Satiric Science Fiction, Dies at 87', by Douglas Martin, The New York Times (17 August, 2012) (http://www.nytimes.c...dies-at-87.html)


I think - in Harrison's own words - you may have missed the point of his fiction.

Modifié par drayfish, 04 novembre 2012 - 11:57 .

[Redbelle]

Seival wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Wiki Quote regarding HH:

Harrison has become much better known for his writing, particularly for his humorous and satirical science fiction, such as the Stainless Steel Rat series and his novel Bill, the Galactic Hero — which satirized Robert A. Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers. Priest wrote:

His most popular and best-known work is contained in fast-moving parodies, homages or even straight reconstructions of traditional space-opera adventures. He wrote several named series of these: notably the Deathworld series (three titles, starting in 1960), the Stainless Steel Rat books (12 titles, from 1961), and the sequence of books about Bill, the Galactic Hero (seven titles, from 1965). These books all present interesting contradictions: while being exactly what they might superficially seem to be, unpretentious action novels with a strong streak of humour, they are also satirical, knowing, subversive, unapologetically anti-military, anti-authority and anti-violence. Harrison wrote such novels in the idiom of the politically conservative hack writer, but in reality he had a liberal conscience and a sharp awareness of the lack of literary values in so much of the SF he was parodying.[3]

Adi Robertson agreed: "His books toed the line between science fiction adventure, humor, and satire, often with a strong anti-military bent informed by his time in the US Army Air Corps."

Wiki can't describe the true meanings of books. You can understand those books only by reading them.

Deathworld is not a "space-opera adventure" or a "parody".

Sry what was that? I can't hear you over the above description of the authors leanings pertaining to narrative content!

Thought I'd mention that before you try and twist the meaning of the post into something it's not...........again. Cause it's fairly self obvious that the wiki quotes speak more of the author than of the books.

And since you discount space opera adventure and parody, that leaves homage. and the following:

These books all present interesting contradictions: while being exactly
what they might superficially seem to be, unpretentious action novels
with a strong streak of humour, they are also satirical, knowing,
subversive, unapologetically anti-military, anti-authority and
anti-violence

Modifié par Redbelle, 05 novembre 2012 - 12:03 .

[Dr_Extrem]

Seival wrote...

You missing the most important point. You can tell what the story is about only after you read it to the end. If the ending didn't justify your expectations, it doesn't mean it was poorly presented. It only means that you wanted to see something different in the end...

...That's why BioWare defend the endings no matter the vocal minority. And that's why pro-enders help BioWare to do so. BioWare clearly care about the ideas much more than about money, so we all have a hope to get more really strong stories in the future.

first - please watch your tone. if you cant handle a different opinion, you should not start a discussion.

and i would be very careful with statements like "vocal minority" (wich is a popular excuse to dismiss other peoples opinion). it is very offensive and counterproductive.

sorry .. but as much as i like bioware - it is a software company, with a routemap to follow. people wanted their choices to be important in the last game - they turned it into faceless war assets or replaced characters by standins.

i presented reasons that make me not like the endings without a doubt.
the trilogy plot changed while they were writing the 3rd game. the hints to the first intenden outcome are still inside the old games - you can not change that.
offering conclusion to the plot within the last 10 minutes, by a deus ex machina, is just poor. that could be done in style .. leviathan could have been a chance to explain the catalysts funktion and origin in detail. sadly, there were only hints. 

combining organic and synthetic life was never an option during the first game and neither in the second. the first hint, that a combination like this can work, was given after rannoch (dialogue with tali about suits and geth programs).
controling the reapers was only brought up by tim in the third game. in the second game, he wanted to preserve the reaper shell, to find weaknesses to destroy them.

the choices shepard could make in the first games were not about weather to control or destroy the reapers - it was about human supremicy or integration.

the control ending for instance is not about supremicy or integrtion, it is about protecting the many (all civilisation) and embracing the strong / caring for those, who can not help themselves. this is contrary to the context of the first 2 games.

my opinion is backed by those impression. if you can not discuss in a civilised way, please ignore this post.


p.s
the use of a deus ex machina (in a non comical way), the plot turn in the 3rd game and the poor superweapon arc alone would disappoint many professional writers.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 05 novembre 2012 - 12:22 .

[Seival]

drayfish wrote...

Seival wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Wiki Quote regarding HH:

Harrison has become much better known for his writing, particularly for his humorous and satirical science fiction, such as the Stainless Steel Rat series and his novel Bill, the Galactic Hero — which satirized Robert A. Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers. Priest wrote:

His most popular and best-known work is contained in fast-moving parodies, homages or even straight reconstructions of traditional space-opera adventures. He wrote several named series of these: notably the Deathworld series (three titles, starting in 1960), the Stainless Steel Rat books (12 titles, from 1961), and the sequence of books about Bill, the Galactic Hero (seven titles, from 1965). These books all present interesting contradictions: while being exactly what they might superficially seem to be, unpretentious action novels with a strong streak of humour, they are also satirical, knowing, subversive, unapologetically anti-military, anti-authority and anti-violence. Harrison wrote such novels in the idiom of the politically conservative hack writer, but in reality he had a liberal conscience and a sharp awareness of the lack of literary values in so much of the SF he was parodying.[3]

Adi Robertson agreed: "His books toed the line between science fiction adventure, humor, and satire, often with a strong anti-military bent informed by his time in the US Army Air Corps."

Wiki can't describe the true meanings of books. You can understand those books only by reading them.

Deathworld is not a "space-opera adventure" or a "parody".

'His most popular and best-known work is contained in fast-moving parodies, homages or even straight reconstructions of traditional space opera adventures. He wrote several series of these: notably the Deathworld series (three titles, starting in 1960), The Stainless Steel Rat books (12 titles, from 1961), and the Bill, the Galactic Hero books (seven titles, from 1965).

- 'Satirical science-fiction author's work inspired Soylent Green' The Sydney Morning Herald (August 21 2012) (http://www.smh.com.a...?skin=text-only


'“Incompetent, unlettered, unskilled writers sell to unexacting editors. All of this is going completely unnoticed by an incompetent readership.” So wrote Harry Harrison in a 1990 essay that described science fiction, the genre in which he wrote more than 60 novels, as “rubbish.” .... But Mr. Harrison was best known for subverting his own genre.'

- 'Harry Harrison, a Prolific Writer of Satiric Science Fiction, Dies at 87', by Douglas Martin, The New York Times (17 August, 2012) (http://www.nytimes.c...dies-at-87.html)


I think - in Harrison's own words - you may have missed the point of his fiction.

Firstly, you are trying to discuss a book you didn't even read.

Secondly, we can find negative reviews on any book movie or game. This doesn't make book/movie/game bad.



Finally, this only proves my theory: ...Ask some person, who disliked ME3 ending, to read some good old sci-fi book and describe what did he understand afterwards, and that person will call the book "nonsence" or "nice adventure".

[drayfish]

Seival wrote...

drayfish wrote...

'His most popular and best-known work is contained in fast-moving parodies, homages or even straight reconstructions of traditional space opera adventures. He wrote several series of these: notably the Deathworld series (three titles, starting in 1960), The Stainless Steel Rat books (12 titles, from 1961), and the Bill, the Galactic Hero books (seven titles, from 1965).

- 'Satirical science-fiction author's work inspired Soylent Green' The Sydney Morning Herald (August 21 2012) (http://www.smh.com.a...?skin=text-only


'“Incompetent, unlettered, unskilled writers sell to unexacting editors. All of this is going completely unnoticed by an incompetent readership.” So wrote Harry Harrison in a 1990 essay that described science fiction, the genre in which he wrote more than 60 novels, as “rubbish.” .... But Mr. Harrison was best known for subverting his own genre.'

- 'Harry Harrison, a Prolific Writer of Satiric Science Fiction, Dies at 87', by Douglas Martin, The New York Times (17 August, 2012) (http://www.nytimes.c...dies-at-87.html)


I think - in Harrison's own words - you may have missed the point of his fiction.

Firstly, you are trying to discuss a book you didn't even read.

Secondly, we can find negative reviews on any book movie or game. This doesn't make book/movie/game bad.

Finally, this only proves my theory: ...Ask some person, who disliked ME3 ending, to read some good old sci-fi book and describe what did he understand afterwards, and that person will call the book "nonsence" or "nice adventure".

You're grasping... and it's a little sad.

None of these summaries of this specific book - and Harrison's larger writing canon - are criticisms; indeed, they are respectful acknowledgements of his mission statement in writing, and the effect that his fiction has had upon the genre.  Indeed, as the New York Times eulogy points out, Harrison himself even spoke of his intent to satirise the idiocies and moral innequities that he saw in science fiction.

You then taking words that he expressly meant to function as a parody of authoritarian overreaching and then arguing that he would approve of such actions is comically misguided, and misses his entire point.  That would be like arguing that Orwell loved farms run by animals.

Indeed, I'm starting to wonder if you have even read the book...

Modifié par drayfish, 05 novembre 2012 - 12:24 .

[Dr_Extrem]

Seival wrote...
Finally, this only proves my theory: ...Ask some person, who disliked ME3 ending, to read some good old sci-fi book and describe what did he understand afterwards, and that person will call the book "nonsence" or "nice adventure".

so in your opinion, anybody who does not like the endings is undiscerning and or uneducated? ...

if your answer is yes, mine is: "this exchange is over."

[Redbelle]

So you discount the reviews and opinions of those who have read the book when they are presented by someone who hasn't read the book?

Seiv. Re-read the quotes. Drayfish DIDN'T say that the book was bad. Merely that a professional newspaper and other websites agree that his works do contain satire.

You know. I was working on a summary of Frank Herbert's Dune. Charle's Stross Rule34 and just cause, Peter David's Star Trek Excalibur series that took the one shot non canon model of Star Trek literature and spear headed the Star Wars model of making these stories canon.

But now?

NVM

Modifié par Redbelle, 05 novembre 2012 - 12:35 .