889 réponses à ce sujet

[Seival]

jeweledleah wrote...

 god I didn't think I would ever post on these forums again, but through series of events, I saw this thread (someone on my friendslist replied to it) and as Harry Harrison is one of my absolute favorite sci-fi writers EVER, of course I had to see this one.

Deathworld is also one of my favorite books of his to the point where in pretty much every game I play that allows you to name the characters - I have one named Meta (or Metta - depending on availability.  random amusing fact - in SWTOR its the name of my Trooper, who just happens to be voice by Jennifer Hale)

now that this is out of the way, IMO, OP?  you are completely misunderstanding the point of these books.  in fact, passages you quoted?  support those who do not like synthesis or control as solution.  you can almost directly use the first quote to disprove the idylia of synthesis as presented to us by bioware, and yet we are supposed to accept that that's the way things would be.

moreover.  if you had read Deathworld, then I'm assuming, you've read The Ethical engineer?  a lot of defenders of Synthesis remind me of Micah.  strongly.  their reasoning seems to be very similar.

the fact that you compared Harry Harrison's writing to the writing in Mass Effect, puting them on equal standing, especialy ME3?  saddens me.  sure there's surface resemblance.  the entire alien planet rising up to destroy the junkers, constantly improving against them, doign their best to destroy them and the twist is - we find out that the flora and fauna by themselves are not these evil beings, that junkers themselves are to blame.

but this is where resemblance ends.  at that twist of "bad guys are actualy good guys and understanding them and accepting them  - ends the sycle of ever escalating fighting"  

the Narrative in Deathworld is cohesive. it adds up.  it makes sence. its coherent.  the characters never go out of character.  they are never forced into doing something that doesn't fit the rest of their respresentation for the sake of railroading the plot.  Harrison is a freaking MASTER of twist/reveal endings.  I cannot say the same about twist in ME3.  ME1 and nature of Sovereign?  comes close.  ME2 and nature of collectors?  also comes close.  ME3 and nature of reapers and the catalyst?  eh....  YMMV  origin of Asari however, does come close to being a great twist/revelation.

either way.  the whole argument "you dislike it becasue you are too lazy/stupid/insert insult here" to understand it is one of the reasons why I stopped posting here or generaly discussing ME3.

I just coudln't resist, because a writer whose writing I grew up on, learned english with (oh yeah - reading him and Bradbury was how I studied the language) is being used in this absolutely awful context.

incidentaly - before I leave again?  I would strongly suggest that people who might wonder into this thread?  read some Harry Harrison.    good, smart sci-fi that is also well written.

Even through we have different views on the Deathworld and ME3 (I think that the first quote in OP supports Control and Synthesis, not Destroy), it's still nice to see someone who likes Harry Harrison books

Harrison is indeed MASTER of twist/reveal endings. And I can say the same about twist in ME3. The ending was COMPLETELY unpredictable and still fits the narrative just perfectly (especially after EC release).

Modifié par Seival, 05 novembre 2012 - 01:47 .

[drayfish]

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.

By the way, Seival - since you have clearly read the entirety of the book (and are not simply ignorantly spinning off a completely fatuous argument based upon the misreading of a single passage) - what happens to Jason (the character whose principles you claim to be quoting) at the end of the novel?

Exactly which ending - Destroy, Control or Synthesis - does he use to establish peace? 

...Or is there a fourth solution that completely undermines every point that you have been utterly inaccurately making?

Modifié par drayfish, 05 novembre 2012 - 01:48 .

[Epic777]

OP, how can the ending fit perfectly with the narrative when the opposite has been shown to the player? Example, the threat of organic extinction at the hands of synthetics is the justification for the catalyst's cycles of genocide. However the main synthetic race in the galaxy was losing the latest war against the Quarians.

[Seival]

MegaSovereign wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

So what you're saying is we should only question things when we are being told to question things.

Yea, that's called being selective. 

I think he's trying to say that the audience should be more understanding of logical inconsistencies in order to get to the ethical and philosophical contemplations.  I sorta agree, but only when you're stretching logic---not ignoring it. 

That makes sense. However, I don't think people are being "lazy" just because they are a bit more sensitive to those logical inconsistencies. If the narrative starts to break some peoples' suspension of disbelief then they will no longer care about the underlying message of the story.


Just an FYI,  I actually like the EC. I think it stays fairly consistent with the rest of the writing quality of the series. I just don't think it's fair or accurate to say that people who don't like the endings only don't because they aren't thinking hard enough.

It's easy. Some people became lazy about ME3 because the completely unpredictable ending shocked them. I experienced that myself, and it was really hard to get out of the shock to start thinking about the game constructively. But I did it eventually, as you can see...

...Story which is able to shock you that much - is really strong story, written by very good writer.

[drayfish]

Seival wrote...

It's easy. Some people became lazy about ME3 because the completely unpredictable ending shocked them. I experienced that myself, and it was really hard to get out of the shock to start thinking about the game constructively. But I did it eventually, as you can see...

...Story which is able to shock you that much - is really strong story, written by very good writer.

Harry Potter being eaten by a pterydactyl two pages from the end would have been a 'shock' - doesn't make it good writing.

And again: what happens at the end of Deathworld?  What does Jason decide?

[MegaSovereign]

Seival wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

So what you're saying is we should only question things when we are being told to question things.

Yea, that's called being selective. 

I think he's trying to say that the audience should be more understanding of logical inconsistencies in order to get to the ethical and philosophical contemplations.  I sorta agree, but only when you're stretching logic---not ignoring it. 

That makes sense. However, I don't think people are being "lazy" just because they are a bit more sensitive to those logical inconsistencies. If the narrative starts to break some peoples' suspension of disbelief then they will no longer care about the underlying message of the story.


Just an FYI,  I actually like the EC. I think it stays fairly consistent with the rest of the writing quality of the series. I just don't think it's fair or accurate to say that people who don't like the endings only don't because they aren't thinking hard enough.

It's easy. Some people became lazy about ME3 because the completely unpredictable ending shocked them. I experienced that myself, and it was really hard to get out of the shock to start thinking about the game constructively. But I did it eventually, as you can see...

...Story which is able to shock you that much - is really strong story, written by very good writer.

Shock....um I think most people who didn't like it were more "disappointed" than shocked.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Can't say I know much about the author you speak of, but I do get the general idea behind your post and will speak to that.

Frankly I'm neutral on the nature of the catalyst reveal. On the upside, I like a good twist. I also believe the notion that the Reapers were great villains on their own before this was nonsense (I'd have agreed during ME1, but after it...) so I did like learning there was more to them than Harbinger's trite trash-talking and motives we can simply never hope to know of.

On the downside, it really did need more foreshadowing than what the vanilla game gave it. I'd have sooner scrapped a lot of Cerberus from the game for Leviathan. The player should have been able to uncover clues that point them to the big reveal.

Replaying ME3, it bears a lot of similarity to the Cerberus Coup - came completely out of nowhere, and that made it silly. With the ending, all you have in main game is a hint from the Prothean VI on Thessia. That's poor writing, plain and simple.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 05 novembre 2012 - 02:06 .

[Seival]

drayfish wrote...

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.

By the way, Seival - since you have clearly read the entirety of the book (and are not simply ignorantly spinning off a completely fatuous argument based upon the misreading of a single passage) - what happens to Jason (the character whose principles you claim to be quoting) at the end of the novel?

Exactly which ending - Destroy, Control or Synthesis - does he use to establish peace? 

...Or is there a fourth solution that completely undermines every point that you have been utterly inaccurately making?

You can say that he establishes all three solutions at the same time. But the point is not in what would Jason choose in ME3 (he would choose Synthesis most likely). The Deathworld and Mass Effect rise some similar philosophical questions in similar manner. That's what make both stories really good.

[RogueBot]

drayfish wrote...

Seival wrote...

It's easy. Some people became lazy about ME3 because the completely unpredictable ending shocked them. I experienced that myself, and it was really hard to get out of the shock to start thinking about the game constructively. But I did it eventually, as you can see...

...Story which is able to shock you that much - is really strong story, written by very good writer.

Harry Potter being eaten by a pterydactyl two pages from the end would have been a 'shock' - doesn't make it good writing.

Nonsense. That'd be a beautiful ending. Harry should have died 16 years before, but got off on a stroke of luck, essentially. If Harry killled Voldemort, then Harry got killed by a pterydactyl, that'd be a perfect ending. Death always gets his man, one way or another.

Plus, it would illustrate to its young audience the futility of becoming emotionally invested in entertainment, much like Mass Effect 3 does. J.K. Rowling would be so meta if she did this!

[Seival]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Seival wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

So what you're saying is we should only question things when we are being told to question things.

Yea, that's called being selective. 

I think he's trying to say that the audience should be more understanding of logical inconsistencies in order to get to the ethical and philosophical contemplations.  I sorta agree, but only when you're stretching logic---not ignoring it. 

That makes sense. However, I don't think people are being "lazy" just because they are a bit more sensitive to those logical inconsistencies. If the narrative starts to break some peoples' suspension of disbelief then they will no longer care about the underlying message of the story.


Just an FYI,  I actually like the EC. I think it stays fairly consistent with the rest of the writing quality of the series. I just don't think it's fair or accurate to say that people who don't like the endings only don't because they aren't thinking hard enough.

It's easy. Some people became lazy about ME3 because the completely unpredictable ending shocked them. I experienced that myself, and it was really hard to get out of the shock to start thinking about the game constructively. But I did it eventually, as you can see...

...Story which is able to shock you that much - is really strong story, written by very good writer.

Shock....um I think most people who didn't like it were more "disappointed" than shocked.

Disappointment was a reaction to shock obviously. Like I said, I experienced that myself, but managed to overcome both shock and disappointment.

[drayfish]

Seival wrote...

drayfish wrote...

By the way, Seival - since you have clearly read the entirety of the book (and are not simply ignorantly spinning off a completely fatuous argument based upon the misreading of a single passage) - what happens to Jason (the character whose principles you claim to be quoting) at the end of the novel?

Exactly which ending - Destroy, Control or Synthesis - does he use to establish peace? 

...Or is there a fourth solution that completely undermines every point that you have been utterly inaccurately making?

You can say that he establishes all three solutions at the same time. But the point is not in what would Jason choose in ME3 (he would choose Synthesis most likely). The Deathworld and Mass Effect rise some similar philosophical questions in similar manner. That's what make both stories really good.

...Ah, no.  No, not at all.  (And you were the one who argued in the OP that this book should be looked at for its equivalency with Mass Effect!)

Jason establishes peace through cooperation and understanding.

He raises the issues that you quote, only to realise through the course of his experience that they are completely incapable or resolving the problems that these societies face.  He rejects them as fatuous and embraces collaboration.

No genocides; no brainwashing; no mutating anyone.  He outgrows such vulgarities and establishes true peace.

The complete opposite of what you are mistakenly trying to argue.

Modifié par drayfish, 05 novembre 2012 - 02:19 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

RogueBot wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Seival wrote...

It's easy. Some people became lazy about ME3 because the completely unpredictable ending shocked them. I experienced that myself, and it was really hard to get out of the shock to start thinking about the game constructively. But I did it eventually, as you can see...

...Story which is able to shock you that much - is really strong story, written by very good writer.

Harry Potter being eaten by a pterydactyl two pages from the end would have been a 'shock' - doesn't make it good writing.

Nonsense. That'd be a beautiful ending. Harry should have died 16 years before, but got off on a stroke of luck, essentially. If Harry killled Voldemort, then Harry got killed by a pterydactyl, that'd be a perfect ending. Death always gets his man, one way or another.

Plus, it would illustrate to its young audience the futility of becoming emotionally invested in entertainment, much like Mass Effect 3 does. J.K. Rowling would be so meta if she did this!

Excuse me while I get started on the fanfic

[GreyLycanTrope]

Seival wrote...
Disappointment was a reaction to shock obviously. Like I said, I experienced that myself, but managed to overcome both shock and disappointment.

A good shock is when we see a story take an unexpected but believable turn, being shocked at how poor the presented premise holds up to scrutiny is something else.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 05 novembre 2012 - 02:27 .

[Seival]

drayfish wrote...

Seival wrote...

drayfish wrote...

By the way, Seival - since you have clearly read the entirety of the book (and are not simply ignorantly spinning off a completely fatuous argument based upon the misreading of a single passage) - what happens to Jason (the character whose principles you claim to be quoting) at the end of the novel?

Exactly which ending - Destroy, Control or Synthesis - does he use to establish peace? 

...Or is there a fourth solution that completely undermines every point that you have been utterly inaccurately making?

You can say that he establishes all three solutions at the same time. But the point is not in what would Jason choose in ME3 (he would choose Synthesis most likely). The Deathworld and Mass Effect rise some similar philosophical questions in similar manner. That's what make both stories really good.

...Ah, no.  No, not at all.  (And you were the one who argued in the OP that this book should be looked at for its equivalency with Mass Effect!)

Jason establishes peace through cooperation and understanding.

He raises the issues that you quote, only to realise through the course of his experience that they are completely incapable or resolving the problems that these societies face.  He rejects them as fatuous and embraces collaboration.

No genocides; no brainwashing; no mutating anyone.  He outgrows such vulgarities and establishes true peace.

The complete opposite of what you are mistakenly trying to argue.

You think so only because the scale of the conflict in Deathworld was too small compared to Mass Effect.

In Deathworld many inflexible people will eventually die, the rest will have to be integrated into the world in correct manner (aka "Synthesized"), and/or remain under control to avoid some unpleasent "accidents" in the future.

Modifié par Seival, 05 novembre 2012 - 02:34 .

[drayfish]

Seival wrote...

drayfish wrote...

...Ah, no.  No, not at all.  (And you were the one who argued in the OP that this book should be looked at for its equivalency with Mass Effect!)

Jason establishes peace through cooperation and understanding.

He raises the issues that you quote, only to realise through the course of his experience that they are completely incapable or resolving the problems that these societies face.  He rejects them as fatuous and embraces collaboration.

No genocides; no brainwashing; no mutating anyone.  He outgrows such vulgarities and establishes true peace.

The complete opposite of what you are mistakenly trying to argue.

You think so only because the scale of the conflict in Deathworld was too small compared to Mass Effect.

In Deathworld many inflexible people will eventually die, the rest will have to be integrated into the world in correct manner (aka "Synthesized"), and/or remain under control to avoid some unpleasent "accidents" in the future.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and is a patent misreading of the text.  (And again: you are the one who said that Deathworld and Mass Effect should be compared.)

...So to summarise, this entire thread has just been perpetrated on your own head canon?  Is this just about synthesis camps again?

Just to be clear: the fiction that you sighted argues the complete opposite of what you says it does; the author you referenced was being satirical, and in all of his fiction utterly contradicts the notion that people should be forced by authority to change against their will; and you have totally rewritten the plot in your mind to fit your very specific vision of the Mass Effect narrative.

And yet somehow it is other people who need to stop being so ignorant and think about the science fiction they read before spouting off a load of hypocritical, ill-informed nonsense?

Got it.  Although do be sure to take your own advice.

Modifié par drayfish, 05 novembre 2012 - 03:21 .

[TheRealJayDee]

3DandBeyond wrote...

I don't think I am too stupid and I have yet to have one pro-ending person give me any compelling intelligent explanation as to the sense of these endings. 

Same here. 

What I remember is that we had people like Amioran, who I believe filled pages over pages basically telling people that unless they had published papers on the "Chaos vs Order" theme they were in no position at all to even be allowed to have an opinion on ME3's writing. And yeah, things like what is going on here right now...

Seival wrote...

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

Seival wrote...

In my opinion most people who dislike the endings don't bother to analize them. Why? Because it so much easier to whine and think that you know how to write books better than professional writers...

...In short, I believe that most haters are just lazy, no matter educated or not.

Like, seriously?!

So in the end I really think this there is a lot of truth in this:
 

Greylycantrope wrote...

The emperor has no clothes on, seriously that's what is happening.

[FlamingBoy]

[/quote]
In my opinion most people who dislike the endings don't bother to analize them. Why? Because it so much easier to whine and think that you know how to write books better than professional writers...

...In short, I believe that most haters are just lazy, no matter educated or not.

EDIT: Uneducated people can also make right conclusions by the way. "Uneducated" doesn't mean "stupid", and I have a feeling that you consider "uneducated" word as an insult. Some uneducated people can be much more smart than educated ones.[/quote]








These statements are extrodinarly arrogant, a generalization that people who dislike the endings are somehow lazy and/or uneducated (which you now clarified as not stupid, which questions the point you were trying to make)

Despite your edit of to clarify education, you bring peoples intelligence as a point of contention and quite frankly its astonding to me that you can not see the hipocracy in claiming that mass effect 3 is worth analyzing (being a "misunderstood creation" that some writers would have liked) but provide no deep or detailed analysis into why people react this way instead of bringing it down to "lazy" or "uneducated. In fact your argument is just a clever offshoot of the "entitlement" argument thats thrown around these days with having no clue what the words actually mean.

In fact your argument is so slanted in the analysis of the work (averagly I might add, analysing what other writers "would" have said, is not an analysis, deconstruction and fenemism criticism would be an analysis) to praise it that you have failed to mention how Mass Effect 3 is a step forward in literary fiction and what does it mean to the reader.

Emulating what has been done better in books and films is not a step forward in analytical writing as a whole. Doing the exact same thing but with only the core difference that its done in a video game has no value. You use Harry Harrison as someone who would have loved the ending to mass effect 3, this writer was active in the 60's and 70's. It may be true that is work may transcend time because it was good writing in a time that was appropriate expanding science fiction as we know it. Mass Effect 3 does not achieve this.

I apologize for bolding some of the words and I recognize that they no way bolster my argument, the reason why I did it because those were the points I wanted to make it, I believe them to be more significant than the others also they are in direct relation to your post that I have quoted.

Modifié par FlamingBoy, 05 novembre 2012 - 06:27 .

[FlamingBoy]

well obviously i am having trouble with the quote function, I have separated the paragraphs

[EnvyTB075]

ITT: Seival showing a clear disconnect with reality.

[Applepie_Svk]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Seival wrote...
Disappointment was a reaction to shock obviously. Like I said, I experienced that myself, but managed to overcome both shock and disappointment.

A good shock is when we see a story take an unexpected but believable turn, being shocked at how poor the presented premise holds up to scrutiny is something else.

EnvyTB075 wrote...

ITT: Seival showing a clear disconnect with reality.

By this logic, everyone which is unhappy from ME3 endings is not so because how poor and bad writing it was but he is in fact unhappy of such a great writing which force him to be dissapointed...I have just a realy hard rapefest in my head....
  
This stattement is so rational as Leviathan´s -the Intelligence still serve its purpose- 5 min later - intelligence won´t stop till achieve purpose...

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 05 novembre 2012 - 07:43 .

[Bill Casey]

Gotta love watching Seival debate literature with Drayfish...



I'm curious as to Seival's thoughts on Johnathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal"...

[Redbelle]

Ok. Seiv has clearly lost the plot.......plots......... and has woven his own reality around ME3, and Deathworld. (A book he has tried to talk about before a month ago according to his forum page).

Yet it is clear, both from his responses to those who have read the book, and to those who haven't and reached for the summary's/reviews of book and author, that Seiv refuses to acknowledge any view but his own.

I feel like I'm talking to the catalyst. In fact Seiv really seems to like the Catalyst. And the Catalyst was.......................

You know what? I think we're done here.

Life's to short.

Modifié par Redbelle, 05 novembre 2012 - 07:43 .

[Applepie_Svk]

Redbelle wrote...


I feel like I'm talking to the catalyst. In fact Seiv really seems to like the Catalyst. And the Catalyst was.......................

You know what? I think we're done here.

Life's to short.

seems legit...