889 réponses à ce sujet

[Dr_Extrem]

Zan51 wrote...

Seival wrote...

...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".

Ooh I have just seen this! How wrong you are! I am an SF writer, 8 books professionally publuished, member of SFWA, Science Fiction and Fatasy Writers of America, had numerous short stories published, many of them SF war stories, and I KNOW the endings of ME3 are written badly!  And I grew up reading all the good classic SF and STILL love it!

as a professional writer 

- would you come up with a "deus ex machina" in one of your books?
- did i get the right impression, that the background plot of the first 2 games are not conform with the one of the 3rd game?
- why do you think, the endings feel "out of place" to a lot of people?


thanks in advance for answering

[Redbelle]

Zan51 wrote...

Seival wrote...

...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".

Ooh I have just seen this! How wrong you are! I am an SF writer, 8 books professionally publuished, member of SFWA, Science Fiction and Fatasy Writers of America, had numerous short stories published, many of them SF war stories, and I KNOW the endings of ME3 are written badly!  And I grew up reading all the good classic SF and STILL love it!

But writers change and evolve over time, you only have to look at Arthur C Clark' s City and the Stars and then hiis later stuff. Early writing was plot driven, people mattered, later they became cardboard cut outs moved around his "amazing" tech worlds with very little plot at all because that didn't matter, it was a showcase, no more, for his ideas.

Get off your high horse of generalities, they are cliches and never work!  We are indiiduals, or as the Brit cult TV show said , "I am a person not #6!"  We change and grow and few here fit your ideas of what you think we are.

FYI for maybe the last 8 or so years, the SF Community, the professional writers of SF fiction that is, wrote only about the near future and much of it was a tad dark and deptressing. However, we are now looking back out to space with hope agfain and the literature is lighter in mood, more stories about colonies that work pretty well, and exploring.

That is where you find the true pulse of the SF world, not in the games and movies, they are Hollywood driven. The novels and stories are people driven by individual writers. We left this dark gritty wasteland of a future vision behind several years ago. Pity Bioware wasn't up to speed!

You can keep a finger on the SF writing community by reading magazines such as Analog every month. It's a good indicator of where the collective consciousness of writers of SF is at.

I like the positive vibe this post creates. Seiv has seemingly decided to abandon hope, faith and human spirit for cold logic and science. But without the former to guide the latter what future would we create for ourselves but a dark one where we tred on our own humanity which would diminish who we are.

But not everyone is cut to think purely in logic or to develop debate points. We each have our own unique talents. Even so we can take the time to develop new talents should we so choose. But rather, as a principal, it should be the individual who chooses what is right for them. Not some faceless Starbrat with Shepard roped in as a lackey. (Breath Red......... it's just a game).

I hope that our media resist the impulse to get moody on us. I like my hero stories where adversity is overcome with grit, spit and a mighty hammer, shield or suit of armour and a cape.

Maybe even a quip or two

And an N7 rifle!

Modifié par Redbelle, 05 novembre 2012 - 08:06 .

[Archonsg]

@zan51

Huh.
Could have sworn the Dr said something like that.
I blame it on my aging mind.

Will need to check The Prisoner out too.

Speaking of Sci-Fi military books, so far one of the "better" ones I can think of, are the Lost Fleet series by Jack Campbell, due to rather meticulous portrayal of time lapse and combat in a 3D environment. 

Any suggestions, in your opinion, of a good military sci-fi book or series?

Modifié par Archonsg, 05 novembre 2012 - 08:13 .

[Redbelle]

Archonsg wrote...

@zan51

Huh.
Could have sworn the Dr said something like that.
I blame it on my aging mind.

Will need to check The Prisoner out too.

Speaking of Sci-Fi military books, so far one of the "better" ones I can think of, are the Lost Fleet series by Jack Campbell, due to rather meticulous portrayal of time lapse and combat in a 3D environment. 

Any suggestions, in your opinion, of a good military sci-fi book or series?

Off the top of my head I can't think of any aside from Jack Campbell's 'Stark's War' series. Lost Fleet does it for me too

[Archonsg]

@redbelle
Heya, good to see you are still around. Too many of the "old guard" have left, can't say I blame them.

If you don't mind "campy" stuff, or soft sci-fi John Ringo's Citadel series isn't too bad. Its a little silly at times (talk about DEM ... ) but a fun read. 

Haven't read anything as "Heavy" in ages.

Modifié par Archonsg, 05 novembre 2012 - 08:36 .

[KingZayd]

I certainly wouldn't want to read any sci-fi written by someone who loves ME3's ending.

[ld1449]

dreamgazer wrote...

ld1449 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

These are extremely juvenile choices, derived from other stories, taken out of context and slapped into this game with no rational or intellectual thought attached.  They were simply a way to end this.

No, it's pretty obvious they could've gone a simpler route to just "end" this, complete with explosions and LI kisses and fist-pumps.

And they did put rational and intellectual thought into the choices, evidenced by how they conflict with the story's themes and precedents, how they play into the characters' alignments, and how the audience views science-fiction as a genre---as well as the meta perspective of the implications. They just didn't didn't put enough into it to focus the perspective, and they weren't thorough with the practicality of their execution.

So...according to you...a ****up means its well thought out?

Why didn't I have you as my Literature teacher in college. My life would have been so simple.

Did I ever say a "**** up"? No.  I said how choosing between the options creates a conflict with the story's themes and precedents.

You don't have to pick any specific choice.

If at any point the author(s) of a story conflict with precedent elements and thematic consistency, of that same story its by and large considered- a **** up -weather you labeled it or not as a ****up, is irrelevant.

"They put a lot of thought into it as evidenced by how it conflicts with theme and precedents-"

almost literally translates to,

"It looks like a **** up, acts like a **** up, and smells like a **** up, therefore it must be brilliant."

Even by just taking it into the context of "Shepard" rather than the thematic elements, Shepard has been preaching about how control doesn't work for the entire game (no matter if paragon or renegade) only to then get hit with a bolt of stupid at the end and say "Oh, it can work"

This is not "brilliant" character evolution, its called character breaking.

Also considered a **** up.

If the word **** up does not work for you call it what you want. "Ya done goofed" "Screwed it up" "Doesn't work" "Mistake" the list goes on and on and on.

Modifié par ld1449, 05 novembre 2012 - 08:45 .

[ld1449]

KingZayd wrote...

I certainly wouldn't want to read any sci-fi written by someone who loves ME3's ending.

You don't have to worry. Several Sci-fi writers, both from TV series and books have already flat out stated ME3's ending (along with the concept of the crucible itself) largely sucks.

There's this thing called delusion, Seival is living in it.

[Reorte]

Redbelle wrote...

I like the positive vibe this post creates. Seiv has seemingly decided to abandon hope, faith and human spirit for cold logic and science. But without the former to guide the latter what future would we create for ourselves but a dark one where we tred on our own humanity which would diminish who we are.

But not everyone is cut to think purely in logic or to develop debate points. We each have our own unique talents. Even so we can take the time to develop new talents should we so choose. But rather, as a principal, it should be the individual who chooses what is right for them. Not some faceless Starbrat with Shepard roped in as a lackey. (Breath Red......... it's just a game).

Seival's defence isn't based on pure logic either though because there's precious little of that. Whatever the ending is it isn't unpopular because it's cold, hard, rigid and logical but devoid of character and life.

[EnvyTB075]

Go home Dreman, you are drunk.

[M Hedonist]

Let's get to the real question here: Would these genius sci-fi writers love the endings if they depicted Mass Relay test jumps?

[The Night Mammoth]

Sauruz wrote...

Let's get to the real question here: Would these genius sci-fi writers love the endings if they depicted Mass Relay test jumps?

I dunno, but I think we should ask 60's spiderman, to be honest. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 05 novembre 2012 - 09:49 .

[M Hedonist]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

Let's get to the real question here: Would these genius sci-fi writers love the endings if they depicted Mass Relay test jumps?

I dunno, but I think we should ask 60's spiderman, to be honest. 

[M Hedonist]

ld1449 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

I certainly wouldn't want to read any sci-fi written by someone who loves ME3's ending.

You don't have to worry. Several Sci-fi writers, both from TV series and books have already flat out stated ME3's ending (along with the concept of the crucible itself) largely sucks.

There's this thing called delusion, Seival is living in it.

These Sci-Fi writers don't count because they aren't dead yet and we can't interpret opinions onto them.

[Yate]

good thread

ignore the refusal crybabies

[dreamgazer]

  

ld1449 wrote...

If at any point the author(s) of a story conflict with precedent elements and thematic consistency, of that same story its by and large considered- a **** up -weather you labeled it or not as a ****up, is irrelevant. 

"They put a lot of thought into it as evidenced by how it conflicts with theme and precedents-" 

almost literally translates to, 

"It looks like a **** up, acts like a **** up, and smells like a **** up, therefore it must be brilliant."

Nope. If it conflicts with what the narrative has put in place beforehand, then it's a sign that something might be wrong with that decision.  You have to discern that for yourself, and I'm sorry the writers didn't hold your hand through the process. That's why it's kinda interesting, though, and why you have to think about what's going to happen in the long run---not just the brief glimpse you're given at the tail end.  Use your brain, if you want.

Even by just taking it into the context of "Shepard" rather than the thematic elements, Shepard has been preaching about how control doesn't work for the entire game (no matter if paragon or renegade) only to then get hit with a bolt of stupid at the end and say "Oh, it can work"

Mine didn't say or fully suggest that; mine acknowledged that Illusive Man was "right" about it being an option, confirmed that the process would, in fact, harness control of the Reapers, and denied that option. Mine remembered the cautionary tales laid out from previous experiences, even when presented with the option to take control. Themes and precedents, and on a meta scale.  Having the options to do something doesn't mean that you should do something. 

I'm not conditioned to think completely in binary terms, unless it's absolutely merited.  I acknowledge the flaws in the ending's design, where there are plenty, and dig into what's there. And there's thought present in the ending, despite your ... uh, forceful assurance that there isn't.

PS: Your tone doesn't reinforce your point in the way you think it does.

[3DandBeyond]

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Add, Shepard doesnot become weak and moronic. You can have hearguewiththe catalystthe entire time, even refuse it. You just don't like the results of refuse.

No, you cannot argue against the catalyst's logic, at best you can tell it that killing people is bad. But you cannot argue against the fact that synthethics will always destroy organics or that there will be conflicts between them, even though Shepard can easily have evidence that proves the contary.

You can clear dissagree and not make a choiceor pick destory which he is told ensure the conflict happens agein.

Shepard never argues the point about synthethic vs organics. As mentioned Shepard only says "killing people is wrong" to the catalyst. Shepard does not put up any kind of fight whatsoever beyond the superficial.

And also, why does Shepard not try to persuade the catalyst into not using the crucible? Why can't Shepard try to have the catalyst just cease fire and go away? Just 5 minutes ago Shepard used his power of persuasion to either have a crazed TIM see the error of his way and thereby having him commit suicide, or mocking him into lowering his guard. Yet now with the catalyst, a crazed AI, Shepard is suddenly at a loss?

And before you say refuse, it's not the same since Shepard just shuts the conversation down in it.

This exactly.  The kid says his solution no longer works, so the only sensible thing to do would be to stop using it then.  Shepard should say at least that if it doesn't work, then stop using it (the reapers).  Shepard merely says things like the catalyst is killing people (and never counters the kid's assertion that he isn't).  Shepard says the reapers are at war now (and never counters the idiotic assertion that the reapers are like a cleansing fire-when the kid is the one with the blow torch).  Shepard puts up what many would call a pitiful bit of an argument-it's what people do when they don't really care about something.  They don't try to disagree and just accept what they are told.  

The kid is talking to Shepard and is not offering any real argument.  Refuse is the writer's putting their fingers in their ears and telling players they are morons for not making a choice.  The writers also seem to have made TIM and Cerberus into far more of an enemy than the kid and the reapers-as you said, at least with TIM Shepard put up a fight and in that instance, Shepard was somehow being controlled by TIM.  It is idiotic to think that Shepard, after all of this, would just acquiesce and consider that stupid crap suddenly makes sense. 

Might as well just have Shepard  say to the kid, "you're right, all of this has been just so we can help you.  Who cares about the trillions of lives lost because you are the most idiotic AI ever created and you were made by the most moronic organics that ever existed."  People in this galaxy trashed the Quarians over what happened with the geth and all, but Shepard is going to think that this is all good?  Leviathan created something far worse than the geth in making the catalyst.  And, Leviathans set the stage for the creation of the reapers, again something far worse than the geth.  The geth and the quarians were geniuses compared to all of this and so it's either the geth, as synthetics that must be destroyed, or the quarians as organics that must be made to suffer either death or the effects of these choices?  What about blowing Leviathan all to hell and telling them to take their misery with them-their creations and the creations of their thralls?

This again seems to me to be something that would have made more sense if there was a path to make the crucible be fully intact (whether it is well-protected or complete), so that it only affects the reapers and/or Leviathan.  They're the problems.  Not synthetics created now, but those created a long time ago.  Balance should be returned and be only in how well you achieve the goal, this goal of the galaxy today and not some old problem that does not fit in this time.  Tough choices should only be about how best to blast in their faces, which weapon would do the trick.  Those are the only tough choices I'd like to see at the end-which thing that makes them go boom works the best.

[3DandBeyond]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

Let's get to the real question here: Would these genius sci-fi writers love the endings if they depicted Mass Relay test jumps?

I dunno, but I think we should ask 60's spiderman, to be honest. 

Probably they'd prefer satin sheets for Reaper Shepard and his/her LI, Liara.  But then again Liara might object to the whole thing.  If so, she would have to be placed on a reservation on some remote planet until she gets right in the head again.

[dreamgazer]

3DandBeyond wrote...

If so, she would have to be placed on a reservation on some remote planet until she gets right in the head again.

I have got to find that thread.

[ld1449]

dreamgazer wrote...

  

ld1449 wrote...

If at any point the author(s) of a story conflict with precedent elements and thematic consistency, of that same story its by and large considered- a **** up -weather you labeled it or not as a ****up, is irrelevant. 

"They put a lot of thought into it as evidenced by how it conflicts with theme and precedents-" 

almost literally translates to, 

"It looks like a **** up, acts like a **** up, and smells like a **** up, therefore it must be brilliant."

Nope. If it conflicts with what the narrative has put in place beforehand, then it's a sign that something might be wrong with that decision.  You have to discern that for yourself, and I'm sorry the writers didn't hold your hand through the process. That's why it's kinda interesting, though, and why you have to think about what's going to happen in the long run---not just the brief glimpse you're given at the tail end.  Use your brain, if you want.

Even by just taking it into the context of "Shepard" rather than the thematic elements, Shepard has been preaching about how control doesn't work for the entire game (no matter if paragon or renegade) only to then get hit with a bolt of stupid at the end and say "Oh, it can work"

Mine didn't say or fully suggest that; mine acknowledged that Illusive Man was "right" about it being an option, confirmed that the process would, in fact, harness control of the Reapers, and denied that option. Mine remembered the cautionary tales laid out from previous experiences, even when presented with the option to take control. Themes and precedents, and on a meta scale.  Having the options to do something doesn't mean that you should do something. 

I'm not conditioned to think completely in binary terms, unless it's absolutely merited.  I acknowledge the flaws in the ending's design, where there are plenty, and dig into what's there. And there's thought present in the ending, despite your ... uh, forceful assurance that there isn't.

PS: Your tone doesn't reinforce your point in the way you think it does.

1) Dark Souls, doesn't hold your hand, and it does so quite well, this (ME3) however is for all intents and purposes, a mess.

Because even for all the lack of hand holding and the necessity of interpretation in Dark Souls all the answers are right there in game if you're willing to look and connect the dots.

If you can't differentiate between an error and a style of writing I'm wasting my time.

2) You're using your personal Shepard/view and implementing it onto the whole game. "Its fine because I saw it as such and such"

The moment a narrative, be it game, movie or book 'requires' meta thinking to solve XYZ question, it has largely failed its point as a Narrative. Meta thinking should be an optional tool, not a requirement. If people MUST look outside the story itself to find the answers the story should provide, it is lacking.


3) The only meritable thought I find present in this ending is "How much more can I rip off of Deus ex."



And as for the PS- Speak for yourself, I've read your posts

Modifié par ld1449, 05 novembre 2012 - 10:33 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Sauruz wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

Let's get to the real question here: Would these genius sci-fi writers love the endings if they depicted Mass Relay test jumps?

I dunno, but I think we should ask 60's spiderman, to be honest. 

I would continue, but I'd prefer not to incur ban number six . Especially since they've all been because of spiderman. And almost exclusively in Sieval's threads. 

[Seboist]

"Genius" and "Sci-fi" are at the bottom of the list of words that most appropriately describe the ME sequels.

[dreamgazer]

ld1449 wrote...

1) Dark Souls, doesn't hold your hand, and it does so quite well, this (ME3) however is for all intents and purposes, a mess.

Because even for all the lack of hand holding and the necessity of interpretation in Dark Souls all the answers are right there in game if you're willing to look and connect the dots.

If you can't differentiate between an error and a style of writing I'm wasting my time.

I can, thank you. And they're there in ME3, too---in the entire series, actually. Also, Dark Souls recently made a "worst ending" list, pretty close in rank to the ending you're hating now.

2) You're using your personal Shepard/view and implementing it onto the whole game. "Its fine because I saw it as such and such"

The moment a narrative, be it game, movie or book 'requires' meta thinking to solve XYZ question, it has largely failed its point as a Narrative. Meta thinking should be an optional tool, not a requirement. If people MUST look outside the story itself to find the answers the story should provide, it is lacking.

Why is that? Why is asking the audience for their own perception of the entire story arc, beyond the surface-level, some form of failure---especially in the last moments of the trilogy? Provoking them to do so is actually really damn intriguing, despite the hiccups in execution.

3) The only meritable thought I find present in this ending is "How much more can I rip off of Deus ex."

... which borrowed a similar decision-making paradigm that has persevered in science-fiction for quite a long time. It wasn't the first, and it won't be the last.

And as for the PS- Speak for yourself, I've read your posts

Thanks for reading! I tend to steer away from being a belligerent jagoff as often as I can.

[M Hedonist]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

Let's get to the real question here: Would these genius sci-fi writers love the endings if they depicted Mass Relay test jumps?

I dunno, but I think we should ask 60's spiderman, to be honest. 

I would continue, but I'd prefer not to incur ban number six . Especially since they've all been because of spiderman. And almost exclusively in Sieval's threads. 

Six? Woah. I've got some catching up to do. And I already felt bad for having missed the first 22 pages of a Seival thread.

[The Night Mammoth]

Sauruz wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

Let's get to the real question here: Would these genius sci-fi writers love the endings if they depicted Mass Relay test jumps?

I dunno, but I think we should ask 60's spiderman, to be honest. 

*snip*

I would continue, but I'd prefer not to incur ban number six . Especially since they've all been because of spiderman. And almost exclusively in Sieval's threads. 

Six? Woah. I've got some catching up to do. And I already felt bad for having missed the first 22 pages of a Seival thread.

Yep, regular old internet bad*ss over here. 

Ah those were the days. Seeing a Seival theory or appreciation thread, or one of those by that guy who said Cerberus were right, and spamming it to destruction.