648 réponses à ce sujet

[ScriptBabe]

Okay, let me try to wade into this. First we're talking about fiction not life. Fiction is not meant to be a diary of "how life really is". Fiction is there to be uplifting, to be touching, to be funny, to be heroic, to celebrate love and friendship and family. "Happy ending" that are all unicorns and rainbows and bunnies oft time feel like empty calories because as a reader/viewer you don't believe that the efforts and trials of the hero have justified that ending. If the victory has been won by embodying the traits and qualities we as a society value then the ending will be satisfying. This is not to say there can't be loss. I actually rather loved the idea of a galactic dark age, but the qualities that made me love these characters would give me hope that the galaxy and the various races would rebuild and craft and even better future because of what they had learned and gained from defeating the Reapers.

And even in our tragedies there is the kernel of hope, of light to illuminate the darkness. Look at Lear. Yes, they die, but Lear and Cordelia are reunited and have found the love that once bound them together.

I thought the latest Batman movie failed on a whole lot of levels, but one of the reasons I really disliked it was because of that final scene of Bruce and Cat Woman together in Italy and Alfred smiling at them. As presented in that story, Batman hadn't "earned" his happy ending. This was one case where I wanted noble self-sacrifice because the hope was there, the future embodied in the young cop preparing to take up the mantel of the protector of Gotham.

There is also the issue of the promises that creators make to our audience. They are conventions to fiction that should be observed. If you pick up a romance it better end up with the couple getting together at the end or the audience is not going to be pleased. In a mystery the detective will bring the killer to justice and society will again be safe. We read because we want those tales, they are part of our tradition, or myths, if you will.

Mass Effect promised me that through my efforts to build consensus, to bring together disperate people and races that we would prevail over a nihilistic enemy that embodied death not life. Instead I was offered choices that were, frankly, pretty repugnant to me. I keep going back to DA: Origins, but BioWare did it brilliantly in that game. There were options that a player could craft that would suit their particular style of play, of how they found comfort in myth. And they gave us that falling action scene where you had a sense of how it all came out.

The old man and the child didn't work because we didn't know them. We didn't care about them. We cared about our people and our Shepard's relationship with those people. We needed to see either our companions mourning us, or if we felt a "happy ending" was more appropriate our reunion with our people.

There is this tendency to think that dark and bleak is somehow more real. It's not. It's just easier to write so it often becomes a hallmark of young writers starting out, and of critics trying to seem sophisticated. Because to put together the pieces -- fully realized characters, foreshadowing, structure, earning the win, meeting reader/viewer expectations, etc. etc. that's what's truly hard.

Whoa, sorry about the wall of text. But I love my profession. I find it endlessly fascinating and I could talk about it for hours. But now I have to go back to work.

Modifié par ScriptBabe, 31 mars 2013 - 12:49 .

[ScriptBabe]

P.S. Iakus. Thank you for the snip of the Tolkien poem. That was really lovely, and there's a lot to chew on in that. And now I really do have to go and get both my hero's butts in motion to solve the problem in the script and the novel respectively. I'll check in later and see where the discussion has gone from here.

[chemiclord]

ScriptBabe wrote...

Okay, let me try to wade into this. First we're talking about fiction not life. Fiction is not meant to be a diary of "how life really is".

And I think we finally have our first real disagreement.

Because that what I think fiction HAS to be.  It's our challenge to the world.  It's how we say, "this is what our life is, and this is why it can (and should) be better."  But you can't make that challenge without showing how it IS first.

[Reorte]

David7204 wrote...

I've said this numerous times and I'll say it again - losses hit harder when they're the result of your actions (and triumphs are consequently more satisfying for the same reason). Games have the potential that no other storytelling medium has for exploiting that, so every conceivable result should be catered for, ideally. That's obviously not possible but a good selection need to be, with some convincingly harder to achieve than others. Then the loss when you screw up, loss of all the hopes for the future for your LI and so on can really punch you in the gut because you weren't good enough - YOU, the player, not just winding up dead because the script said so no matter what you do.

Also conversely negative results annoy because they're forced on you, and scripted victories feel cheap.

I'd be tough, though, to make things perfect. There's a lot of problems I can forsee that I have no idea how to solve.

I completely agree with that - it's impossible, there's no doubt about that, in the same way as the ideal is not needing a dialogue wheel at all and be able to have real conversations instead. What a well-designed game has to do is to try to do its best to provide as convincing an illusion that it can of that ideal, otherwise it's missing the huge advantage of a game as a storytelling medium. Pick a half-dozen or so outcomes that cover a good spread of the possibilities (bearing in mind that it's fiction anyway - in reality Shepard would probably never have made it off Eden Prime) and run with that.

Modifié par Reorte, 31 mars 2013 - 01:51 .

[chemiclord]

iakus wrote...

See, that's an ending I could have lived with.  You fought hard, you won, now it's time to pick up the pieces.  

That's exactly the sort of ending I think I deserved.  You may not like that term, but that's how I feel.

Judging from the raw FURY that emerged when Walter's idea was leaked (as well as the violent RAGE that came about when people thought the mass relays were destroyed in the initial endings), I think you and I would be the only people who WOULD have been okay with that.

[Reorte]

chemiclord wrote...

ScriptBabe wrote...

I don't disagree. A convention ie happy ending should also have been available. God knows Shepard had "earned" the win.

Okay... let me ask you... why?

I really dislike this sort of argument... that you "deserve" or "earned" something.  Why?  Does life have a scorekeeper?  That'd be news to me.  

Who decides what Shepard (or the player) "earned?"  Hate to break it to you... but life really doesn't care one whit what you think you "earned."  And it certainly wouldn't care about what Shepard "earned", either.

This is drifting into the realism vs. escapism argument though... and we've already established a massive impasse there.

Life doesn't care, a writer does though since ultimately he or she has to provide something that the audience finds satisfying. Most of life doesn't make a good story. Plus your point actually argues more against having a non-happy ending, at least if victory is achievable at all. Whilst life might not care those who try the hardest at getting what they want are more likely than those who don't, or who blunder along the path.

There seems to be a realism vs. escapism impasse in some quarters (I'm thinking in general, not looking at you here) where some seem to think that miserable == realistic, cheerful == escapism. Neither of those are true which is why I stick to my "games should aim to cover a broad spread of the possibilities", which will include a good amount of both.

[mtmercydave09]

The only thing that really bothered me about the endings, is that there wasn't even an option for a happy ending where everyone lived except the Reapers.  Hence having to resort to a mod to get that ending.

Heck even one or two more cutscenes showing the Normandy flying off to pick up Shepard and showing them reunited would have been enough.

The reason I see why people feel that they deserve a happy ending, is because if you do everything right in the game, do everything perfect with getting all the war assets, you should probably get a perfect result.

That wouldn't have been so hard to do since the endings are based on your effective military strength anyways. Get a perfect effective military strength score, get a perfect ending. The rest of the endings could have been left intact for those who didn't get a perfect effective military strength score.

Modifié par mtmercydave09, 31 mars 2013 - 02:11 .

[Reorte]

mtmercydave09 wrote...

The reason I see why people feel that they deserve a happy ending, is because if you do everything right in the game, do everything perfect with getting all the war assets, you should probably get a perfect result.

What we got ultimately failed on too levels. It was a kick in the gut at the personal level and the lack of loss for the final defeat of the Reapers was too unconvincingly happy for the rest of the galaxy, even for a perfect playthrough. Whilst the whole galactic dark age thing was going far too far the Crucible providing the means to defeat the Reapers, but still with a hard fight of it, losing more worlds in the process and taking years would've at least made sense (as much as anything Crucible-related could do at any rate).

[chemiclord]

Reorte wrote...

Life doesn't care, a writer does though since ultimately he or she has to provide something that the audience finds satisfying. Most of life doesn't make a good story. Plus your point actually argues more against having a non-happy ending, at least if victory is achievable at all. Whilst life might not care those who try the hardest at getting what they want are more likely than those who don't, or who blunder along the path.

There seems to be a realism vs. escapism impasse in some quarters (I'm thinking in general, not looking at you here) where some seem to think that miserable == realistic, cheerful == escapism. Neither of those are true which is why I stick to my "games should aim to cover a broad spread of the possibilities", which will include a good amount of both.

Yeah, I don't entirely like the "realism" and "escapism" stereotype either for precisely that reason.  But as long as you keep in mind it's more generalization than rule it's an acceptable shorthand for this sort of conversation.

And the problem I have with a "broad spread of the possibilities" is that if you make TOO "happy" an option, it defeats any moral choice a story presents you with.  What's the point in struggling with a decision if there's an option that gives you everything you want, and nothing you don't?  It's no longer a conundrum, and becomes a no-brainer.  There becomes a "right" way to play, and any other choice is the "wrong" one.

A great example of this is the Geth/Quarian conflict, and why I actually DON'T like how it wraps up.  If the option for peaceful settlement is there... why wouldn't you take it?  There's no conflict there... and if that solution isn't available, then you did something WRONG. 

[Reorte]

chemiclord wrote...


Yeah, I don't entirely like the "realism" and "escapism" stereotype either for precisely that reason.  But as long as you keep in mind it's more generalization than rule it's an acceptable shorthand for this sort of conversation.

And the problem I have with a "broad spread of the possibilities" is that if you make TOO "happy" an option, it defeats any moral choice a story presents you with.  What's the point in struggling with a decision if there's an option that gives you everything you want, and nothing you don't?  It's no longer a conundrum, and becomes a no-brainer.  There becomes a "right" way to play, and any other choice is the "wrong" one.

A great example of this is the Geth/Quarian conflict, and why I actually DON'T like how it wraps up.  If the option for peaceful settlement is there... why wouldn't you take it?  There's no conflict there... and if that solution isn't available, then you did something WRONG.

I think the reverse - what's the point of struggling with a decision if it's going to end up with half of it turning bad anyway? Might as well toss a coin. If a decision is going to be a struggle you need to believe that one choice will have a better result than the other. It's a conundrum when you first play the game since you don't know in advance exactly how everything will turn out. Sure, you may do in later games but that's metagaming anyway - at the risk of running back into the reality debate I'm sure most events in reality that haven't exactly gone well for anyone much could have some ideal outcome if the results of every decision could be known in advance and tried again.

In short the playthrough that matters is the first one. When things go wrong and it's because I screwed up that feels bad, and that's good. When things go wrong anyway I just get pissed off at someone else.

I'd add that any ideal outcome should require more than knowing simply which choices to make and be a struggle on every playthrough although I've no idea what the mechanic of that could be.

Modifié par Reorte, 31 mars 2013 - 02:43 .

[chemiclord]

Reorte wrote...

I think the reverse - what's the point of struggling with a decision if it's going to end up with half of it turning bad anyway? Might as well toss a coin. If a decision is going to be a struggle you need to believe that one choice will have a better result than the other. It's a conundrum when you first play the game since you don't know in advance exactly how everything will turn out. Sure, you may do in later games but that's metagaming anyway - at the risk of running back into the reality debate I'm sure most events in reality that haven't exactly gone well for anyone much could have some ideal outcome if the results of every decision could be known in advance and tried again.

In short the playthrough that matters is the first one. When things go wrong and it's because I screwed up that feels bad, and that's good. When things go wrong anyway I just get pissed off at someone else.

I'd add that any ideal outcome should require more than knowing simply which choices to make and be a struggle on every playthrough although I've no idea what the mechanic of that could be.

Well, the general idea of a "moral decision" isn't that no matter what you choose it's going to be half bad.  It's supposed to be something that balances two conflicting ideals and requires the person making the decision to decide what is more important to them, what they value more.  

There's no "better" solution other than the one you eventually decide.  What you find "ideal" another may find abhorrent.

As for the first playthrough is the one that matters... I know FAR too many min/maxers and 100% completionists to know THAT isn't the slightest bit accurate.

Modifié par chemiclord, 31 mars 2013 - 03:05 .

[ScriptBabe]

I think we are at an amicable impasse, Chemiclord. I think "real life" is observable. I don't have to explain it before I can present a story where the hero triumphs after overcoming both internal flaws and external foes. I want to inspire my readers/viewers by creating a situation that ultimately calls out to the "better angels of our natures". I want them to identify with my main character, worry about them, take the journey with them, and ultimately feel satisfied that I've met my first obligation -- which is to entertain. If they also take something more away then I've really succeeded.

Now back to having my hero overcome his obstacles.

[David7204]

Let's not go equating dark and sucky and horrible with 'realism' and hopeful and idealistic with 'escapism.' In addition to simply not being true, there's way too much of an implication there that stories are childish things used for hiding from the real world.

Modifié par David7204, 31 mars 2013 - 03:50 .

[chemiclord]

ScriptBabe wrote...

I think we are at an amicable impasse, Chemiclord. I think "real life" is observable. I don't have to explain it before I can present a story where the hero triumphs after overcoming both internal flaws and external foes. I want to inspire my readers/viewers by creating a situation that ultimately calls out to the "better angels of our natures". I want them to identify with my main character, worry about them, take the journey with them, and ultimately feel satisfied that I've met my first obligation -- which is to entertain. If they also take something more away then I've really succeeded.

Now back to having my hero overcome his obstacles.

But you kinda do.  Without that connection between what the world IS as opposed to what you would like it to BE, there's nothing to attach your story to the reader that they can internalize.  If those "better angels" (and better results) hover out of reach without anything to ground them to the reader... they learn nothing other than those heroes are completely beyond them.  Why bother trying to emulate what can't possibly work in the reader's reality?

The best heroes are the ones that the writer allows to fail and not always achieve the best result (letting the world and reality beat them once in a while).  Although that is admittedly a bit of a tangent from the initial discussion.

Modifié par chemiclord, 31 mars 2013 - 04:10 .

[ScriptBabe]

I think we're talking past each other. Of course I present the world "as it is", but the hero's journey is someone who says -- "No, I don't accept that this is all there is or this is how it has to be. I'm going to try to make a difference." Where I think we're parting company is I prefer a story where after trying and failing and trying and failing the hero succeeds. And the success can be small and very personal. It doesn't have to envolve saving the galaxy or defeating the empire.

[chemiclord]

ScriptBabe wrote...

I think we're talking past each other. Of course I present the world "as it is", but the hero's journey is someone who says -- "No, I don't accept that this is all there is or this is how it has to be. I'm going to try to make a difference." Where I think we're parting company is I prefer a story where after trying and failing and trying and failing the hero succeeds. And the success can be small and very personal. It doesn't have to envolve saving the galaxy or defeating the empire.

Yes, I think that is the case.  When reworded, I understand and concur at least with the base theory.  

Modifié par chemiclord, 31 mars 2013 - 04:45 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

I don't have anything of real value to add.

I am however impressed and delighted by how civil the discourse has been.

Good show all.

[Iakus]

And that's where ME3 failed. No matter what Shepard did, or accomplished, it is never enough. In the end, Shepard must give up his/her life, and even soul to the Reapers in order to stop them. And even in doing so, uneleashes something on the galaxy that is it's own kind of horror to many, many players.

Completing an original, or even EC ending doesn't give me a sense of heroism, or accomplishment. But a hollow feeling, like I've done something wrong. This is not how victory should feel. A degree of sadness for the fallen, perhaps. But not this.

Is it any wonder that a "Rocks fall" ending achieved legitimacy alongside the others? Letting the Reapers win feels to be on near-equal footing with the ending choices provided. That's how heroic and triumphant these endings DON"T make people feel.

[chemiclord]

See... and THIS is what bothers me with your stance.

You have (at least to me) equated victory with Shepard's survival, and anything less than that is not victory. That just seems... wrong... to me.  I want to believe I have you pegged wrong, but reading your posts over the last year... I get the feeling that Shepard could save everyone, stop the reaper threat in a glorious battle... but if he were to die, the Reapers would have won to you.

Modifié par chemiclord, 31 mars 2013 - 06:00 .

[AlanC9]

That might just an illusion from iakus posting so often about finding the breath clip inadequate, rather than a sign of a real philosophical dispute.

[David7204]

chemiclord wrote...

See... and THIS is what bothers me with your stance.

You have (at least to me) equated victory with Shepard's survival, and anything less than that is not victory. That just seems... wrong... to me.  I want to believe I have you pegged wrong, but reading your posts over the last year... I get the feeling that Shepard could save everyone, stop the reaper threat in a glorious battle... but if he were to die, the Reapers would have won to you.

If this was any other game, or any other story, I would completely agree with you.

But there is no story in existence that sets up the themes of meaningful heroism so long, so well, and so throughly as Mass Effect. None. If there was, I would be spending my time on some other forum instead of here. That theme needs to be followed through with at the climax.

So, yeah, I have to agree with him. As long as Shepard dies, I'm not happy with the ending. Players are justified in expecting Shepard to live.

Modifié par David7204, 31 mars 2013 - 06:23 .

[AlanC9]

"Meaningful heroism" requires Shepard to live, now?

If you're going to use a phrase that idiosyncratically, you should probably define it again, or at least link to that older thread of yours.

[David7204]

In this particular case and for a perfect playthrough across all three games, yes. That's a very narrow set of parameters, it doesn't mean all heroism deserves sunshine and butterflies. Shepard is still a hero in screw-up playthoughs, and it would be perfectly justified for him or her to die in those cases.

Modifié par David7204, 31 mars 2013 - 06:38 .

[SpamBot2000]

It would be useful for the purposes of this conversation to keep in mind that not all imaginative storytelling is "fiction" in the same sense, and doesn't necessarily operate on the same exact level. This has been brought up by several people already, but the key here is the form of Mass Effect, that is not "novelistic" but rather "Epic" in the proper sense of the word. The novel is a particular form of fiction, connected to particular cultural conditions and suitable for particular kinds of inquiry, if you will. It seems that some people here are making the mistake of ascribing the functions of the novel to all storytelling without making any distinctions of genre.

Mass Effect is not properly novelistic in any case, starting with the fact that the variance in the storyline based on player choices necessarily disturbs the kind of unity of presentation that defines a novel. Certain things might or might not be true for a player of Mass Effect. In a novel, every word is in its place and cannot be moved or removed without compromising the authorial intent. An Epic, on the other hand, is not definitionally dependent on every detail playing out in the exact same way on repeated tellings.

Now, the novel form is well suited for some things, such as the examination of individual psychology, arising as it did as a part of the loosening of feudalism and the rise of bourgeois individualism. The Epic, on the other hand, is a form suited for working out issues of foundational mythology, themes that underpin cultural views of the world. Incidentally, this is a part of the reason why Mac Walters imposing his rather insipid psychologisms on Shepard in ME3 feels so intrusive. Wrong genre, dude. Please take a moment to understand what you were put in charge of writing. The player needs to fill in those parts.

So, we have the Epic. The writing of an Epic is the work of mythopoeia, as in that poem Iakus correctly brought up in this connection. It operates on a fundamentally deeper level than the individual psychology in a novel, a level that might not even be readily available to us consciously. It gets us where we dream. That is why the ending of ME3 feels so wrong. It's not supposed to be a lesson in accepting defeat and moral compromise, it is the ground of our dreams. And Mass Effect would now deny us even the dream of successful agency.

What is the value of this craven retreat for us?

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 31 mars 2013 - 09:35 .

[drayfish]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

It would be useful for the purposes of this conversation to keep in mind that not all imaginative storytelling is "fiction" in the same sense, and doesn't necessarily operate on the same exact level. This has been brought up by several people already, but the key here is the form of Mass Effect, that is not "novelistic" but rather "Epic" in the proper sense of the word. The novel is a particular form of fiction, connected to particular cultural conditions and suitable for particular kinds of inquiry, if you will. It seems that some people here are making the mistake of ascribing the functions of the novel to all storytelling without making any distinctions of genre.

Mass Effect is not properly novelistic in any case, starting with the fact that the variance in the storyline based on player choices necessarily disturbs the kind of unity of presentation that defines a novel. Certain things might or might not be true for a player of Mass Effect. In a novel, every word is in its place and cannot be moved or removed without compromising the authorial intent. An Epic, on the other hand, is not definitionally dependent on every detail playing out in the exact same way on repeated tellings.

Now, the novel form is well suited for some things, such as the examination of individual psychology, arising as it did as a part of the loosening of feudalism and the rise of bourgeois individualism. The Epic, on the other hand, is a form suited for working out issues of foundational mythology, themes that underpin cultural views of the world. Incidentally, this is a part of the reason why Mac Walters imposing his rather insipid psychologisms on Shepard in ME3 feels so intrusive. Wrong genre, dude. Please take a moment to understand what you were put in charge of writing. The player needs to fill in those parts.

So, we have the Epic. The writing of an Epic is the work of mythopoeia, as in that poem Iakus correctly brought up in this connection. It operates on a fundamentally deeper level than the individual psychology in a novel, a level that might not even be readily available to us consciously. It gets us where we dream. That is why the ending of ME3 feels so wrong. It's not supposed to be a lesson in accepting defeat and moral compromise, it is the ground of our dreams. And Mass Effect would now deny us even the dream of successful agency.

What is the value of this craven retreat for us?

Utterly, wonderously splendid.

This is one of the finest critiques I have ever read concerning Mass Effect 3's fundamental disparity in thematic and tonal cohesion.  The shift from fluid epic foundational mythos to railroaded existential specula-tron has never been summarised so elegantly.

Thank you, SpamBot2000.  Fantastic work.

Modifié par drayfish, 31 mars 2013 - 09:53 .