1470 réponses à ce sujet

[remydat]

IanPolaris wrote...

Point.  Missing it.  I think it's entirely reasonable for the motives of hyper-advanced beings to be incomprehensible.

-Polaris

And I think it is entirely a cop out and lazy as a writer and choose that as the motivation of a fictional character you created and thus have the ability to create a motive for.

Modifié par remydat, 13 mai 2013 - 05:17 .

[Megaton_Hope]

remydat wrote...

I think as a writer you owe it to you audience to explain the motives of sentient beings.  This is a fictional story.  You need to have enough skill as a writer to take a stab at explaining the motives of your characters period.  Otherwise, it is a cop out IMO.

I would say that there are very few genres where that is actually true. Detective fiction would be one. Without a motive, the previously mysterious crime would be hard to solve, particularly in a parlor scene, where many characters would have had the opportunity.

Many fictional works have operated in a motive vacuum quite successfully over a prolonged period. Mythology, for example, rarely delved into the psychological underpinnings of characters' actions. The same for folk/fairy tales. Even true of most early modern fiction. Pulp heroes often take bold and decisive action without motives, emotions, or even personalities getting in the way.

And this is as often true of the protagonist as it is of secondary characters. Motives do not always offer much, but they can easily detract from an otherwise memorable story.

[chemiclord]

Writing isn't an exact science. You can pull off near anything... provided it is executed well.

ME3's ending failed miserably in the execution of the narrative.

[drayfish]

remydat wrote...

drayfish wrote...

But a 'stats' and 'polls' guy like you will then no doubt point out - no matter how ME4 sells - that it is impossible to discern who is or is not buying ME4 for any number of reasons.  Maybe the advertising isn't so convincing next time; maybe it has more multiplayer components; maybe there are more pre-order bonuses; maybe the fact that it isn't part of a trilogy will count against it; on and on...

You are knowingly punting the onus of 'evidence' onto a vague insubstantial future tense that you can likewise dismiss at will, one that is again based upon the vague promises that can influence sales and never be ultimately verified.

What can be judged at present is one of the largest, most vocal outcries against a piece of entertainment ever seen.  A reaction so expansive that whatever data Bioware has access to (and still refuses to release) led them to spend millions of dollars on a free download to try and soften the blowback.

Companies proud of their work and satisfied with its reception do not flush away profit and manpower in such a manner to satisfy some loudmouthed minority.

Commentary and polls (outside of the original review scores of the game) have repeatedly indicated that the ending is still not widely considered satisfactory  - and again, if Bioware had the evidence to suggest otherwise, it would only help their case to offer some proof.

No I will go on record that if ME4 tanks then I will consider it tanked because of the fall out of ME3.  You can keep this post saved and remind me of it if that day comes.

Bioware threw their fans a bone and then sold them the Citadel DLC off the back of it.  The EC was simply advertising dollars spent via a free DLC as opposed to say TV ads.

In fact I know of 3 people who bought the game solely because of the outcry and they wanted to see what the fuss was about.

But even I would argue that you cannot draw such a conclusion.  There are simply too many factors, too many variables.

They could release Mass Effect: My Little Pony (I'm calling dibs on that by the way) and it could deservedly tank; a whole new fanbase could jump on board because of a fresh feature; old fans could be put off by the stylistic choices; anything could be part of the mix that defines its success or failure.

(And that is big part of the problem with this whole preorder system where a healthy chunk of money and sales are made before the product has even been viewed.)

Indeed, drawing such a narrow causal link makes far less sense than you declaring that the current 'vocal minority majority' is a fiction.  All that can be fairly relied upon for feedback on Mass Effect 3 is the polls and information gathered after Mass Effect 3, about Mass Effect 3.  And what we currently have is a wealth of feedback, stats and comments that indicate no, Mass Effect 3 was not well received; with the only counterargument being 'Nuh-uh, we here at Bioware know better - but you can't see the evidence.'

Again, if there was such definitive proof I would imagine that it would be out there, used to silence jerks like me who openly scoff whenever Bioware try to rewrite history and the declare that only a small percentage of players had a minor issue with wanting to spend more time with their characters.

Modifié par drayfish, 13 mai 2013 - 05:52 .

[chemiclord]

drayfish wrote...

But even I would argue that you cannot draw such a conclusion.  There are simply too many factors, too many variables.

[rest snipped for brevity]

I actually agree with dray here.  You might be able to say a significant decline in pre-orders for their next offering was a result of how ME3 was received, but even that isn't something you could specifically point to and say, "It's because of ME3's ending."

At the end of the day, what will doom or bless their next product will be its own quality.  If it's a good game, it will sell (though it may not do so right away from Day 1).  If it's not, it won't.

[Archonsg]

Isn't that is why such a fuss was kicked up? Not because it was badly writen or executed, but badly writen and poorly executed at a critical juncture, at the *end* of the tale?

Had this ending been ME2's ending, and ME3 had ME2's "Suicide mission" various endings, how much different would you think the response would have been?

[Clayless]

drayfish wrote...

Indeed, drawing such a narrow causal link makes far less sense than you declaring that the current 'vocal minority majority' is a fiction.  All that can be fairly relied upon for feedback on Mass Effect 3 is the polls and information gathered after Mass Effect 3, about Mass Effect 3.  And what we currently have is a wealth of feedback, stats and comments that indicate no, Mass Effect 3 was not well received; with the only counterargument being 'Nuh-uh, we here at Bioware no better - but you can't see the evidence.'

Again, if there was such definitive proof I would imagine that it would be out there, used to silence jerks like me who openly scoff whenever Bioware try to rewrite history and the declare that only a small percentage of players has a minor issue with wanting to spend more time with their characters.

You have figures bigger than the Retake movement?

[drayfish]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Point.  Missing it.  I think it's entirely reasonable for the motives of hyper-advanced beings to be incomprehensible.

-Polaris

And I think it is entirely a cop out and lazy as a writer and choose that as the motivation of a fictional character you created and thus have the ability to create a motive for.

What was the Joker's 'motivation' in The Dark Knight?  What was the 'motivation' of Lovecraft's ancient evil gods?  What made Moriarty want to be the greatest criminal who ever lived?  (Indeed, what made Sherlock the greatest hero?)

Not every fiction needs every motivating factor to be revealled and explained.  Indeed, I would argue that in each of these cases, giving such characters expansive backstories that showed why they are who they are would directly undermine the story being told, and the effect it has on its audience.

'Oh look, it's one of history's greatest villains, Iago from Othello...  Why'd you do all that stuff, Iago?'

'Because my father didn't love me enough.'

'Cool.  I guess that expains your seemingly insatiable, anarchic desire to tear down greatness...  Hm.  Kind of robs you of your poetry, though.'

'I also wet the bed until I was twenty-three...'

'Okay, shut up, shut up...'

[IanPolaris]

Robosexual wrote...

You have figures bigger than the Retake movement?

Without knowing who's buying and why, that's a nonsequitor.  You are assuming that everyone that bought the game liked the ending, and that doesn't logically follow (since many people pre-ordered just as one example).

-Polaris

[chemiclord]

Archonsg wrote...

Isn't that is why such a fuss was kicked up? Not because it was badly writen or executed, but badly writen and poorly executed at a critical juncture, at the *end* of the tale?

Had this ending been ME2's ending, and ME3 had ME2's "Suicide mission" various endings, how much different would you think the response would have been?

ME2's ending wasn't exactly met with unanimous cheer, either.  There was fair bit of grousing about that one and it's non-sensical conclusion, "Terminator Baby" final boss, that it didn't seem like the overall story really went anywhere (turns out it didn't), among other things.

As a matter of fact, I'd say it is regarded warmly more in retrospect due to comparison with ME3's ending rather than any quality in and of itself.

Modifié par chemiclord, 13 mai 2013 - 06:06 .

[Clayless]

IanPolaris wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

You have figures bigger than the Retake movement?

Without knowing who's buying and why, that's a nonsequitor.  You are assuming that everyone that bought the game liked the ending, and that doesn't logically follow (since many people pre-ordered just as one example).

-Polaris

Where did I say that?

[IanPolaris]

Robosexual wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

You have figures bigger than the Retake movement?

Without knowing who's buying and why, that's a nonsequitor.  You are assuming that everyone that bought the game liked the ending, and that doesn't logically follow (since many people pre-ordered just as one example).

-Polaris

Where did I say that?

How else could you have meant it?

-Polaris

[Clayless]

IanPolaris wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Without knowing who's buying and why, that's a nonsequitor.  You are assuming that everyone that bought the game liked the ending, and that doesn't logically follow (since many people pre-ordered just as one example).

-Polaris

Where did I say that?

How else could you have meant it?

-Polaris

Meant what? Asking him if he had a source bigger than the Retake movement?

[IanPolaris]

Robosexual wrote...

Meant what? Asking him if he had a source bigger than the Retake movement?

Now I'm confused.  I thought you were talking about how he could know that the people that liked the ending were actually in the majority as Bioware insists (against all other publically available data I might add).  It was my understanding that your comment (sales figures) related to this.

-Polaris

[Cainhurst Crow]

[quote]Megaton_Hope wrote...

[quote]remydat wrote...

I think as a writer you owe it to you audience to explain the motives of sentient beings.  This is a fictional story.  You need to have enough skill as a writer to take a stab at explaining the motives of your characters period.  Otherwise, it is a cop out IMO.

[/quote]I would say that there are very few genres where that is actually true. Detective fiction would be one. Without a motive, the previously mysterious crime would be hard to solve, particularly in a parlor scene, where many characters would have had the opportunity.

Many fictional works have operated in a motive vacuum quite successfully over a prolonged period. Mythology, for example, rarely delved into the psychological underpinnings of characters' actions. The same for folk/fairy tales. Even true of most early modern fiction. Pulp heroes often take bold and decisive action without motives, emotions, or even personalities getting in the way.

And this is as often true of the protagonist as it is of secondary characters. Motives do not always offer much, but they can easily detract from an otherwise memorable story.
[/quote]

I will grant you that, but the reapers are not one of those types of characters. They are presented as a mystery in the past two games, one that we needed to unravel in order to stop. And there are tons of mythological stories that do delve into why their gods and deities do what they do.

The problem here is that there is a clear plan and a clear goal being meet by the reapers, but no reason presented or hinted at as to why it is they are working towards that goal at all. But what is presented at the same time is a need to find out why the reapers are doing this in order to stop them, and that is why not giving the reapers any motivation is a bad idea.

[quote]drayfish wrote...
[quote]remydat wrote...

And I think it is entirely a cop out
and lazy as a writer and choose that as the motivation of a fictional
character you created and thus have the ability to create a motive
for.[/quote]

What was the Joker's 'motivation' in The Dark Knight? What was the 'motivation' of Lovecraft's ancient evil gods?  What made Moriarty want to be the greatest criminal who ever lived?  (Indeed, what made Sherlock the greatest hero?)
[/quote]

[/quote]

1. The joker was an agent of chaos and wanted to spread as much fear, uncertainty, anarchy, and just do whatever came to him at the moment. He states this quite clearly in his many monolouges.

2. Lovecraftian horros are explained to be so large and beyond humanity that their actions that affect humanity aren't even intentional most of the time. They just don't think about it, like you don't think of how cutting your grass is affect the bugs who live in it.

3. Moriarty's motivation was the same as sherlocks I belive, a good challenge.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 13 mai 2013 - 06:07 .

[Clayless]

IanPolaris wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

Meant what? Asking him if he had a source bigger than the Retake movement?

Now I'm confused.  I thought you were talking about how he could know that the people that liked the ending were actually in the majority as Bioware insists (against all other publically available data I might add).  It was my understanding that your comment (sales figures) related to this.

-Polaris

Oh. I was asking him if he had a source, which could back up his claims, that's bigger than the Retake movement (the highest figure we have of anti-enders).

[IanPolaris]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I will grant you that, but the reapers are not one of those types of characters. They are presented as a mystery in the past two games, one that we needed to unravel in order to stop. And there are tons of mythological stories that do delve into why their gods and deities do what they do.

I disagree that the Reapers themselves are the mystery we need to understand.  All we really need to understand and solve is the mystery of how to combat them.  There is a difference (and it's very much a difference in the Lovecraftian Vein...it's not important to understand the Ancient Horrors but it IS important to know how to fight them).

The problem here is that there is a clear plan and a clear goal being meet by the reapers, but no reason presented or hinted at as to why it is they are working towards that goal at all. But what is presented at the same time is a need to find out why the reapers are doing this in order to stop them, and that is why not giving the reapers any motivation is a bad idea.

That doesn't follow.  There is no reason we have to learn about the reapers in order to fight them (at least not beyond the superficial).  That was a decision that was purely within Bioware's hands.  There was no reason to give the Reapers any comprehensible motiviations since they were never the true antangonists, but merely evil forces of nature that had to be dealt with.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Robosexual wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

Meant what? Asking him if he had a source bigger than the Retake movement?

Now I'm confused.  I thought you were talking about how he could know that the people that liked the ending were actually in the majority as Bioware insists (against all other publically available data I might add).  It was my understanding that your comment (sales figures) related to this.

-Polaris

Oh. I was asking him if he had a source, which could back up his claims, that's bigger than the Retake movement (the highest figure we have of anti-enders).

OK, I misunderstood you then.  Thanks for clarifying.  As for sources, I could point out that five minutes using google will find you all sorts of polls and surveys that show that ME3's ending didn't go down well.  Of course they aren't scientific, but then again, we don't have any scientific evidence (or ANY evidence) to the contrary either.

-Polaris

[Bleachrude]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Been reading bits and pieces of this thread. Well first of all, even though they missed the main point of the whole thing, at least they sort've admitted that they messed up with the ending, even if they didn't say that outright.

Secondly, anyone who still believes that people who disliked the ending were a minority are delusional fools. Yes "technically" we were a vocal minority, but that doesn't mean we were a minority. It just means out of the many who thought the ending was crap, there were some that were angry enough to speak up about it. Just because someone doesn't speak up, doesn't mean they liked it. Get real.

A minority is anything less than 50%. Unless you can prove that there were more than 50% of the audience, then yes, you are a minority.

Personally, I doubt THAT many people were so invested in the franchise to be upset...remember, ME3 has about the same import rate of ME2 of roughly 40%.

This is similar to "femshep is as popular as Sheploo" (reality 18%) and "Everybody likes casting classes" (soldier is by far the most popular class) and "ME3 was too easy" (reality only 4.0% of players could finish the game on insanity)

[IanPolaris]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

1. The joker was an agent of chaos and wanted to spread as much fear, uncertainty, anarchy, and just do whatever came to him at the moment. He states this quite clearly in his many monolouges.

Which isn't a motive.  It's a pathology.  It's this fact that makes the Joker as a character work.

2. Lovecraftian horros are explained to be so large and beyond humanity that their actions that affect humanity aren't even intentional most of the time. They just don't think about it, like you don't think of how cutting your grass is affect the bugs who live in it.

"You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it."

Seems pretty Lovecraftian to me, and the rest of Sovereign's conversation as well as the information you learn elsewhere (esp from Vigil) confirm this view.

-Polaris

[Cainhurst Crow]

IanPolaris wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I will grant you that, but the reapers are not one of those types of characters. They are presented as a mystery in the past two games, one that we needed to unravel in order to stop. And there are tons of mythological stories that do delve into why their gods and deities do what they do.

I disagree that the Reapers themselves are the mystery we need to understand.  All we really need to understand and solve is the mystery of how to combat them.  There is a difference (and it's very much a difference in the Lovecraftian Vein...it's not important to understand the Ancient Horrors but it IS important to know how to fight them).

The problem here is that there is a clear plan and a clear goal being meet by the reapers, but no reason presented or hinted at as to why it is they are working towards that goal at all. But what is presented at the same time is a need to find out why the reapers are doing this in order to stop them, and that is why not giving the reapers any motivation is a bad idea.

That doesn't follow.  There is no reason we have to learn about the reapers in order to fight them (at least not beyond the superficial).  That was a decision that was purely within Bioware's hands.  There was no reason to give the Reapers any comprehensible motiviations since they were never the true antangonists, but merely evil forces of nature that had to be dealt with.

-Polaris

But they were the true villians, they were presented in the story as being behind most of the terrible events from the mass effect series. The geth attacks, the rachni war, the batarians aggression, they have lead a breadcrumb trail that all connects to these sinister monsters. Even worse though is that they gave the reapers a face and a voice, twice, with harbinger and sovereign, in which they clearly said that they have a reason they are doing this, but never said what it was.

It's a tease to create villians like the reapers and not give them any motivation. If it was truely incomprehensible, than present it to the player anyway, and have them be baffled by it. Otherwise it sounds like pure BS to cover up the fact that their entire exsistence is only justifiable from a metagame standpoint.

[Cainhurst Crow]

IanPolaris wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

1. The joker was an agent of chaos and wanted to spread as much fear, uncertainty, anarchy, and just do whatever came to him at the moment. He states this quite clearly in his many monolouges.

Which isn't a motive.  It's a pathology.  It's this fact that makes the Joker as a character work.

2. Lovecraftian horros are explained to be so large and beyond humanity that their actions that affect humanity aren't even intentional most of the time. They just don't think about it, like you don't think of how cutting your grass is affect the bugs who live in it.

"You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it."

Seems pretty Lovecraftian to me, and the rest of Sovereign's conversation as well as the information you learn elsewhere (esp from Vigil) confirm this view.

-Polaris

So the joker stating that he does things becasue he can, is a diagnosis of a disease? I do believe that even chaos is a motivation for a character, but not having any motivation is bad writing.

You can go with a "Because we can" angle, but you actually have to go with that angle in order to make use of it, which the reapers don't seem to do. They just say, "You wouldn't understand" and leave it at that.

And the motivations are often given for lovecraftian horrors, they just often drive people to madness or are on a scale we can't fathom, such as a god wanting vengence for being banished to a backwater world, and so is trying with all his might to escape back into his plane of exsistence.

The reapers problems is they don't give anything but "You won't get it" which might as well just be "We do this because someone needed a plot device" or "Wait till the next game to find out"

[IanPolaris]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

But they were the true villians, they were presented in the story as being behind most of the terrible events from the mass effect series. The geth attacks, the rachni war, the batarians aggression, they have lead a breadcrumb trail that all connects to these sinister monsters. Even worse though is that they gave the reapers a face and a voice, twice, with harbinger and sovereign, in which they clearly said that they have a reason they are doing this, but never said what it was.

That doesn't make them true villians though.  How often does Shepard actually interact with the Reapers (before starkid)? 

Three times.

Once when talking with a hologram of Sovereign, once when talking with a Hologram of Harbinger in Arrival, and once on Rannoch.  That's it.

How many times does Shepard actually combat (in any way) a Reaper?

Once.  On Rannoch...with a healthy assist from the Quarian Fleet.

This isn't characteristic of a true villian.  The true villian in ME1 is Saren not Sovereign.  Likewise the true villians in ME2 are the Collectors not Harbinger.  Even in ME3, the true villians aren't the Reapers.  It's TIM and Cerberus.

It's a tease to create villians like the reapers and not give them any motivation. If it was truely incomprehensible, than present it to the player anyway, and have them be baffled by it. Otherwise it sounds like pure BS to cover up the fact that their entire exsistence is only justifiable from a metagame standpoint.

Except as I explained, they aren't real villians.  They are malign forces of the universe and should be regarded as such.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

So the joker stating that he does things becasue he can, is a diagnosis of a disease? I do believe that even chaos is a motivation for a character, but not having any motivation is bad writing.

I would call it pathalogical.  I suspect most psychiatrists would as well.  That's not motivation because motivation is predictable and someone like that isn't (and the Joker isn't).  The Joker just wants to watch the world burn.  That's not a motivation.  It's a pathology.

You can go with a "Because we can" angle, but you actually have to go with that angle in order to make use of it, which the reapers don't seem to do. They just say, "You wouldn't understand" and leave it at that.

Which is classic Lovecraft.

And the motivations are often given for lovecraftian horrors, they just often drive people to madness or are on a scale we can't fathom, such as a god wanting vengence for being banished to a backwater world, and so is trying with all his might to escape back into his plane of exsistence.

That's a fault of the people trying to assign them motives.

The reapers problems is they don't give anything but "You won't get it" which might as well just be "We do this because someone needed a plot device" or "Wait till the next game to find out"

There is nothing wrong with that.  Many great and epic stories (including many Greek Myths) are written just this way.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 13 mai 2013 - 06:32 .

[Clayless]

IanPolaris wrote...

OK, I misunderstood you then.  Thanks for clarifying.  As for sources, I could point out that five minutes using google will find you all sorts of polls and surveys that show that ME3's ending didn't go down well.  Of course they aren't scientific, but then again, we don't have any scientific evidence (or ANY evidence) to the contrary either.

-Polaris

Yeah, though all those polls could be the same people voting, which is why it's best to go with the biggest one; The Retake Movement.