62 réponses à ce sujet

[hot_heart]

In a sense, yeah. I mean, Shepard has all the qualities of a great leader and an inherent knack for diplomacy, so it was about giving people the benefit of the doubt, more than anything. Which is supported quite well by the paragon bias, of course.

The book is a very good read and I think a fair few people on the forum (well, the internet, in general) could stand to benefit from it. Here's one of my favourite examples.

Not to mention a quote from elsewhere (I think, Isaac Newton):
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy."

[SwobyJ]

Rasofe wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

I'm still a little curious whether you guys - the players - preferred domination or cooperation to your approach with your favourite Shepard, how and for what reasons? It's a nice thematic discussion on character development.

I was a Paragade mix on my MainShep, like I guess so many other players, but oh well

-Largely cooperation with allies of all sorts, unless they REALLY crossed the line
-Usually tried to first figure out a deal with enemies, to minimize fighting (I'd be really glad to NOT play a 'soldier' in the next Mass Effect...sigh)
-If that didn't work though, I'd normally not bother trying to urge their minds/systems to follow me or at least stand down; That's a big part of me picking Destroy over Control

I'm not big on Domination for my MainShep, but he does use the actual ability (ha) as his bonus power . I have no issue with using forms of mind control in combat, but when it settles down, I despise the idea of mind control during breaks in fighting/peacetime.

Which kind of species were most commonly allies? Turians and Krogan in my case.
Yours sounds more like Paragon or maybe Renegon. I consider my guy Paragade because his long term intentions were the supremacy of mankind but he doesn't shirk away from helping allies just because they might be competition (Genophage, Quarian - Geth alliance (even though temporary since I pick destroy), much respect for the Turians). He left the Council to because he was tired of what they were doing to him and blamed them for the entire mess, he eliminated the Rachni because of how alien they were and saved everyone on Feros because of his compassion for colonists.
In the end it's about cooperating with some, dominating the rest for him. Destroy works for him in the end because he's also uncompromising and never makes sacrifices, which includes his own life.
Basically, the means justify the ends.

@hotheart
Who is that?

Huh? I thought 'Paragade' meant more Paragon than Renegade? Renegon means more Renegade than Paragon.

[Rasofe]

Well, what's better? Ends justify the means or means justify the ends?
When the means justify the ends, the goal may have been unlikeable, but a lot of good and almost no harm came out of trying to achieve it. So even if the Renegade bar is a little bigger in ME2 and ME3, I'd still consider him a good guy and it's clear that the people around him actually care for him rather than shrivel in fear at whom he might betray next. Tough to the world and very uncompromising, but in an honourable way that doesn't get people killed the way wanton heroics often does - that's a Paragade.
I'm not actually sure what the common description of what a Renegon is. If you've got one I'm all for hearing it.

Modifié par Rasofe, 28 novembre 2013 - 11:06 .

[Rotward]

Any thread trying to add legitimacy to the endings is a thread detrimental to this community.

[SwobyJ]

Rotward wrote...

Any thread trying to add legitimacy to the endings is a thread detrimental to this community.

Uh, wtf?

[Rasofe]

Wow. That's... um... nice of you to say?
How can I help the community if not by constructing a possible thematic significance to endings that I have quite carefully explained are thematic pitfalls as they are?
I mean, sure, I can contribute by opposing wanton psychopaths, but that's not nearly as constructive. I think I'd like you to at least give my thread the benefit of the doubt before you reach conclusions about its impact, Rotward. It's the least you could do.

Modifié par Rasofe, 28 novembre 2013 - 11:49 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Rasofe wrote...

If organics are able to destroy synthetics, then the "inevitable" machines will always destroy organics predicament the Leviathans had tasked the Catalyst to solve becomes solved. Not the way the Catalyst would want, but still.

It's not solved because the threat remains (that they would create some machine that would wipe them out).

[Rotward]

Rasofe wrote...

Wow. That's... um... nice of you to say?
How can I help the community if not by constructing a possible thematic significance to endings that I have quite carefully explained are thematic pitfalls as they are?
I mean, sure, I can contribute by opposing wanton psychopaths, but that's not nearly as constructive. I think I'd like you to at least give my thread the benefit of the doubt before you reach conclusions about its impact, Rotward. It's the least you could do.

It's fine to say I'm being an ass, since I am. Still, allow me to explain my reasoning. 

Many people, in my experience, hate English classes because of the speculation. The teacher will go on asking, "Is that line about one character's shadow a hint to their later betrayal of the protagonist," or, "Could the color green represent distrust throughout the book?" 

The answer is often no. Hindsight is twenty-twenty, and an argument can be made for any theme, sub-plot, or forshadowing, but a symbol not intended by the author is just fanfiction. 

That doesn't stop authors from taking credit for their fan's additions, though. I don't know if you watch southpark, but the episode, "The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs," takes the situation to a comical extreme. People claim the story is a commentary on modern politics, and suddenly, the author pretends they'd meant it to be a political commentary all along. Even when authors don't take credit, they often get ideas from the fans, especially if the series isn't finished. 

We don't need the starchild justified, or edited, or improved, we need him gone. Every time we come up with something like the indoctrination theory, or your coils, we're dividing the community between two factions. Those who are apalled by the ending, and those who need the ending unchanged for their favorite theory to continue functioning. 

Bioware released me3 and got flak from every direction for a terrible ending. Instead of fixing me3's ending, they did the video game equivilent of taking a poorly written paper, fixing the grammar, and re-submitting it. The extended cut just improves the endings on the surface, without addressing underlying flaws. It's a bone to shut the fans up. 

As long as there are sequels, the me3 endings will continue to sour the mass effect universe. I'd rather not see that happen, but threads like this increase the chances that we'll see these endings impact future games. 

Then again, this thead is but a droplet in a pond, and I certainly overreacted. The theory itself doesn't seem bad, but I'd bet my left arm this is as new to the developers as it is to me.  

Modifié par Rotward, 29 novembre 2013 - 03:07 .

[SwobyJ]

Ok so you just don't want it. Just say that.

[Rotward]

SwobyJ wrote...

Ok so you just don't want it. Just say that.

I'm not sure how saying, "don't want it," would convey my above point. Tbqh I don't know what 'it' is; the theory, mass effect 4, mass effect 3, the extended cut, a hotdog? 

[SwobyJ]

Rotward wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

Ok so you just don't want it. Just say that.

I'm not sure how saying, "don't want it," would convey my above point. Tbqh I don't know what 'it' is; the theory, mass effect 4, mass effect 3, the extended cut, a hotdog? 

The ending scenario and people talking about it like deserves to be discussed. Say that and leave it at that.


Saying "Any thread trying to add legitimacy to the endings is a thread detrimental to this community." is really, really bizarre. It's the ending to Mass Effect 3; of course on the official boards it should be discussed as though it is legitimately the ending and within the story. That's somehow 'detrimental to this community'? Pure WTF is all I can say to that.


Also, what's wrong with literary theory? An artist/writer may not even be conscious about their direction or influences, but that doesn't mean they're not there. Overall, questions are posed in order to spark OUR creativity, not the artist's. That's only a good thing.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 29 novembre 2013 - 04:43 .

[Rotward]

SwobyJ wrote...

Rotward wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...
Ok so you just don't want it. Just say that.

I'm not sure how saying, "don't want it," would convey my above point. Tbqh I don't know what 'it' is; the theory, mass effect 4, mass effect 3, the extended cut, a hotdog? 

The ending scenario and people talking about it like deserves to be discussed. Say that and leave it at that.

Saying "Any thread trying to add legitimacy to the endings is a thread detrimental to this community." is really, really bizarre. It's the ending to Mass Effect 3; of course on the official boards it should be discussed as though it is legitimately the ending and within the story. That's somehow 'detrimental to this community'? Pure WTF is all I can say to that.

Also, what's wrong with literary theory? An artist/writer may not even be conscious about their direction or influences, but that doesn't mean they're not there. Overall, questions are posed in order to spark OUR creativity, not the artist's. That's only a good thing.

Now that's something I can work with! Let me repharase. Attempts to improve the ending to me3, without actually changing the endings, encourange complacency. Had me3 been the final game, I wouldn't take issue, I like OP's theory. The series isn't over, though. Me4 is already in development, and next installment may be doomed from the start if it's built upon these dues ex machina¹ endings. 

I hate literary theory with a passion. The bolded statement I see as pure bull. I can call the misfortune of an evil person karma, but in reality, misfotune falls to all human beings; there's no hidden force exacting an eye for an eye. I see literary theory the same way. One can attribute significance to events in literature, but it's just fanfiction, unless you've understood the work as intended. Fanfiction's not bad, but neither is it part of the original work. Beyond that, I take issue with literary theory, and psychology², occupying the limbo between art and science, but that's personal. 

¹A kill all button is classic dues ex machina. The developers designed an antagonist the protagonist couldn't defeat, so they needed an easy solution. Here comes prothean space-magic which somehow everyone missed for the last twenty odd years. As much as I hate the rbg endings, the whole crucible was a bad writing. 

²This is a view I adopted from practicing psychologists. An honest psychologist knows how limited the field is at the moment. Therapy is largely subjective, and subjective experience is the province of art, not science.

[SwobyJ]

Fair enough! I see nothing wrong with your POV as now explained, but your earlier words confused me a lot.


I guess I'm just thankful for now that I don't see (whether I'm crazy woo woo about it or not) the ending as an actual deus ex machina but a red herring disguised as one. I'll only hope that the next game proves me right or wrong about that, just so I can move on. If it doesn't, then screw it, I'm out.

*Not talking about IT.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 29 novembre 2013 - 06:00 .

[Rasofe]

Rotward, that's far too extreme.

A few details: a deus ex machina isn't something that can happen before the very end of the story and with significant input from the characters. Fan fiction refers to inventing new plot, not interpreting the writers' meaning of the work (especially since the writers aren't telling us what they meant). Literary analysis is not science and neither is psychology, but it's still knowledge - knowledge of what the author has gotten accross and how they have succeeded in doing so.

Also, I am not encouraging complacency any more than you're encouraging rebellion. Demanding that the ending be removed because some unknown fraction - big or small - of the players still want it gone after this long is just petty. Consider that they may have been trying to get a point across with the story and simply removing them because of fan pressure is an even worse thematic pitfall than what they did by handling it sloppily. Replacing the endings is definately fan fiction.

Of course, I don't really believe that the fan-base will polarise over this one at all, no more than they are. When the IT was disproven, only the most loony-tunes people continued to believe in it. Spiral Coils, being in line with Bioware's own thematic build-up and character development, has a chance - if actually made known enough - to attract those who are no longer appaled by the ending (because it now has the EC and a lot of people actually like it). If not disproven, there won't be an "opposition* left because they'll just finally move on. Poorly done endings don't cause as much of a reaction as bad endings.

I am perfectly fine if the authors do take credit for this theory because they've already provided most of the basis, with EC, Leviathan and From Ashes.

Finally, I don't know about other people but I loved English Lit class growing up. Theme's are really not something you can just pull out of your head, either, there has to be a lot of evidence of character development, recursivity with the central conflict, and of course it has to be an issue whose relevance is independent from the setting of the story.

Modifié par Rasofe, 29 novembre 2013 - 01:52 .

[Rusty Sandusky]

Cycles or Coils? Ketchup or Catsup? What does it matter?

[Rasofe]

It matters because Shepard has nothing in common with the cycles, but a lot in common with the coils.

[SwobyJ]

Wait, IT was disproven?
So this is one of those things.

Sorry for being here so long then Rasofe. Cheers.

[Rasofe]

SwobyJ wrote...

Wait, IT was disproven?
So this is one of those things.

Sorry for being here so long then Rasofe. Cheers.

IT as it was made in its original form was disproven, yes. Its final prediction was that destroy was the only option that set Shepard free from indoctrination and all the other choices led to Shepard succumbing.
Because of the EC's refusal ending and the post-ending dialogue, it is no longer a valid prediction. That's the concept of a theory, Swoby. It has to be disprovable to be valid, and it has to also not be proven wrong to be true. I'm sorry if you didn't know this.

[Rotward]

Rasofe wrote...
A few details: a deus ex machina isn't something that can happen before the very end of the story and with significant input from the characters. Fan fiction refers to inventing new plot, not interpreting the writers' meaning of the work (especially since the writers aren't telling us what they meant). Literary analysis is not science and neither is psychology, but it's still knowledge - knowledge of what the author has gotten accross and how they have succeeded in doing so.

The reapers were an enemy for three games, but Shepard wasn't any more prepared for their arrival at the start of me3 than in me1. Bioware introduced the crucible in the final stages of the series, and they revealed the crucible's funciton in the last five minutes! Shepard didn't even work to access the plans, we just spent one mission on mars retrieving liara, and suddenly magical solution to the reaper problem. The devs introduced a technology so far above the comprehention of the characters that nobody knew what it was, what it would do, or if it would work. The tech was handed down to this cycle by the Asari gods (protheans), with a note saying, "some assembly required." 

Demanding that the ending be removed because some unknown fraction - big or small - of the players still want it gone after this long is just petty. Consider that they may have been trying to get a point across with the story and simply removing them because of fan pressure is an even worse thematic pitfall than what they did by handling it sloppily. Replacing the endings is definately fan fiction.

Except that there's no point, the endings were completely nonsensical. With a fourth mass effect game, focused on shepard, the developers could have implemented the rbg endings in a thematically consistent mannor. Instead they were crammed into a few minutes, and are so full of plot holes, they ring hollow. 

Then again, if they'd been willing to put out a fourth game focused on shepard, the crucible could've been an actual weapon. You know, something that bypasses reaper invulnerability, or a cure for indoctrination. Then we might have been able to fight the reapers, something that we only got to do in the last mission of the trilogy. 

Spiral Coils, being in line with Bioware's own thematic build-up and character development, has a chance - if actually made known enough - to attract those who are no longer appaled by the ending (because it now has the EC and a lot of people actually like it). If not disproven, there won't be an "opposition* left because they'll just finally move on. Poorly done endings don't cause as much of a reaction as bad endings.

I am perfectly fine if the authors do take credit for this theory because they've already provided most of the basis, with EC, Leviathan and From Ashes.

To be honest, I'd love to see me4 based on your spiral coils theory, but any attempt to retroactively improve the endings will cheapen me3. Which might be better than me4 being equally terrible, but it'd be a shame for me3 to degrade further.

Finally, I don't know about other people but I loved English Lit class growing up. Theme's are really not something you can just pull out of your head, either, there has to be a lot of evidence of character development, recursivity with the central conflict, and of course it has to be an issue whose relevance is independent from the setting of the story.

My issue with literary theory is that anything in the story can serve as evidence for your point, if one knows how to phrase one's argument. The only symbols you can't make an case for, are those that have no basis in the story. One can't argue that lights in the dark represent hope if the author never used that imagery, for example. 

Some of these interprutations are legitimate, but most are just fans putting words in the authors mouth. If we treated conversation that way, language would fall apart.

Modifié par Rotward, 29 novembre 2013 - 11:18 .

[Rasofe]

1. What you describe is a McGuffin, not a deus ex machina. Deus ex machina's requires absolutely zero input from the main protagonist and completely invalidate any efforts the protagonist has put into the conflict so far. Seeing as how Shepard had to retreive all the little data's and bits personally to make it work, it wasn't just given to him by "gods", as you say. It's a minor detail but it makes a big differance. If this really was a deux ex machina, people would be even more pissed. More than before.

2. The endings were only nonsensical in their execution. I suppose they still are. This is pretty clear because they only stop making sense when you think too hard about them and raise questions without answers. Complete nonsense has a much more immediate effect on people: you'll know it when you see it.
I don't pretend that my theory could make the contrived McGuffin less contrived, especially in the way that it operates. What I am trying to get accross is that the meaning of the final choice could be more relevant to the rest of the story and the central character if we could connect the central theme to the ending.

I also don't see what is wrong with polarity in the community. We're already polarised between people who accept the endings and those that don't. This theory won't persuade the ones who don't believe it that the endings are good, but it can improve the endings for the people that are fine with them. It's not like there will ever be a consensus, unless things are in REALLY bad shape, like back before EC.

Consider that the endings can't be universally hateably bad if they're not universally hated anymore.

3. Not quite. Literary theory doesn't allow to cherry-pick or loose-tongue any more than any other form of analysis. If an element of a story was overlooked to prove your point, or if your "phrasing" wasn't sufficiently specific, the conjecture drawn will be invalid. It's not just about selling a point with fancy words like most people believe. They have to be focused statements. I wouldn't for example accept it if someone claimed that "Expansion" was a theme of Mass Effect. It's not specific enough to spawn a precise character development arc or central conflict.

[SwobyJ]

Rasofe wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

Wait, IT was disproven?
So this is one of those things.

Sorry for being here so long then Rasofe. Cheers.

IT as it was made in its original form was disproven, yes. Its final prediction was that destroy was the only option that set Shepard free from indoctrination and all the other choices led to Shepard succumbing.
Because of the EC's refusal ending and the post-ending dialogue, it is no longer a valid prediction. That's the concept of a theory, Swoby. It has to be disprovable to be valid, and it has to also not be proven wrong to be true. I'm sorry if you didn't know this.

Thanks for your explanation. Sorry - some people put 'IT' into a 'catch all'; like, "IT is disproven so there is no indoctrination at all." instead of "Indoctrination Theory seems disproven." specifically.
There's so many theories and interpretations of what IT is that at this point I can get confused.

[Rotward]

Rasofe wrote...

1. What you describe is a McGuffin, not a deus ex machina. 

2. The endings were only nonsensical in their execution. 

3. Not quite. Literary theory doesn't allow to cherry-pick or loose-tongue any more than any other form of analysis.

It doesn't matter when the reapers arrive, because Humans were only motivated to find that intel after Reaper forces hit earth. Whether the collectors are stopped or not, the crucible would have killed the human-reaper. If the crucible were never fired, it'd be tantamount to the refusal ending, with Liara's time capsules guiding the next cycle to victory. Thus, Shepard's actions were inconsequential in facing the reaper threat. 

I agree on the execution bit. The rbg endings could have been great short stories. They aren't short stories, though. Executioin was the key, and it flopped. 

Literary theory allows multiple right answers because it rejects the one correct answer - the authors intention. No other form of analysis allows that. Two analysies of weather data might have two interprutations, but the weather only plays out one way. 

Modifié par Rotward, 30 novembre 2013 - 01:08 .

[Rasofe]

When the authors intention is given, literary analysis doesn't reject it, it is a way to analyse if the intention was carried forward with skill and success. In cases like this when the intention is not given, it's a matter of finding the most plausible interpretation, or reect interpretations which are implausible (which may be all if no intention existed originally). There are no multiple right answers unless the analysts do not confront each other and don't practice academic honesty. Malpractice in any analysis form of any kind allows for what you describe - accepting an invalid conclusion as valid.

Your first paragraph is too reductional to be factually correct.

Modifié par Rasofe, 30 novembre 2013 - 12:48 .

[Rotward]

Rasofe wrote...

When the authors intention is given, literary analysis doesn't reject it, it is a way to analyse if the intention was carried forward with skill and success. In cases like this when the intention is not given, it's a matter of finding the most plausible interpretation, or reect interpretations which are implausible (which may be all if no intention existed originally). There are no multiple right answers unless the analysts do not confront each other and don't practice academic honesty. Malpractice in any analysis form of any kind allows for what you describe - accepting an invalid conclusion as valid.

Your first paragraph is too reductional to be factually correct.

I've never encountered a piece of literature with a single accepted analysis.

If Shepard hadn't stopped saren, the reapers would have taken the citadel, and harvested the galaxy. Since no preparations were made between me1 and me3, the time Shepard bought stopping saren was pointless. The reapers still took the citadel, and tried to harvest the galaxy. They kill the council too, another decision rendered meaningless.

The collectors were building one new reaper. The crucible killed all the reapers at once, so one additional reaper makes no difference. The colonies saved by stopping the collectors were then lost when the reapers arrived. To top it off, Shepard failed to drive the collectors extinct, as we see in me3. 

One of the endings doesn't involve firing the crucible. Liara's time capsule, which isn't dependant on Shepard, guides the next cycle to victory. Shepard's part in each installment of mass effect, delaying the arival, defeating the collecters, and firing the crucible were all unecessary in stopping the reapers. 

[Rasofe]

Besides that Liara's time capsule wouldn't be possible if Shepard hadn't done all the investigation on the Reapers' and their methodology? Stopping the Reapers isn't the resolution of the central conflict. Stopping the Reapers before they kill the current cycle is. That is Shepard's job.
If Shepard hadn't stopped Saren, the Reapers would've taken the Citadel immediately and sprung upon a completely unprepared galaxy devoid of genophage cure, the geth would've been all turned on the side of the Reapers and without the Quarians' intervention or Legion's perspective no peace between the two would be possible. The Crucible, even if the plans were found, would never be completed on time or attached to the Catalyst.
The collectors didn't come back in any part of ME3 as I recall. And the colonies were not all lost any more than the organics of the cycle made no preparations for the Reaper invasion. Like I said, the claims are too reductional to be factually correct.

I've never encountered a physical phenomenon with a single accepted theory. Besides that I've encountered plenty of literary works where the intentions are known and the analysis is functional, which is the important part of a theory. "Lord of the Flies", "1984", "The Great Gatsby", "The Crucible", "Antigone" to name a few. The intentions of these works are completely clear, and the work of the analysts since has been in finding how effectively the message is sent across.

Modifié par Rasofe, 30 novembre 2013 - 01:29 .