28 réponses à ce sujet

[Sc2mashimaro]

First off, I am a writer, so this post is from that perspective. Don't post here saying how much you hate the ending or the gameplay or any other OFF TOPIC thing. The topic here is analysis of the work from a writing perspective.

I have been reading "Story: Substance, Structure, Style, and the Principles of Screenwriting" by Robert McKee. I am now convinced it should be required reading material for any writer. What struck me was, in the chapter on Act Design, McKee talks about the emotional charge of the final two acts and the rhythm of how they should be placed to have a satisfying emotional impact.

McKee asserts that, "The two most powerful scenes in a story are the last two act climaxes. Onscreen they're often only ten or fifteen minutes apart. Therefore, they cannot repeat the same [emotional] charge. If the protagonist achieves his Object of Desire, making the last act's Story Climax positive, then the Penultimate Act Climax must be negative. You cannot set up an up-ending with an up-ending: 'Things were wonderful...then they got even better!'" He goes on to say that you also should not do a repeated down-ending, down-ending for the same reasons: the repetetition robs the 3rd Act's climax of its power. How does this look in Mass Effect?

MASS EFFECT 1:
2nd Act Climax: Kaiden and Ashley are both pinned down and Shepard is forced to choose who to save. He loses an important member of his crew to gain the information he needs to get to the Conduit. Sovereign and Saren have the lead and Shepard is still playing catch-up. (Emotional charge: negative)

3rd Act Climax: Shepard confronts and defeats Saren and opens the arms to the Citadel. The fleet protecting the Citadel destroys Sovereign. There is a false ending with Shepard's death, but he gets up, alive! (Emotional charge: positve)


MASS EFFECT 2:
2nd Act Climax: Shepard returns to the Normandy to find out his crew was abducted while testing the Reaper IFF. They are running out of time to face the Collectors - especially if they have any hope to save the crew. (Emotional charge: negative)

3rd Act Climax: Shepard and his companions defeat the Human Reaper and destory the Collectors. Shepard makes it back to Normandy with the surviving crew. (Emotional charge: positive)


MASS EFFECT 3:
2nd Act Climax: The United Fleet attack the Reapers at Earth. Impressive as the fleet is, it is ripped apart - it is obvious that they are no match for the Reapers. Things fall apart quickly and teams that were in charge of one aspect of the plan are forced to compensate for losses in order to salvage what they can. Despite everything Shepard has done, the Reapers are winning the battle. (Emotional charge: negative)

3rd Act Climax: Shepard barely makes it alive to the teleportation beam. He faces off with the Illusive Man, kills him, and activates the Crucible, but this subplot resolution is a false ending. The Crucible does not fire and he has to face the Catalyst - the AI that "leads" the Reapers. Shepard sacrifices himself to defeat the Reapers, in addition, there will be a host of unintended consequences for the galaxy. (Emotional charge: Ironic mix of positive and negative, but usually mostly negative - the Extended Cut resolves some of these unintended consequences and, thus, makes the emotional charge more positive than before, but it is still a mix).


The first thing to note is that there is nothing wrong with ironic or mixed endings. However, they always lean positive or negative - if they do not, they usually feel bland. The danger with ironic/mixed emotional charge is that different people value each element differently. That is: one person thinks that Shepard dying is a bigger negative than the next person, who may see the death of the Geth as a bigger negative than the first person. Almost everyone will universally agree that each is negative, but the value of that charge is relative. Additionally, most people will find the sacrifice of the main character (whether in a book, film, or game to be a major negative).

Here's a note I think is important: it is much easier to identify the 2nd and 3rd Act climaxes in ME1 and 2. ME3, on the other hand, was much harder. In Mass Effect 3 the 2nd Act Climax is obscured by multiple story elements. First, it is surrounded by non-simultanious resolutions of subplots. Specifically, the Kai-Lang, Cerberus base, Catalyst investigation, EDI, and Miranda/Horizon subplots all resolve near the same time. The way I identified the 2nd Act Climax is by going back to the beginning of the game and identifying the Inciting Incident, the 1st Act Climax, and the primary motivation for the 2nd Act. The inciting incident is the invasion of the Reapers, which means the 3rd Act Climax is almost certainly Shepard confronting the Reapers. The 1st Act Climax is the face-off with the Illusive Man, the discovery of the Crucible, and the "death" of Ashley/Kaiden. That kicks off a number of sub-plots in the 2nd Act, but the 2nd Act itself is centered on bringing the galaxy together and collecting all the resources needed to bring the fight to the Reapers. Thus, the culmination of the 2nd Act is the assault on the Reapers by the united forces of the galaxy.

What makes this interesting is that, because it is so easy to confuse when analyzing, it is almost certainly easier to get lost while writing it. This means that even though the assault on Earth is clearly the 2nd Act climax in analysis, it might not have been what the writers *thought* was the 2nd Act Climax. If the writers were viewing the confrontation on Cerberus base with Kai Lang and the subsequent discoveries as the 2nd Act climax, they would have felt that the 2nd Act ended on a mostly positive emotional charge, requiring a negative charge to the ending. However, good writers also would have instinctively felt something was wrong with the end - leading to a very mixed up 3 Act climax. Well, the 3rd Act in Mass Effect 3 feels a bit mixed up to me. There is a false ending where, unlike ME1, the false ending could have served as the real ending reasonably. But the Illusive Man isn't the Reapers - even if he makes a reasonable stand-in, seeing as he is indoctrinated - and Shepard really should face off with the Reapers as the climax of the story, right? Thus, the false ending. Importantly, this takes the 1st ending from a mostly positive charge (Anderson dies, but the Shepard (probably) lives and defeats the Reapers) to a negative charge (Anderson dies, and the fight isn't over) and puts another negative charge after it (Shepard must die too).

Remember the good-bye sequence on Earth, right before the final mission? The intention was that this should allow the player to say good-bye to their crew and, thus, feel okay with the sacrifice at the end of the game. But it does the opposite. Saying good-bye in such a final way feels bad - it's a negative emotional charge - and it creates an unconscious expectation that the opposite will happen later, at the climax of the game. I would posit that this is the reason so many people love MEHEM and wish the original ending was a happy ending - because that is the story-telling expectation the emotional journey of the game set up!

At any rate, hindsight is 20/20, and it is important to remember that this just an analysis of what seems to have happened in the writing. It is very possible this is *not* how it happened, it could be that the writers wanted a double negative ending to see if they could pull it off. It could be that they don't view it this way at all. I also think it is important to keep in mind that these kinds of thing happen to the greatest writers. Bioware has AMAZING talent behind their writing, but that doesn't make them immune to things that happen to every writer. It's hard to see certain kinds of flaws when you're so close to a piece and, even if you can sense that something is off, it can still be incredibly difficult to fix. That's before even considering the complications that come with writing for a Bioware game - have YOU ever had to account for player choices in the execution of your Act climaxes? That is a pretty tall order and, frankly, Bioware delivers almost every single time. The point is, this is just an analysis of what might be at work behind the scenes from a writer's point of view. It's meant to be an exercise in thought, not in complaint, so read it that way and respond in kind. Think of it like workshopping - if I was workshopping the writing of this game, the above is what I would say about it having read McKee's thoughts on Act structure.

Thoughts on my analysis? Thoughts on the challenges of writing a game like Mass Effect 3? Your own analysis of what is working/not working writing-wise?

TL;DR: This is a post about writing. WRITING. So it would be way too ironic if I tried to give you a cheap shorthand for reading it, don't you think?

[CosmicGnosis]

What do you think of the "betrayal" of themes that each ending seems to be? Destroy invalidates everything we learned about synthetics. Control, although different from the Illusive Man's intentions, suggests that Shepard becomes the very thing he sought to defeat. Synthesis, perhaps accidentally, invalidates the theme of "strength through diversity" by suggesting that organics and synthetics will never understand each another without a forced merger that no one consented to.

These are the most popular thematic criticisms of the endings, and I think they exist because BioWare inadvertently contradicted the story that came before.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 12 février 2014 - 07:41 .

[katamuro]

Your analysis is quite good. And yes the emotional charge was quite negative in the final part and when the positive did not happen many did feel betrayed. And you are right when saying that there were too many elements mixed in producing the mix of emotions which because of the resolution felt even more negative.

I generally just think that because they were trying to use all the material they had and trying to make a "smart" ending they ended up having an overload of things and as a consequence it did not play out well.

[Sc2mashimaro]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

What do you think of the "betrayal" of themes that each ending seems to be? Destroy invalidates everything we learned about synthetics. Control, although different from the Illusive Man's intentions, suggests that Shepard becomes the very thing he sought to defeat. Synthesis, perhaps accidentally, invalidates the theme of "strength through diversity" by suggesting that organics and synthetics will never understand each another without a forced merger that no one consented to.

These are the most popular thematic criticisms of the endings, and I think they exist because BioWare inadvertently contradicted the story that came before.

I did previously think that the themes of the individual endings "betrayed" the themes of the writing prior to the ending. I am not sure this criticism holds up as well after giving it some thought, except in so far as the ending (Act 3 climax) has the same emotional valance as the beginning of the Act it is a part of. Like I mentioned in my post, attempting to write a 3rd Act climax that fits the playstyle of each player's perception of the character is incredibly difficutl and, upon consideration, the three ending choices of the game appear to be an attempt to give players the ability to have the ending match their themes. Rather than considering each ending as equally valid, consider each ending individually as "the ending" to a single story and I think that you will find that the themes can be traced through the game. The contradictions with each other do not matter in this way of thinking, because the choosing of an ending invalidates all the other endings as far as that individual story goes. Thus, why Bioware had no problem adding "Refuse" as an ending - there is a thematic justification for its existence.

Modifié par Sc2mashimaro, 12 février 2014 - 08:14 .

[SwobyJ]

Maybe it's as simple as the developers *wanting* people to feel uncomfortable?

But that they just overestimated how badly that would affect players?

[tracesaint]

Coming from a writer's perspective as well, I did spot the Crucible coming from a mile away. Not the device itself, but what it would end up doing. The Reapers were that kind of foe. It was going to take a fix all to, well, fix it all. In the end the player was left with the choice of how to finish the story.
The entire Priority: Earth section was a lot of negative thrust onto the player. For me, however, this felt like a hard hitting reality. There is no heroic music, no time for hubris, and little time for Shepard and his squad to accomplish the impossible. I cannot blame the writers for how they chose to end this trilogy. I have beaten all three games countless times, and I find positive can be found in endings perceived by many to be negative. There was going to have to be sacrifice, but many don't get to choose which kind. Numerous times I have seen someone write that this was a game and that they felt it should have entertained them, not made them make a tough decision. I have a hard time believing anyone who says that isn't just throwing a tantrum at the situation. The game is entertaining, but it is also an experience.
I also found your analysis to be well thought out. Especially when you mentioned finding the last two climaxes.

[tartif]

I generally agree with most of the analysis, but I'm not sure I agree with the placement of the acts in the third game. I think all three games follow a common story contour:

The first act is the introduction and ends when you get control of the Normandy. In ME1 it's when you take over the ship from Anderson. In ME2 it's after Freedom's Progress. In ME3 it's after Mars and the Citadel bits that follow it.

The second act is the open part of the game and ends in distress. In ME1, the death of a squadmate on Virmire. In ME2, the abduction of the crew. In ME3, it's the loss of the VI on Thessia. I believe a leaked script showed another teammate was originally meant to die on Thessia. That was not in the final game but the game still works hard to make Thessia feel like a tragic loss.

The third act is about rising back up and taking the fight to the enemy's home turf. This part is linear. In ME1 it's Ilos and the Citadel, in ME2 the Collector base, in ME3 Horizon, Cronos Station and Earth.

I don't think the attack on Earth is the end of an act. It's just some of the hardship the team goes through, like the Normandy crashing on the Collector base.

[katamuro]

I have to say the major part of the reason of why I hated it the first time I saw it was because a large part of me was saying "thats it?" I could not believe that they would resolve something like this in 5 minutes time without any explanation or even an epic shepard moment. It felt like a letdown. Like long joke where the punchline was not funny but everything before it was good. It built anticipation like it was supposed to but did not deliver.

[von uber]

I consider the end of Thessia to be the end of the second Act as noted above. The problem I have with the 3rd Act is that the emotional build up peaks after the Illusive Man confrontation to be swiftly replaced with the emotion of confusion.
You are therefore left confused as opposed to saddened / joyous, which is never a good feeling to end on.

[Jorji Costava]

I think Thessia could also be construed as ME3's "All is lost" moment, from the beat sheet of Blake Snyder's Save the Cat! (If anyone's wondering why so many Hollywood movies seem so formulaic, it's partly because there really is a literal formula that a lot of screen writers are following). Thessia brings the characters to their lowest point; the catalyst (still thought to simply be a device necessary for the crucible) is seemingly lost, Thessia is finished, etc. On top of that, I believe that a Virmire-like decision resulting in a squadmate death was originally planned for Thessia, so the whole sequence does seem to be out of the Blake Snyder playbook. The forced failure of Thessia arises from the need felt by the writers to hit this particular story beat.

[Sc2mashimaro]

tartif wrote...

I generally agree with most of the analysis, but I'm not sure I agree with the placement of the acts in the third game. I think all three games follow a common story contour:

The first act is the introduction and ends when you get control of the Normandy. In ME1 it's when you take over the ship from Anderson. In ME2 it's after Freedom's Progress. In ME3 it's after Mars and the Citadel bits that follow it.

The second act is the open part of the game and ends in distress. In ME1, the death of a squadmate on Virmire. In ME2, the abduction of the crew. In ME3, it's the loss of the VI on Thessia. I believe a leaked script showed another teammate was originally meant to die on Thessia. That was not in the final game but the game still works hard to make Thessia feel like a tragic loss.

The third act is about rising back up and taking the fight to the enemy's home turf. This part is linear. In ME1 it's Ilos and the Citadel, in ME2 the Collector base, in ME3 Horizon, Cronos Station and Earth.

I don't think the attack on Earth is the end of an act. It's just some of the hardship the team goes through, like the Normandy crashing on the Collector base.

I can buy that. Thessia works as a climax to the 2nd Act, but it makes the 3rd Act very long. Usually, the 3rd Act should be the shortest of the three acts and, in the case of ME1 and 2, that's true. If we place the 2nd Act climax at Thessia, it makes the 3rd Act the entirety of the Horizon, Cronos Station, and Earth missions. Additionally, it places more emphasis on the Kai-Lang subplot and means several subplots are not resolved until the 3rd Act. None of which is to judge whether that is good or bad, just that it does make the 3rd Act long.

I still think the emotional charge of the acts is relevant, but I will have to spend some time thinking about the story with Thessia as the 2nd Act Climax. And what, if anything, that changes about how I think of the story.

[Sc2mashimaro]

osbornep wrote...

I think Thessia could also be construed as ME3's "All is lost" moment, from the beat sheet of Blake Snyder's Save the Cat! (If anyone's wondering why so many Hollywood movies seem so formulaic, it's partly because there really is a literal formula that a lot of screen writers are following). Thessia brings the characters to their lowest point; the catalyst (still thought to simply be a device necessary for the crucible) is seemingly lost, Thessia is finished, etc. On top of that, I believe that a Virmire-like decision resulting in a squadmate death was originally planned for Thessia, so the whole sequence does seem to be out of the Blake Snyder playbook. The forced failure of Thessia arises from the need felt by the writers to hit this particular story beat.

Oh dear, Save the Cat!, haha. I know a few writers that swear by that book. It's never been a personal favorite, but it *does* have great advice on how to write a killer log line.

Edit: And I agree, it matches Snyder's beat sheet for the "All is lost" moment.

Modifié par Sc2mashimaro, 13 février 2014 - 03:49 .

[angol fear]

If you want to analyze from a writing perspective why don't you care about the stargazer scene? Writing isn't only about story and "emotion". While I know Mckee is very appreciated in Hollywood, we can't say that everything he says is right.

[katamuro]

angol fear wrote...

If you want to analyze from a writing perspective why don't you care about the stargazer scene? Writing isn't only about story and "emotion". While I know Mckee is very appreciated in Hollywood, we can't say that everything he says is right.

My general reaction to stargazer scene was WTF is this ****. 

[Sc2mashimaro]

angol fear wrote...

If you want to analyze from a writing perspective why don't you care about the stargazer scene? Writing isn't only about story and "emotion". While I know Mckee is very appreciated in Hollywood, we can't say that everything he says is right.

To me, the Stargazer scene is a bit of a throw-away. It's like the Shawarma scene from the Avengers. It's not relevant to the story structure as a whole, so whether it's good or bad isn't too important. I think a lot of things like this are really very secondary to how people experience a story (regardless of medium) and the amount of attention they get is more related to how the big/important mechanics of the story worked (or failed to work). That is, you never notice all the nit-picky details if the most important story elements work and you never celebrate the great little added details if the major story elements didn't work.

Thus, why I want to talk about the story from a writer's perspective. It's not about "this scene shouldn't be there" or "Bioware should change this" it's about: does this part work? Why? Why not? Is there a way to make it work without sweeping changes to the story (in other words, keeping the authors' intended vision in mind)? What can we learn about story structure from this? What does the story do really well? You know, constructive questions that writers ask themselves and each other.

And, I know McKee isn't the end-all of writing - I love what he has to say about story and reading his book is why I got to thinking about this in the first place. But there are lots of great writers and great books on writing out there with advice and good theories about writing. So, yeah, let's talk about the story from their perspective on writing too!

[ImaginaryMatter]

starlitegirlx wrote...

I'd say earth at the trucks where you keep getting flanked is the first and the second is facing the illusive man on the citadel. Actually, facing the illusive man is far more climactic than what happens after. What happens after is just emotional pandering and lazy writing for an end that tried to hard to be original.

Having the Catalyst show up after that Anderson scene was pretty jarring.

I thought an other problem with the Catalyst scene is that it throws aside the Reaper conflict for the whole Organic vs Synthesis one in the last few minutes of gameplay.

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 13 février 2014 - 07:13 .

[von uber]

As I said above remembering my emotions first time through the tim/Anderson section left ne welling up to be swiftly destroyed with wtf?
That shows a poor structure to the narrative arc.

[Sc2mashimaro]

von uber wrote...

As I said above remembering my emotions first time through the tim/Anderson section left ne welling up to be swiftly destroyed with wtf?
That shows a poor structure to the narrative arc.

It might. But specifically why?

It's easy to say, "this part sux". And I think it is also easy to assign superficial reasons about why, but it can be hard to really dig in and figure out why. Sometimes the answer isn't as obvious as "this part shouldn't be there". That's not to say it isn't a valid opinion, but it's not the only approach to it.

I'm more interested in taking it apart and talking about why a part works well or doesn't seem to work. It's like Music Theory: there's no wrong answers, but the idea is to look at the pieces and see how they work (or don't work) together.

So, for this one, it could be in part because of the false ending. Since the talk with Anderson after the climax of defeating the Illusive Man feels like the end of the story - especially if we put the 2nd Act Climax at Thessia - it is jarring when it is revealed that this is not the actual ending. It's already a mixed ending - mostly positive, I think - but mixed, and this new ending remixes that ending again, adding more negatives to the net emotional charge of the ending. Maybe that's why it seemed more negative than positive to most players. Does it deaden the intended impact of the ending - I think it might.

Another angle, this might be the result of 3rd Act Climax confusion. The Illusive Man is supposed to be a subplot while the fight against the Reapers is the main plot. Thus, the subplot was resolved with too much fanfare, while the Reaper plot did not receive enough attention. When we get to the main plot, we wonder why we're here because the Illusive Man seemed like the resolution of the main plot. Maybe it would have worked better if the Illusive Man's end had been relatively uninteresting, while the Reaper encounter had more conflict. This could be why the original plan was to indoctrinate Shepard - because this element would create the conflict needed to give the Starchild scene urgency.

Other ideas?

[angol fear]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

To me, the Stargazer scene is a bit of a throw-away. It's like the Shawarma scene from the Avengers. It's not relevant to the story structure as a whole, so whether it's good or bad isn't too important. I think a lot of things like this are really very secondary to how people experience a story (regardless of medium) and the amount of attention they get is more related to how the big/important mechanics of the story worked (or failed to work). That is, you never notice all the nit-picky details if the most important story elements work and you never celebrate the great little added details if the major story elements didn't work.

Thus, why I want to talk about the story from a writer's perspective. It's not about "this scene shouldn't be there" or "Bioware should change this" it's about: does this part work? Why? Why not? Is there a way to make it work without sweeping changes to the story (in other words, keeping the authors' intended vision in mind)? What can we learn about story structure from this? What does the story do really well? You know, constructive questions that writers ask themselves and each other.

And, I know McKee isn't the end-all of writing - I love what he has to say about story and reading his book is why I got to thinking about this in the first place. But there are lots of great writers and great books on writing out there with advice and good theories about writing. So, yeah, let's talk about the story from their perspective on writing too!

Don't get me wrong : I never intended to say something like  "this scene shouldn't be there" or "Bioware should change this".  I'm a writer too and I actually really like the original Mass Effect 3. But this scene is one of the most underestimated because it has nothing to do with the story but it's related to the intention of the authors. You know it's like some scene in David Lynch's movies that has nothing to do with the story but that give you clues to understand. I don't know any writer who spends his time writing an useless scene.

[SwobyJ]

"The Shepard"

"We are the Harbinger of your perfection."

[von uber]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

It might. But specifically why?

It's easy to say, "this part sux". And I think it is also easy to assign superficial reasons about why, but it can be hard to really dig in and figure out why. Sometimes the answer isn't as obvious as "this part shouldn't be there". That's not to say it isn't a valid opinion, but it's not the only approach to it.

I'm more interested in taking it apart and talking about why a part works well or doesn't seem to work. It's like Music Theory: there's no wrong answers, but the idea is to look at the pieces and see how they work (or don't work) together.

So, for this one, it could be in part because of the false ending. Since the talk with Anderson after the climax of defeating the Illusive Man feels like the end of the story - especially if we put the 2nd Act Climax at Thessia - it is jarring when it is revealed that this is not the actual ending. It's already a mixed ending - mostly positive, I think - but mixed, and this new ending remixes that ending again, adding more negatives to the net emotional charge of the ending. Maybe that's why it seemed more negative than positive to most players. Does it deaden the intended impact of the ending - I think it might.

Another angle, this might be the result of 3rd Act Climax confusion. The Illusive Man is supposed to be a subplot while the fight against the Reapers is the main plot. Thus, the subplot was resolved with too much fanfare, while the Reaper plot did not receive enough attention. When we get to the main plot, we wonder why we're here because the Illusive Man seemed like the resolution of the main plot. Maybe it would have worked better if the Illusive Man's end had been relatively uninteresting, while the Reaper encounter had more conflict. This could be why the original plan was to indoctrinate Shepard - because this element would create the conflict needed to give the Starchild scene urgency.

Other ideas?

Yes, I can agree with that. The Anderson feels like the ending (and would be a perfectly satisfactory one) and thus you are mentally prepared for it.