202 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

Maybe I should replace my current sig with the italed. It's pithier.

 

Be my guest, but personally I enjoy the idea of the Wile E. Coyote Theory. 

[sveners]

yes, precisely, the scene was left ambiguous, The only remark I would make is that it is not just a matter of what the player wants, but also a matter what it seems likely, from each player perspective.

 

You must have quoted Alan wrong. He doesn't think there's any ambiguity in the ending at all. And that if that (ambiguity) was BioWares intention, then they failed.

[sveners]

Only if the player is a fool.

 

Wow

[Iakus]

If you want to make up hypothetical ways for Shepard to possibly die after the game ends, that's fine. Nobody's stopping you; the scene's designed to let you believe that Shepard dies if you want to believe that. But they're just hypotheticals. There's no indication that those generators are about to fail.

 

So you agree it's not obvious that Shepard lives?

 

Glad we finally agree on something 

[Br3admax]

You do realize I wrote the original post you answered?

 

That was the point, trust me; the bit you speak of is just part of it, I just elaborate and explained further the why.

 

Sometimes, the fries are the only thing that makes the hamburger palatable.

 

 

That is not what I meant; rather both scenes are equally unlikely to the point of not being believable. It is like a million in one event; it can happen, but it’s so improbable that it requires it to be seen to actually feel it happened.

 

 

 

There is no immediate danger? She is dying, of injury and blood loss! The stations she is in a mess, the inhabitants likely decimated by the reapers and the explosion, who knows if life support will last or if it is still working... No one is there to help her, no one even know if she is alive or where she is, the ships who were monitoring her retreated out of the system, remember?

 

 

Believing there can be a way out is not enough; it must be felt as a credible way out, or be visualy presented as a reasonble enough way out.

 

You seem to be OK with it because you believe the scene to be plausible; therefore you have no difficulty to headcanon your way out.

Nope, because unless I don't like you, I won't take the time to learn your name or read who wrote it. I'll reply and forget. And while that may be true, it's "not needed."

 

I don't agree. Shepard breathing at all is improbable. Them continuing to do it afterwards is more probable than anything else seen since Thessia. 

 

We don't know, and while that's valid, hey, it could happen, I could say that about anything. "And what if a cruiser crashes into her/him, and then the debris from a Reaper falls on top of him/her." At a certain point, it becomes being openly pessimistic in an attempt to show that they died, instead of accepting that if they wanted Shepard to die, they would have killed him/her when they only minutes earlier said they would. 

 

Nope, I don't think it's plausible, but time and time again, Mass Effect has shown me that what I think is plausible is probably wrong. The story has been riddled with such things since Eden Prime. 

[vallore]

You must have quoted Alan wrong. He doesn't think there's any ambiguity in the ending at all. And that if that (ambiguity) was BioWares intention, then they failed.

 

 

Oh, I’m aware of his position, but the implications of his post where too good to miss; you cannot have an ending open enough to support you choosing between death and life without a good measure of  ambiguity.

 

Only if the player is a fool.

 

Now, now Alan, no need to loose one's composure; stiff upper lip and all that...

[vallore]

I don't agree. Shepard breathing at all is improbable. Them continuing to do it afterwards is more probable than anything else seen since Thessia. 

 

You are speaking how your personal perspective of earlier events conditions your perception of her current situation? OK, but since the degree and exact nature of that perception changes from player to player, we cannot expect that to hold validity for everyone. Mine appears to be coloured more by my perception of the “current” involving factors than what happened before.

 

We don't know, and while that's valid, hey, it could happen, I could say that about anything. "And what if a cruiser crashes into her/him, and then the debris from a Reaper falls on top of him/her." At a certain point, it becomes being openly pessimistic in an attempt to show that they died, instead of accepting that if they wanted Shepard to die, they would have killed him/her when they only minutes earlier said they would.

 

You could, but there are things far more probable than others; the probability of a cruiser falling on her, and then a Reaper seem to be infinitely less likely than say, someone that suffered heavy trauma and is bleeding profusely to die in a few hours, if left without assistance… or say, the probability of a station that suffered an heavy explosion to malfunction. There is a difference between going overboard with pessimism and being realistically pessimistic.

[KaiserShep]

This only makes Mac stronger. The power flows through him.

[sveners]

For some reason that actually made me guffaw.

 

Guffaw. That's a funny word. Guffaw.

[thearbiter1337]

That giant sitcom?

 

lolno

[AlanC9]

So you agree it's not obvious that Shepard lives?

 

Glad we finally agree on something 

 

Not precisely; I may have been unclear back there. A player who wants to make up a reason that Shepard dies right away is still fighting the obvious meaning of the scene. But such an interpretation of the scene isn't impossible or crazy. Unless the player doesn't want to interpret the scene that way, in which case interpreting the scene that way is crazy, or at best masochistic.

[AlanC9]

Now, now Alan, no need to loose one's composure; stiff upper lip and all that...

 

 

My bad. It's unhelpful to point out that someone's being a fool without pointing out why he's being a fool.

 

And when you let probability enter into the question of whether you think Shepard lives or not, you're being a fool because Mass Effect is not a documentary. Probabilities had nothing to do with whether or not Shepard survived at Alchera,or Akuze, or Torfan, or anyplace else in her history, and they won't suddenly start having anything to do with whether or not she survives at Earth.

[Br3admax]

You are speaking how your personal perspective of earlier events conditions your perception of her current situation? OK, but since the degree and exact nature of that perception changes from player to player, we cannot expect that to hold validity for everyone. Mine appears to be coloured more by my perception of the “current” involving factors than what happened before.

 

 

You could, but there are things far more probable than others; the probability of a cruiser falling on her, and then a Reaper seem to be infinitely less likely than say, someone that suffered heavy trauma and is bleeding profusely to die in a few hours, if left without assistance… or say, the probability of a station that suffered an heavy explosion to malfunction. There is a difference between going overboard with pessimism and being realistically pessimistic.

The current is so far you've been: Shot, blown up, shot again, been thrown around before finally slamming into filth, shot again, mindraped, blown up again, derezzed by a laser, and then being crushed under a bunch of rubble. Your first thought should be, "Wow, I really am Space Jesus," but you can chose, "I know I've made it through worst before, but logically I could die from falling rubble, even if I'm illogically alive now."

 

Not really, Reapers were flying around the Citadel well before the beam went off, and cruisers were scrambling to speed out of there. There's a higher chance of them hitting Shepard than the Citadel somehow facing any worse damage. If life support were failing anytime soon, the actions that make breathing possible would not be happening. Malfunctions don't happen suddenly and abruptly with this level of damage, They would last long enough for someone to locate Shepard, or they would have shut off earlier. Considering that gravity still seems to be a thing, I doubt the systems are failing. And sure, Shepard could bleed out in a few hours, but first you would have to prove that they would not be found in a few hours.

[Iakus]

My bad. It's unhelpful to point out that someone's being a fool without pointing out why he's being a fool.

 

And when you let probability enter into the question of whether you think Shepard lives or not, you're being a fool because Mass Effect is not a documentary. Probabilities had nothing to do with whether or not Shepard survived at Alchera,or Akuze, or Torfan, or anyplace else in her history, and they won't suddenly start having anything to do with whether or not she survives at Earth.

An author’s ability to solve conflict with magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic

 

Sanderson's First Law

 

If we can't understand how or why Shepard managed to survived standing in the core of a massive explosion in the first place, how are we supposed to understand how "it's obvious" that Shepard survives to be rescued.

 

Alchera is a similar problem

 

Akuze, Torfan, and Elysium are vague references which we have no idea what exactly happened, but we can presume Shepard survived thanks to quick wits, training, or other qualities of a good soldier.

[KaiserShep]

You mean like how we understand the magic behind Synthesis?

[Jorji Costava]

An author’s ability to solve conflict with magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic

 

Sanderson's First Law

 

If we can't understand how or why Shepard managed to survived standing in the core of a massive explosion in the first place, how are we supposed to understand how "it's obvious" that Shepard survives to be rescued.

 

Alchera is a similar problem

 

Akuze, Torfan, and Elysium are vague references which we have no idea what exactly happened, but we can presume Shepard survived thanks to quick wits, training, or other qualities of a good soldier.

 

Well, there's the fact that the breath scene is only accessible if your EMS is high enough; "Shepard takes one last gasp and then dies" doesn't sound like much of a reward for earning that EMS, so it's unlikely that this is the intention. Plus, there are considerations like tone and the question, "Why is this scene being included (from a writing point of view), if not to suggest that Shepard survives?" Sure, Shepard surviving the ending is ridiculous, but it's not much more ridiculous than Shepard surviving re-entry; we don't then assume that the rest of ME2 and ME3 consists of Shepard's dying thoughts. Same thing goes here.

 

I don't really have much stake in the issue myself; while I was never a fan of the ending, I can say that Shepard's death was the least of my concerns with it.

[Iakus]

You mean like how we understand the magic behind Synthesis?

 

Synthesis violates all three of Sanderson's Laws:

 

1) An author's ability to solve conflict satisfactorily with magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic.

2) Limitations > Powers

3) Expand what you already have before you add something new

 

But that's for a different thread.

[Iakus]

Well, there's the fact that the breath scene is only accessible if your EMS is high enough; "Shepard takes one last gasp and then dies" doesn't sound like much of a reward for earning that EMS, so it's unlikely that this is the intention. Plus, there are considerations like tone and the question, "Why is this scene being included (from a writing point of view), if not to suggest that Shepard survives?" Sure, Shepard surviving the ending is ridiculous, but it's not much more ridiculous than Shepard surviving re-entry; we don't then assume that the rest of ME2 and ME3 consists of Shepard's dying thoughts. Same thing goes here.

 

I don't really have much stake in the issue myself; while I was never a fan of the ending, I can say that Shepard's death was the least of my concerns with it.

 

Intention =/= understanding.

 

Aside from the breath scene, there is absolutely nothing different between that and plain ol' High EMS Destroy.  There is literally no reason why Shepard should live in one and not the other aside from an arbitrary number.  

[Jorji Costava]

Intention =/= understanding.

 

Aside from the breath scene, there is absolutely nothing different between that and plain ol' High EMS Destroy.  There is literally no reason why Shepard should live in one and not the other aside from an arbitrary number.  

 

I dunno, the intention was communicated clearly enough for me; when a cutscene is used as a reward for some accomplishment (in this case high EMS), that contextualizes the information in that cutscene as a positive thing, and "more detailed view of Shepard's final moments" is not exactly positive feedback on your EMS rating. And as I indicated above, looking for plausible, in-universe explanations of how any of this stuff happens is not the best way to go. It should have been obvious for some time that in-universe plausibility was not the guiding principle by which the ME series was written, and this should be especially so in the case of an ending which trades mostly in (poorly handled) symbolic gestures.

 

You could argue that the way in which Shepard's survival was presented wasn't any good, and I wouldn't disagree, but the answer to the simple question "Does Shepard survive" seems obvious enough to me based on the tone and presentation, and based on how systems of that ending are designed.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Synthesis violates all three of Sanderson's Laws:

 

1) An author's ability to solve conflict satisfactorily with magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic.

2) Limitations > Powers

3) Expand what you already have before you add something new

 

But that's for a different thread.

 

Finally! Yes, you see what is wrong with synthesis, not what you think is wrong with it.

[Iakus]

I dunno, the intention was communicated clearly enough for me; when a cutscene is used as a reward for some accomplishment (in this case high EMS), that contextualizes the information in that cutscene as a positive thing, and "more detailed view of Shepard's final moments" is not exactly positive feedback on your EMS rating. And as I indicated above, looking for plausible, in-universe explanations of how any of this stuff happens is not the best way to go. It should have been obvious for some time that in-universe plausibility was not the guiding principle by which the ME series was written, and this should be especially so in the case of an ending which trades mostly in (poorly handled) symbolic gestures.

 

You could argue that the way in which Shepard's survival was presented wasn't any good, and I wouldn't disagree, but the answer to the simple question "Does Shepard survive" seems obvious enough to me based on the tone and presentation, and based on how systems of that ending are designed.

But again, intention is not the same thing as understanding.  The breath scene may have meant (initially, at least) to indicate Shepard survives.  But there is nothing to explain how this is possible.  There is no difference whatsoever in how High EMS plays out with or without Shepard surviving.

 

Yes, Mass Effect was guilty of stuff like that before (the Lazarus Project was especially egregious) but it takes on a greater importance when you are dealing with teh final fate of the main character.  It was not only badly presented, but badly thought-out as well.

 

Finally! Yes, you see what is wrong with synthesis, not what you think is wrong with it.

 

I have never said otherwise.  The endings (all of them) fail on many levels, logical, aesthetic, and beyond

[Jorji Costava]

But again, intention is not the same thing as understanding.  The breath scene may have meant (initially, at least) to indicate Shepard survives.  But there is nothing to explain how this is possible.  There is no difference whatsoever in how High EMS plays out with or without Shepard surviving.

 

Yes, Mass Effect was guilty of stuff like that before (the Lazarus Project was especially egregious) but it takes on a greater importance when you are dealing with teh final fate of the main character.  It was not only badly presented, but badly thought-out as well.

 

My point is simply that 'understanding' (not quite sure what you mean by that) isn't the same as what actually happens in the story. Events are frequently written into stories with no explanation as to how they are possible, or in blatant contradiction to the lore. The thing to conclude is not that the events must not have "really happened," but just that the writers made a mistake.

 

Here's a quick example: In Terminator 2: Judgment Day, how is the T-1000 able to go back in time? The answer is that it can't, because it was clearly established in the first film that "nothing dead can go back," and the T-1000, being liquid metal, has no organic components. Upon noting this, I don't conclude that the events of T2 are all happening in Sarah Connor's head; rather, the more sensible conclusion is that the events did happen canonically within the story even though they contradict previously established lore. The writers just didn't think about the scientific or practical explanation of how the events in their story are possible. Same with the breath scene as far as I'm concerned.

[KaiserShep]

The T-800 would've looked quite the fool if the skin was sent back in time while the metal endoskeleton stayed behind (I know Reese explained that as well).

[Iakus]

My point is simply that 'understanding' (not quite sure what you mean by that) isn't the same as what actually happens in the story. Events are frequently written into stories with no explanation as to how they are possible, or in blatant contradiction to the lore. The thing to conclude is not that the events must not have "really happened," but just that the writers made a mistake.

 

 

What I mean is what's the difference between 3099 EMS and 3100?  Why does Shepard die in one and live(?) in the other?  There is no clear reason besides "Because reason"  How can one appreciate Shepard lives when by all indications Shepard should be dead.

 

I mean, I can't justify it by saying Shepard was able to take shelter, or shoot from a distance (we clearly see Shepard walking into the explosion just like every other Destroy ending) We can't say the explosion was less intense, it appears identical (and equally massive).  We can't say anything, except "breath scene"

 

When you are dealing with someone else's character, especially whether said character lives or dies, you better be 100% clear why their last image of said character is a faceless torso and what that means exactly.

 

I'd say the writers made many, many huge mistakes when it came to the ending.  A pity they seemed to disagree.

[KaiserShep]

There's no way to apply any in-game logic to the war asset points system, just like I can't tell you why a handful of multiplayer characters can be worth more points than the entire Alliance fleet.