202 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Why does it suddenly start mattering then? Why is the ending of ME3 being held to a different standard than the beginning of ME2, or the ending of ME1?

 

Because it's the Destination.  The end of the story.  The final fate of our avatar in the game.

 

Believe me, I've rolled my eyes at the ridiculousness of parts of the story beforehand.  I've railed plenty of times against ME2's opening.  But even then, the story could always pick itself up again and continue.  There was always the promise that things will get better. 

 

But the ending, that's where the road stops.  That's the final impression.  Faceless torso-Shep is the last we will ever see of our Shepards.  There is no more story after that. 

 

Edit:  And this is a seperate issue from the logical/literary failings of the endings in general.

[vallore]

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."

 

The current situation is the “now,” not the then”:

 

“Currently” Shepard is severely wounded, bleeding, being in a nearly destroyed station, etc.

   

“Then” is what you are using to validate your assumption: “she survived all that before, she must survive this too now, regardless of the current dangers.”

 

You are using what happens in other scenes as a rule to validate what happens “now”, (and invalidate any other concern). Unfortunately, if we use other scenes to validate what happens in that particular scene we  also have to consider that Shepard’s death is possible, because it happened before once, could have happened twice (suicide mission), and could be happening now anyway, if you picked any other colour but red. The obvious conclusion:

 

Survival in some circumstances doesn’t guaranty survival in all circumstances. “If Shepard could die before, there is no guaranty she can’t die now, regardless of how unbelievable some of the things she went through.”

 

Your choice reflects a personal perspective, and it is a valid approach, but does not address the problems as viewed from different perspectives, and it certainly does not invalidates them.

 

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.

 

That is an awful lot of assumptions. Now, there is nothing wrong in making them, considering the ending is pretty ambiguous and open to one’s personal preferences, but that does makes it a personal take… me? I still consider exponentially more likely to die of heavy trauma and massive bleeding than a reaper falling upon her. Mind you, the onus of proof that Shepard must be found in time is of anyone that insists in it being so. I and others have already enumerated a good number of factors that clearly hinder that.

[vallore]

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.

 

 

However, imo, the issues are of different nature; in the terminator case we see it happen even if contradicts canon; the audience sees it.  However we consider it, we know that it happened. Solving the problem is not required of the audience to to know it happen.

 

 In the second case the writer created the problem and left it unsolved, forcing the audience to solve the problem in his place, or to ignore it. For a variety of reason it was easy for some to rationalize a way out, while others would have required more to  solve it in a satisfying way.