99 réponses à ce sujet

[angol fear]

Is this a post supporting the Indoctrination Theory?

 

No, it's not. It's a real analysis of the trilogy based on the writing. Did you really read what I wrote? Where is the indoctrination theory in my post?

[ImaginaryMatter]

No, it's not. It's a real analysis of the trilogy based on the writing. Did you really read what I wrote? Where is the indoctrination theory in my post?

 

It's the same kind of vague talk about stepping back and seeing the bigger picture. It's a lot of words and a lot of jargon that doesn't say anything.

[angol fear]

It's the same kind of vague talk about stepping back and seeing the bigger picture. It's a lot of words and a lot of jargon that doesn't say anything.

 

Then believe what you want to believe.

[Vazgen]

 

Is this a post supporting the Indoctrination Theory?

No idea where you got IT from that post. The idea is that we experience the universe through the eyes of the player's character through the entire trilogy. The ending shows a new perspective and therefore feels disconnected from the rest of the trilogy.

[Valmar]

 

 

No idea where you got IT from that post. The idea is that we experience the universe through the eyes of the player's character through the entire trilogy. The ending shows a new perspective and therefore feels disconnected from the rest of the trilogy.

 

 

It's more than just 'new perspectives' that make the ending feel so disconnected. Not saying that the perspective doesn't play a role or anything, just that its being given too much credit as the culprit. Lets not downplay all the other glaring issues. Lol. Honestly, thinking about it, there isn't that much new perspective in the ending, is there?

[Valmar]

Jeeze whats with my double posts today? Sorry about that.

[Vazgen]

It's more than just 'new perspectives' that make the ending feel so disconnected. Not saying that the perspective doesn't play a role or anything, just that its being given too much credit as the culprit. Lets not downplay all the other glaring issues. Lol. Honestly, thinking about it, there isn't that much new perspective in the ending, is there?

I just tried to explain angol fear's post. IMO the Catalyst does give a new perspective on the exact nature of the cycle, previous interactions with the Reapers are not that specific. I think the idea of the ending is quite good, just that it's not that well implemented. With a few changes it can be made to fit quite well. The theme of organics fighting synthetics was the most pronounced in ME1, ME2 nearly threw it out of the airlock and ME3 tried to tie the loose ends. Though, I think, if considering all games with all DLCs, organics vs synthetics theme is one the most prominent ones in the trilogy. 

[n7stormreaver]

 Though, I think, if considering all games with all DLCs, organics vs synthetics theme is one the most prominent ones in the trilogy. 

 

I don't know, for me the most prominent theme in trilogy is "If something tries to slaughter you, fight back", Mass Effect never had any deep or philosophical conclusions and was hilariously incompetent at showing Organics vs. Synthetics thing (remember how Protheans won The Metacon war? Or how Geth turned out to actually be hippy-bots?). Before ME3 i always thought that Mass Effect is just a space opera about fighting a big bad evil and i would be satisfied if it stayed that way up until the ending. 

 

To unveil SvO theme you need to actually discuss Artificial Intelligence, how it should evolve, develop to evaluate things, not just "accidentally created AIs suddenly managed to kill billions in retaliation" kind of bullshit. 

[KaiserShep]

Before ME3, Mass Effect was kind of all over the place. It struck me as a hodgepodge of various themes from other scifi stories, serving to flesh out the universe in total but never quite focusing on any one in particular.

[Vazgen]

I don't know, for me the most prominent theme in trilogy is "If something tries to slaughter you, fight back", Mass Effect never had any deep or philosophical conclusions and was hilariously incompetent at showing Organics vs. Synthetics thing (remember how Protheans won The Metacon war? Or how Geth turned out to actually be hippy-bots?). Before ME3 i always thought that Mass Effect is just a space opera about fighting a big bad evil and i would be satisfied if it stayed that way up until the ending. 

 

To unveil SvO theme you need to actually discuss Artificial Intelligence, how it should evolve, develop to evaluate things, not just "accidentally created AIs suddenly managed to kill billions in retaliation" kind of bullshit. 

I didn't say "the most prominent" I said "one of the most prominent". Fighting back when something tries to kill you is definitely the most prominent theme (in 99% of video games, I might add). Metacon war is an example of organic/synthetic conflict, same as geth/quarian situation. You do discuss AI creation and evolution a lot through interactions with Legion and EDI. Daro'Xen, Javik, Tali also offer points on AI. If you think that organic vs synthetic theme is brought only in the ending you didn't pay close attention

[n7stormreaver]

I didn't say "the most prominent" I said "one of the most prominent". Fighting back when something tries to kill you is definitely the most prominent theme (in 99% of video games, I might add). Metacon war is an example of organic/synthetic conflict, same as geth/quarian situation. You do discuss AI creation and evolution a lot through interactions with Legion and EDI. Daro'Xen, Javik, Tali also offer points on AI. If you think that organic vs synthetic theme is brought only in the ending you didn't pay close attention

 

It was brought, but it wasn't important, it seemed like another "sci-fi melting pot" theme which Mass Effect was using, but it turned out to be the main one real quick. 

[Valmar]

I just tried to explain angol fear's post. IMO the Catalyst does give a new perspective on the exact nature of the cycle, previous interactions with the Reapers are not that specific. I think the idea of the ending is quite good, just that it's not that well implemented. With a few changes it can be made to fit quite well. The theme of organics fighting synthetics was the most pronounced in ME1, ME2 nearly threw it out of the airlock and ME3 tried to tie the loose ends. Though, I think, if considering all games with all DLCs, organics vs synthetics theme is one the most prominent ones in the trilogy. 

 

Not a lot of it was all that new, though. The only thing new is the twist about being motivated to save us from being killed by synthetics, as far as the cycle goes. Which was a new perspective only in regards to being the motivation of the harvest and not in of itself new to the ending. Like you said, the organ vs synthetic stuff has been going around since the start of the trilogy.
 Also note that I never said there was no new perspective in the ending, just that there isn't much, imo.

 

I feel like the issues with the ending are so much bigger than 'perspective' that its almost comical to see it be pointed to as the main culprit. It's like saying the only reason people didn't like the ending is because Shepard dies.

 

Though, in hindsight, it is funny to see an argument made that the issue is new perspective when that argument itself seems to lack perspective of all the other things inherently wrong with the ending. Ironic humor.

[Valmar]

I just tried to explain angol fear's post. IMO the Catalyst does give a new perspective on the exact nature of the cycle, previous interactions with the Reapers are not that specific. I think the idea of the ending is quite good, just that it's not that well implemented. With a few changes it can be made to fit quite well. The theme of organics fighting synthetics was the most pronounced in ME1, ME2 nearly threw it out of the airlock and ME3 tried to tie the loose ends. Though, I think, if considering all games with all DLCs, organics vs synthetics theme is one the most prominent ones in the trilogy. 

 

Not a lot of it was all that new, though. The only thing new is the twist about being motivated to save us from being killed by synthetics, as far as the cycle goes. Which was a new perspective only in regards to being the motivation of the harvest and not in of itself new to the ending. Like you said, the organ vs synthetic stuff has been going around since the start of the trilogy.
 Also note that I never said there was no new perspective in the ending, just that there isn't much, imo.

 

I feel like the issues with the ending are so much bigger than 'perspective' that its almost comical to see it be pointed to as the main culprit. It's like saying the only reason people didn't like the ending is because Shepard dies.

 

Though, in hindsight, it is funny to see an argument made that the issue is new perspective when that argument itself seems to lack perspective of all the other things inherently wrong with the ending. Ironic humor.

[StarcloudSWG]

I know that a lot of people feel that it doesn't fit. The problem doesn't come from the game. The disconnection in the end was needed : the catalyst scene is a "high level" perception scene. Casey Hudson said it, and when everyone plays it the first time, it is surprising and yes, there's that feeling of disconnection. When you're in the event and when you take a step back to see the picture, you have to feel a disconnection. Mass Effect has an real important RPG aspect because the player who only experience the story, sees just like shepard 95% of the time. He is in the events and can't see the picture.

For the peace quarian geth it's the same thing : people can't see (or don't want to see) the context of the peace.

 

 

This is *exactly* why the ending is horrible storytelling. I mean, absolutely horrible. If you're going to do the 'textbook presentation' thing, do it in developer commentary after the game's release. Don't screw up the ending by yanking the player brutally out of the story.

[ImaginaryMatter]

 

 

No idea where you got IT from that post. The idea is that we experience the universe through the eyes of the player's character through the entire trilogy. The ending shows a new perspective and therefore feels disconnected from the rest of the trilogy.

 

 

I've heard ITers say the same thing about viewing the end from a different perspective. I don't find it to be a defense, or at least a good one. It's vague nonsense that can mean one of a dozen or more things. It's like a campaign slogan. 'Supporting America' is catchy but it's not a concrete set of policies and it leaves voters wondering how exactly the candidate is going to accomplish it. So, the ending has to be viewed from a different perspective, what does that mean (I really don't find it self-explanatory)? How is that good? Are the logical failing there on purpose to create this feeling of disconnect and does the new perspective justify them?

 

Then believe what you want to believe.

 

What I'm trying to say is I don't know what to believe. Out of all the other long worded defenses of the ending I have never seen any that talked about purposeful disconnects, post-modern aesthetics, 'high level' perceptions, etc. As I said before, it's a string of words that doesn't say anything.

[angol fear]

 

What I'm trying to say is I don't know what to believe. Out of all the other long worded defenses of the ending I have never seen any that talked about purposeful disconnects, post-modern aesthetics, 'high level' perceptions, etc. As I said before, it's a string of words that doesn't say anything.

 

http://www.eurogamer...ed-more-closure

 

 

"But then me and Casey talked and decided, let's keep the conversation 'High level' - give you the details that you need to know, but don't get into the stuff that you don't need to know. "

 

 

Then you can ask yourself  : why is there an elevator to get to that scene? why that place with the catalyst is so disconnected to what is happening? Why can you see what is happening (the battle) when talking to the catalyst? Why there's so many questions that people ask themselves but no answer to them in that dialogue (they could but they didn't)? Without the "high level" clue you can answer these questions and the answer will always be "they didn't know what they were writing", "it's bad writing" etc...

[angol fear]

This is *exactly* why the ending is horrible storytelling. I mean, absolutely horrible. If you're going to do the 'textbook presentation' thing, do it in developer commentary after the game's release. Don't screw up the ending by yanking the player brutally out of the story.

 

Then Kubrick is a bad storyteller. Same to David Lynch. No?

[Iakus]

http://www.eurogamer...ed-more-closure

 

 

"But then me and Casey talked and decided, let's keep the conversation 'High level' - give you the details that you need to know, but don't get into the stuff that you don't need to know. "

 

 

Then you can ask yourself  : why is there an elevator to get to that scene? why that place with the catalyst is so disconnected to what is happening? Why can you see what is happening (the battle) when talking to the catalyst? Why there's so many questions that people ask themselves but no answer to them in that dialogue (they could but they didn't)? Without the "high level" clue you can answer these questions and the answer will always be "they didn't know what they were writing", "it's bad writing" etc...

Yep.  Bad writing indeed.  You don't take Star Wars and weld a Solaris ending onto it.

[angol fear]

Yep.  Bad writing indeed.  You don't take Star Wars and weld a Solaris ending onto it.

 

That's your point of view. You like star war (a story for children made by someone how didn't like that much making films). Glad for you. I like the first trilogy of Star Wars but I don't overestimate it, I know what it is, how it is written and I can see the difference between Star Wars (fake Science fiction) and Mass Effect (real science fiction). You can't compare science fiction and fantasy or you're a bad reader.

 

And for Solaris, you're talking about Tarkovski's or soderbergh's? Or the book?

[Iakus]

That's your point of view. You like star war (a story for children made by someone how didn't like that much making films). Glad for you. I like the first trilogy of Star Wars but I don't overestimate it, I know what it is, how it is written and I can see the difference between Star Wars (fake Science fiction) and Mass Effect (real science fiction). You can't compare science fiction and fantasy or you're a bad reader.

 

And for Solaris, you're talking about Tarkovski's or soderbergh's? Or the book?

Whether you happen to like an individual story is immaterial.  Shifting focus, theme, tone, at the last minute is bad writing.  If you want to make a "high concept" tragic story, fine.  Do it from the start.  If you want to make an action-packed story about a space marine saving the galaxy, do that from the start.  Don't suddenly decide to veer of in another direction because you want to put your personal stamp on a franchise.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Shifting focus, theme, tone, at the last minute is bad writing.

 

None of which are the reason for why the ending is bad, though: focus is unchanged (just re-framed a bit), theme is an abstract construct that is going to vary from person to person, ditto tone. Only offenses here are failure to communicate the concept adequately (hence those seeing some kind of focus-shift), literally childish presentation, and lack of a clear optimum end (after having made that the expectation for playing).

[Obadiah]

...
Shifting focus, theme, tone, at the last minute is bad writing.
...

I don't think that is a rule anywhere.

[Ithurael]

I don't think that is a rule anywhere.

 

Well...not to get too nitty gritty but it kinda is

 

http://www.writersdi...f-novel-endings

 

Don’t change voice, tone or attitude. An ending will feel tacked on if the voice of the narrator suddenly sounds alien to the voice that’s been consistent for the previous 80,000 words.

 

Of course you could always dismiss this as the authors own opinion I suppose...

[Obadiah]

Well...not to get too nitty gritty but it kinda is

http://www.writersdi...f-novel-endings

Don’t change voice, tone or attitude. An ending will feel tacked on if the voice of the narrator suddenly sounds alien to the voice that’s been consistent for the previous 80,000 words.
...

There is no narrator in Mass Effect. There is Shepard and the situations encountered. What the Catalyst says, to me, is actually pretty consistent with the rest of the game. Its an eye opening perspective on the experiences.

...
Of course you could always dismiss this as the authors own opinion I suppose...

It be more "guidelines" than an actual rule.

Could it have been better executed? Sure. But we'd still have generally the same story, and I suspect that the same people complaining now would complain about that execution as well because, really, they just don't like the story.

[Ithurael]

There is no narrator in Mass Effect. There is Shepard and the situations encountered. What the Catalyst says, to me, is actually pretty consistent with the rest of the game. Its an eye opening perspective on the experiences.

It be more "guidelines" than an actual rule.

Could it have been better executed? Sure. But we'd still have generally the same story, and I suspect that the same people complaining now would complain about that execution as well because, really, they just don't like the story.

 

There is no narrator - that is true. All we have is the narrative. And, sadly, from what I have seem - objectivly - the narrative does make a substantial tonal shift. I suppose that is why most feel the ending is so disconnected. Now, this can be kinda a good thing I think if they did it right. And you are correct, it could definitly been better executed.

 

However, by the end the amount of retcons, lore inconsistancies and questions begin to stack up for me and it becomes too much for my suspension of disbelief. Though, I don't think the issue here is what the catalyst says, but rather the problem of what the catalyst is and the problems it creates. (with no in game answers to those problems all we are left to do is speculate/headcanon them out).

 

Though I am very happy you like it - that is awesome!!!

 

And I do agree again, that the cited article is more like guidelines. There are a few I really REALLY don't agree with like the redemption for the main character. That is a bit silly to me.