99 réponses à ce sujet

[von uber]

I can see the difference between Star Wars (fake Science fiction) and Mass Effect (real science fiction).

 

Mass Effect comes from the same stable as Star Wars (especially in its later iterations).

[Fayfel]

Chris L'Etoile described Mass Effect as drywall science fiction; sturdy enough for appearances sake, but with a little effort, easily broken. Given elements of ME2 and most of ME3, I'd argue that the MEU now has more in common with science fantasy like Star Wars than any "real science fiction".

[Valmar]

Chris L'Etoile described Mass Effect as drywall science fiction; sturdy enough for appearances sake, but with a little effort, easily broken. Given elements of ME2 and most of ME3, I'd argue that the MEU now has more in common with science fantasy like Star Wars than any "real science fiction".

 

How anyone can look at the synthesis ending and still consider it to be more "real science fiction" rather than "science fantasy" is beyond me. Space magic to the extreme.

[Obadiah]

The Mass Effect 3 ending is a singular representation of the potentially overwhelming power to destroy, control, or transform that will be available to us as we advance technologically. It is power, frightening to some, coveted by others, that we can barely conceive of or imagine today, and that we will have to come to terms with. How and why we use it at the climax says as much about the player as it does the game and its creators.

[angol fear]

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...

 

Sorry guy, I know my job. There's no rule in writing. There's only rules if you want to please people. The "do and don't" is done for beginners who don't know what is writing. It's basic writing which means that it has no value. 

 

How anyone can look at the synthesis ending and still consider it to be more "real science fiction" rather than "science fantasy" is beyond me. Space magic to the extreme.

 

Then you should read science-fiction. Go back to its roots to understand it. If you consider that science fiction is based on hard science fiction, you're wrong.

[Valmar]

Then you should read science-fiction. Go back to its roots to understand it. If you consider that science fiction is based on hard science fiction, you're wrong.

 

The impression you're giving me is rather passive-aggressive. I didn't say it was science fiction. I said that between science fiction and science fantasy the synthesis ending is more science fantasy. Objectively I'm not sure how you can disagree with that. Though at the same time I don't really care enough to continue talking about it, either. If you really feel like the space magic green ending isn't more fantasy, thats up to you and your cognitive dissonance. I don't have the fire in me anymore to talk about the ending as much as I used to. It gets rather tying after a few years, honestly.

[angol fear]

The impression you're giving me is rather passive-aggressive. It gets rather tying after a few years, honestly.

 

You're right, I'm quite aggressive. Because I'm tired of seeing the same thing again and again. I've tried to explain things on how to understand the ending, why it was written this way. And I've finally understood that explaining things is useless. People don't read : take a look at Iakus post, he didn't read the interview, didn't ask the question to himself, and didn't try to answer it. He actually didn't read my post but he saw "bad writing". He was so glad to see that and came to only post "yes it was bad writing". Is that a constructive way to do? A dialogue is impossible because he will not accept anything coming from someone who liked the ending. That's not reading, that's not thinking.

So I've decided to stop explanations and only give clues. People who will think about the clues will find their answers themselves, the others will be stuck in their own representation of the game and time will not help them.

So if I'm aggressive it's because I'm not only talking to you. "Then you should read science-fiction" is sure really aggressive and it's for people here who read wikipedia and think that they know what science-fiction and fantasy are. Or for people who think that they can make opinion on science-fiction based on fantasy criteria.

And I can disagree with synthesis = science-fantasy.

[Han Shot First]

Isn't Mac Walters a comic book guy? That might explain why less effort was putting into making sure stuff made sense in the sequels, and you get things like the Human Reaper shaped like a human, Samara running around with her t!ts half-exposed in a vacuum or the space magic of Synthesis. Not to bash comics, but they're not exactly the pinnacle of high quality writing. And they've never been too concerned with elements in their stories being plausible.

[Daemul]

Chris L'Etoile described Mass Effect as drywall science fiction; sturdy enough for appearances sake, but with a little effort, easily broken. Given elements of ME2 and most of ME3, I'd argue that the MEU now has more in common with science fantasy like Star Wars than any "real science fiction".

Mass Effect crossed into the realms of science fantasy long ago, many would argue it has been science fantasy from the very beginning, and really, it doesn't bother me, cause Star Wars is cool.

[Oni Changas]

ME1 and 2 seemed more grounded in reality, especially the first. I love "talky" sci fi, it gives you a better perspective into the world you're in to understand how things are plausible in the story. Lazarus project was a big mistake, but most other things in 2 can be put next to ME1 and still feel consistent in tone. I hope ME4 gives us that feeling of wonder again as we meet new races.

[von uber]

Just playing as a SPECTRE in the mass effect universe would be a great series of games, with recurring characters / companions.
You could have villains of the day with slower burning game spanning plots that slowly come to fruition.

Gives much more scope for allowable failure too.

[Linkenski]

Trust me, I like what Mac has brought to the series, but it's more present than ever in his comics that his style alone is not what makes Mass Effect good. He isn't good without the help from the other writers on the team to balance it out. Likewise Drew Karpyshyn was an excellent lore and plot contributor but his writing-style was unflavored to say the least.

 

I'm just at Priority Earth in my 5th ME3 run now, and once again I find that it's the main missions that boggle ME3 down for me, aside from Rannoch and Tuchanka. Mars is okay, but I think they introduced TIM and the Crucible with no subtlety whatsoever, but it's really from Thessia and onwards that the story begins to fall apart. Thessia is a supposed equivalent to Virmire in ME1. This idea is strengthened by the fact that everyone including Shepard seems to dumbfoundingly believe that "once we get the artifact it's over". There's a lot of tell-don't-show syndrome going on there, and the mission is way too short and just overall lacks something. Sanctuary is better because it's unique in its theme but I always get a sense that there's a dropped plot-point in there that Bioware didn't have time to remove (TIM learning to control husks) and there's some very rushed aspects of the level content, like those interactive consoles and a misplaced female voice that comes out of nowhere etc.

 

But why is it that there are so many unique choices and all sorts of different outcomes in the Tuchanka and Rannoch arc when all the singular main missions - supposedly written by Mac - have little to no amount of choice->consequence in them? They're all full of writing oddities and mishandled characters. I think Mac should stay at Bioware, but he can't be allowed to be above the ranks of Senior Writer. Anyone at Bioware should recognize this when they take a step back and look at what he did for Mass Effect 3. Look at how he treats the lore in his comics by shoehorning in Cerberus everywhere, not to mention his 12 part series is about Rasa/Maya Brooks. A character Bioware mostly made for fun and derps for the Citadel DLC but Mac takes it seriously as an important part of the lore SMH

[ImaginaryMatter]

Trust me, I like what Mac has brought to the series, but it's more present than ever in his comics that his style alone is not what makes Mass Effect good. He isn't good without the help from the other writers on the team to balance it out. Likewise Drew Karpyshyn was an excellent lore and plot contributor but his writing-style was unflavored to say the least.

 

I'm just at Priority Earth in my 5th ME3 run now, and once again I find that it's the main missions that boggle ME3 down for me, aside from Rannoch and Tuchanka. Mars is okay, but I think they introduced TIM and the Crucible with no subtlety whatsoever, but it's really from Thessia and onwards that the story begins to fall apart. Thessia is a supposed equivalent to Virmire in ME1. This idea is strengthened by the fact that everyone including Shepard seems to dumbfoundingly believe that "once we get the artifact it's over". There's a lot of tell-don't-show syndrome going on there, and the mission is way too short and just overall lacks something. Sanctuary is better because it's unique in its theme but I always get a sense that there's a dropped plot-point in there that Bioware didn't have time to remove (TIM learning to control husks) and there's some very rushed aspects of the level content, like those interactive consoles and a misplaced female voice that comes out of nowhere etc.

 

But why is it that there are so many unique choices and all sorts of different outcomes in the Tuchanka and Rannoch arc when all the singular main missions - supposedly written by Mac - have little to no amount of choice->consequence in them? They're all full of writing oddities and mishandled characters. I think Mac should stay at Bioware, but he can't be allowed to be above the ranks of Senior Writer. Anyone at Bioware should recognize this when they take a step back and look at what he did for Mass Effect 3. Look at how he treats the lore in his comics by shoehorning in Cerberus everywhere, not to mention his 12 part series is about Rasa/Maya Brooks. A character Bioware mostly made for fun and derps for the Citadel DLC but Mac takes it seriously as an important part of the lore SMH

 

I have similar feelings about Thessia. It was weird to have Shepard make all these lofty, unsubtle statements about some unknown device that connected somehow to another device who's exact function was unknown and for the most part had been sidelined since its introduction; I guess I can understand Shepard's feelings but as a player there wasn't any tension for me. The straw that broke the camel's back though, for the entire game, was that encounter at the end with TIM and Kai Leng. Sanctuary and the Cerberus headquarters were just more Cerberus crap heaped into the story that had to be shoveled through (although as a level Cerberus HQ is one of the better missions in the game -- outside of the all that main story stuff).

 

As for Mac I don't really care, as long as Cerberus stays dead and doesn't come back in any form. I hope he got all of Cerberus out of his system with the comics.

[KaiserShep]

I actually enjoyed the final fight on Cronos. The only thing that really annoyed me was how much slower and dumber everyone had to be for Leng to get to that point. I also had no problem with Sanctuary. If anything, I think we did kind of need some kind of foundation to support all this control nonsense that TIM was talking about. Anyway, Cerberus was already firmly established as a major enemy force through a great deal of the game thus far, so the story might as well follow through. I'm just glad that Cerberus wasn't part of Priority: Earth. Imagine having to go through hordes of Cerberus troopers, and Harbinger has a big Cerberus logo on its forehead.

[angol fear]

Isn't Mac Walters a comic book guy? Not to bash comics, but they're not exactly the pinnacle of high quality writing. And they've never been too concerned with elements in their stories being plausible.

 

No, the quality of writing has nothing to do with "comic book guy" or something else. Neil Gaiman is a great storyteller and when he wrote an episode of Doctor Who you see the difference of level in the writing between him and the others writers. Adrian Tomine is a comic book guy too and write real serious comics which are pretty close, in their storytelling, to literature. And you can see the Hollywood scenarist like David S. Goyer who doesn't know how to write but he is very popular.

The quality of storytelling has nothing to do with the form (book, cinema or comic book). A writer is a writer. They all ask themselves the same question but they find different answers because of the form.

The real things that affect quality are "for who it is written?", "what is the purpose?" and "how will I do that?".

But I've already say that on another topic but I think people underestimate the role of the producers and Casey Hudson. It's a team writing and the one who finally decide the elements of the story isn't Mac Walters, it's Casey Hudson. 

[dreamgazer]

How anyone can look at the synthesis ending and still consider it to be more "real science fiction" rather than "science fantasy" is beyond me. Space magic to the extreme.

 

How anyone can look at the mental cipher, the Thorian, and hopper Saren and not realize that Mass Effect has always been "science fantasy" is beyond me.

[Linkenski]

Yeah, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that Mass Effect was always more Sci-fantasy than Sci-fi, but it was still always on the more techy sci-fi esque side than Star Wars by basing a lot of its rules and lore on established facts and science that, at least, strived to be realistic. If Star Wars is pure Fantasy and The Matrix is Sci-fi, then Mass Effect always leaned more towards being Sci-fi and a lot of that was lost with Synthesis (though I get we're not actually arguing that right now. Just wanted to clarify it)

[dreamgazer]

I mean, really, a mind-controlling plant crapped out fully-armed asari clones, and created some magic brain juju by absorbing the "essence" from dead bodies. 

 

And there ain't a damn thing "techy" about the beacon's message and, especially, the necessary cipher.  Without it, Mass Effect wouldn't exist. 

[Linkenski]

Yeah I guess you're right when it comes to those things. I just feel like as a whole Mass Effect was always more on the techy side in regards to other basic things of how its world building is sewn together. It's probably just the inconsistency in having a very attention-to-detail writer like Chris L'Etoile (who wrote all Codex in ME1 and EDI, Legion and Ashley until he left after ME2) and then a fantasy writer like Drew Karpyshyn who is more keen on adding wonder and color to the universe than he is to make it all make perfect sense.

[Obadiah]

I mean, really, a mind-controlling plant crapped out fully-armed asari clones, and created some magic brain juju by absorbing the "essence" from dead bodies.
...

The clone with gun is dumb, but the whole idea of a multi-thousand year old plant using spores to control other animals is sorty of the logical next step from plants emitting pheromones to attract animals to pollinate it. Maybe a few steps.

I suppose it is ridiculous - but the game played it so straight the concept just sort of blew mind mind.

...
And there ain't a damn thing "techy" about the beacon's message and, especially, the necessary cipher.  Without it, Mass Effect wouldn't exist.

You think? The purely visual display in ME3 in the From Ashes DLC didn't make a whole lotta sense, but the idea of a mind to mind transfer requiring a perspective to comprehend, that I sort of understand.

[Aimi]

You think? The purely visual display in ME3 in the From Ashes DLC didn't make a whole lotta sense, but the idea of a mind to mind transfer requiring a perspective to comprehend, that I sort of understand.

The idea makes sense, the execution makes no sense.

[Obadiah]

The idea makes sense, the execution makes no sense.

Well, Shiala also said that the Thorian observed and studied the Protheans while they were alive. I think it is safe to say that the Thorian also probably infected the Protheans with the same spores that infected the colonists, and with the some sort of mind link. When Shiala said the Thorian consumed them, I assume the Thorian read some physiological characteristic that added to the perspective. I would not have said the Thorian gained perspective from the Protheans by simply consuming them.

[Aimi]

Well, Shiala also said that the Thorian observed and studied the Protheans while they were alive. I think it is safe to say that the Thorian also probably infected the Protheans with the same spores that infected the colonists, and with the some sort of mind link. When Shiala said the Thorian consumed them, I assume the Thorian read some physiological characteristic that added to the perspective. I would not have said the Thorian gained perspective from the Protheans by simply consuming them.

Yeah, except Shepard has no idea about any of the Protheans' physiological characteristics even after absorbing the Cipher. S/he is completely surprised by the ME2 revelation that Collectors were a form of huskified/indoctrinated Prothean, with a certain resemblance to the original article. This is despite the similarity being, y'know, kinda obvious: Jack, for example, immediately understands that Javik is a "Collector-looking *******". If Protheans' physiological differences from the Council races was what made their information difficult to disentangle, presumably the Cipher would have given Shepard an understanding of what those differences were.

And there's still the other stuff - the fact that the Cipher doesn't work like an actual brain function does, the fact that the Cipher doesn't give Shepard psychological problems, the fact that whatever the Cipher actually means has nothing to do with anything that makes any kind of anthropological sense - which is unexplained. "Cannibal science" is probably the least of those critiques, albeit the funniest.

[angol fear]

How anyone can look at the mental cipher, the Thorian, and hopper Saren and not realize that Mass Effect has always been "science fantasy" is beyond me.

 

I understand you point of view but I disagree with it. I mean the question of genre is more complex than just elements. Let's take an example : Pan's Labyrinth. It has got fairy tales elements but is it a fairy tale? No. It has got historical element but is it a historical film? No. It's actually fantastic. Not because of its element but because of its writing. The whole writing is based on ambiguity and the film creates question on reality and perceptions. So if one genre is needed to describe the film it's fantastic, though there's no fantastic "elements".

Fantasy is a reactionary genre based on fairy tales writing. Science-fiction is the opposite (or it is supposed, if you prefer). But the roots of science-fiction aren't explained technology. That only happened in the modern science-fiction and in hard science-fiction. But the philosophy of writing is the opposite of fantasy.

That's why, for me, though there are the things you have said that aren't supposed to be "science-fiction", it doesn't change the philosophy of writing behind it.