218 réponses à ce sujet

[Linkenski]

I'm astounded that people have so little understanding for how you need to handle themes when writing a story. I'm not even a writer myself, but just from observing countless stories. either through TV, games or books, it has always been clear to me that when you write an ending, you look at the summary of your plot and then make a conclusion that is coherent with the rest. In other words, you take the "meaning" in your story and turn it into a statement, either explicitly or implicitly. Mass Effect always had the theme of Organics and Synthetics, but in no way was it ever portrayed as the central theme or even the message of the franchise, until the final 10 minutes forces it to be so.

I recently saw the movie Contact for the first time. I was actually told its ending was exactly like Mass Effect 3, but after seeing it I'm pretty sure people just weren't paying attention. Long story short the protagonist is an astronomer who is desperate to discover extraterrestrial life, and by the end of the movie she is the volunteer in a massive "crucible" project that is supposed to send her into another dimension. Many who saw the movie were disappointed to see that all that happens in the launch sequence might just have been a hallucination, and then the narrative proceeds to make the statement that belief and religion and science are two sides of the same coin since both are to a large extent about seeking the truth about our existence. Luckily the plot did foreshadow this from the get-go since the protagonist is an astronomer and her love interest is a religious writer, not to mention that the motivation for the protagonist is actually her naive belief (or maybe grief) that her dad who passed away when she was nine is somewhere in space.

I'm just saying that while this movie had a weird ass ending it made perfect sense to what meaning the narrative was trying to convey from the very opening of the movie. Mass Effect 3 abandons any meaning it had in the final 10 minutes.

[Fayfel]

You can find out everything you'd like about the ME2 geth by reading their writer's posts around the internet. Suffice to say, ME3's geth/quarian conflict is amateur hour in comparison.

 

Best of luck to Mr.Schlerf and Mr.Walters though. I don't care for Mac's writing, but that doesn't necessarily speak to his ability to pull off his new role.

[SwobyJ]

Humanity facing synthetics right from the start. Shepard represents humanity. Geth are shown as practically demonic, placing humans on spears. They are the enemy.

 

Or are they? Or rather, are they all? Cue hints in ME1 and then ME2-ME3.

 

Each game is largely contained. They each tell a chapter of the Mass Effect story. The ME1-ME3 arc is about Shepard and the Reapers and his growing understanding of them, eventually having to make a choice that either affirms his most early beliefs or tries something else.

 

I'm done here anyway.

[KaiserShep]

Maybe the new protagonist will occasionally have to prevent ATM's from exploding as s/he is trying to get credits from them.

[dreamgazer]

I recently saw the movie Contact for the first time. I was actually told its ending was exactly like Mass Effect 3, but after seeing it I'm pretty sure people just weren't paying attention.

I've paid plenty of attention to Contact, and I definitely see the strong similarities.

Spoiler

Contact's plot, sinking massive resources into alien blueprints with zero idea of how it functions (but having faith in the creators' intentions), is made of the exact same stuff as ME3's. The difference is that this cycle has far more faith in the Protheans, based on their technological track record, and are desperate in the face of the Reaper extermination. And they do, at least, have an evolving grasp on the Crucible's functionality and destructive power.

Contact's ending and ME3's ending have many of the same ideas rolling around in it, notably the alien lifeform taking the ghostly shape of something important from the device user's memories before explaining how the universe works and informing their decision in how to proceed next, appealing to a leap of faith. But no, it's not exactly like Contact's ending (Ellie didn't have three choices), since they also pulled together elements of Asimov's Foundation's Edge, Battlestar Galactica, and the organic-synthetic conflict that has, indeed, remained prevalent across the entire trilogy (which has been strengthened and subverted along the way).

[Linkenski]

Well, yeah. But I think the point is that ME3's ending on many levels take the same ideas from Contact but it doesn't pull them off nearly as elegantly. For one, the Alien taking a ghostly image of something important to the protagonist is explicitly explained in Contact, but wasn't in ME3, not even with EC and it confused people, especially those who didn't see Contact, more than it helped us understand "why is it the child from the beginning?". If the idea was to make the Catalyst appear like the Child in order to manipulate and sway Shepard, then that idea wasn't communicated well at all, because unless we refuse we end up accepting everything he tells us anyway.

 

Even with Extended Cut you end up trusting the Reapers if you want to get the "good endings" where the people you care about of this cycle survive and the Reaper threat ends*. Arguably you do betray the Catalyst if you pick Destroy since it removes him but the arbitrary cost of EDI and the Geth is so cheap. I just wish Destroy had only destroyed the Relays and the Reapers because then it would've been the ending most people wanted, and it would drive home the idea that The Catalyst is actually not of good intentions, but as it is, it feels like Bioware's creator intent is that the Catalyst is a good guy.

 

*(All three choices resolve the main conflict The Reaper Threat, while keeping the rest of Shepard's generation alive. even if Synthesis' as an epilogue greatly distracts you from what you care about)

[ImaginaryMatter]

I'm astounded that people have so little understanding for how you need to handle themes when writing a story. I'm not even a writer myself, but just from observing countless stories. either through TV, games or books, it has always been clear to me that when you write an ending, you look at the summary of your plot and then make a conclusion that is coherent with the rest. In other words, you take the "meaning" in your story and turn it into a statement, either explicitly or implicitly. Mass Effect always had the theme of Organics and Synthetics, but in no way was it ever portrayed as the central theme or even the message of the franchise, until the final 10 minutes forces it to be so.

 

I think there might be several reasons for that. For ME3, at least, the writing seems to revolve around designing for action set pieces. From a writing perspective I think that means the writers prioritize, above anything else, is making the plot utilitarian and advancing Shepard and friends from one mission to the other. Writing for themes falls to the side because this story is about the spectacles on screen, and not necessarily the story itself. Another reason is that the story seems to be written piece meal with writer X writing Y sections and writer T writing U sections. Without some kind of overarching narrative lead or in depth communication between writers, I don't see how any consistent thematic content can emerge. Throw in how rushed the development must have been and you have a perfect breeding zone for this kind of dissonance.

[Iakus]

 

Even with Extended Cut you end up trusting the Reapers if you want to get the "good endings" where the people you care about of this cycle survive and the Reaper threat ends*. Arguably you do betray the Catalyst if you pick Destroy since it removes him but the arbitrary cost of EDI and the Geth is so cheap. I just wish Destroy had only destroyed the Relays and the Reapers because then it would've been the ending most people wanted, and it would drive home the idea that The Catalyst is actually not of good intentions, but as it is, it feels like Bioware's creator intent is that the Catalyst is a good guy.

 

*(All three choices resolve the main conflict The Reaper Threat, while keeping the rest of Shepard's generation alive. even if Synthesis' as an epilogue greatly distracts you from what you care about)

Probably wouldn't have been the ending everyone wanted, but I would have taken it in a heartbeat over what we got.  The sacrifice would at least have made sense.

 

 

Well, yeah. But I think the point is that ME3's ending on many levels take the same ideas from Contact but it doesn't pull them off nearly as elegantly. For one, the Alien taking a ghostly image of something important to the protagonist is explicitly explained in Contact, but wasn't in ME3, not even with EC and it confused people, especially those who didn't see Contact, more than it helped us understand "why is it the child from the beginning?". If the idea was to make the Catalyst appear like the Child in order to manipulate and sway Shepard, then that idea wasn't communicated well at all, because unless we refuse we end up accepting everything he tells us anyway

Contact was a tale of exploration.  And in the end what exactly was discovered is left open to interpretation (or "faith")  But what we got in ME3 was far more, concrete.

 

While Ellie simply "went windsurfing with dear old dad" as the James Woods character put it, Shepard gets to rewrite the galaxy.  With some really, really, unfortunate implications tied to all of them.  Whereas Ellie had simply "taken a step.  And in time you will take another step"  It will be up to the world to decide what to do with what she had learned.  or even if they believed it.

[RatThing]

They should abandon the whole "organics vs. synthetics" theme. It's overused in Sci Fi already, always presented the same way (in those silly Pinocchio stories) and it's boring and ridiculous as hell. The first game was about finding humanity a place in the galaxy and it's a far far more interesting theme. That should be their main focus again.

[ImaginaryMatter]

They should abandon the whole "organics vs. synthetics" theme. It's overused in Sci Fi already, always presented the same way (in those silly Pinocchio stories) and it's boring and ridiculous as hell. The first game was about finding humanity a place in the galaxy and it's a far far more interesting theme. That should be their main focus again.

 

It's an interesting topic if writers actually talked about how emerging AI actually might effect society (AI specifically and not technology in the abstract). The problem is that it usually becomes a stand in for those Pinocchio stories.

[Iakus]

Skynet or Pinoccio.  There is nothing in between *nods*

[RatThing]

It's an interesting topic if writers actually talked about how emerging AI actually might effect society (AI specifically and not technology in the abstract). The problem is that it usually becomes a stand in for those Pinocchio stories.

 

I don`t see how you could separate those two things. The deciding factor for how they would affect society is whether people start to see them as alive and equivalent to humans or just another form of technology. That's only one substantial question the theme can ask and for me only one answer I'm willing to give (which is the latter). Other than that it's just how technology affects society in general. Not really exciting anymore.

[Linkenski]

Probably wouldn't have been the ending everyone wanted, but I would have taken it in a heartbeat over what we got.  The sacrifice would at least have made sense.

 

Contact was a tale of exploration.  And in the end what exactly was discovered is left open to interpretation (or "faith")  But what we got in ME3 was far more, concrete.

 

While Ellie simply "went windsurfing with dear old dad" as the James Woods character put it, Shepard gets to rewrite the galaxy.  With some really, really, unfortunate implications tied to all of them.  Whereas Ellie had simply "taken a step.  And in time you will take another step"  It will be up to the world to decide what to do with what she had learned.  or even if they believed it.

Actually I saw Contact more as a story about the similarity between faith and science. I don't know maybe that's inobservant of me. The movie is about exploration to some extent but the meaning of the plot is about existentialism and the ironic similarity between science and faith despite their controversial relationship.

 

ME3's message would be something like triumph through combining the forces of friends and foes and accepting each other's differences. (mostly seen on Tuchanka and Rannoch. Theme is dominant in both if you're paragon). I guess this still goes with the current endings, since it does take the combined strength of the galaxy to get Shepard to the Citadel and the Crucible there as well but the ending really misses the point the game was trying to make just 10 minutes before it.

[Iakus]

Actually I saw Contact more as a story about the similarity between faith and science. I don't know maybe that's inobservant of me. The movie is about exploration to some extent but the meaning of the plot is about existentialism and the ironic similarity between science and faith despite their controversial relationship.

 

I agree in general.  Joss's challenge to "prove" Arroway loved her father certainly demonstrated that.  But I was making a comparison to the endings of Contact and ME3.  In Contact, what really happened is open to interpretation.  Both for the viewer and for the characters themselves.  Not so with ME3.  What happens rewrites the galaxy, and is there for all to see.

[Linkenski]

I agree in general.  Joss's challenge to "prove" Arroway loved her father certainly demonstrated that.  But I was making a comparison to the endings of Contact and ME3.  In Contact, what really happened is open to interpretation.  Both for the viewer and for the characters themselves.  Not so with ME3.  What happens rewrites the galaxy, and is there for all to see.

Yeah, exactly. It's as if they tried to make it open to interpretation originally too; remember how many surreal elements from the endings they removed after EC? Originally there was a choir you heard when Shepard was shot at the beam run. this was removed in EC. Originally there was a pillar of light surrounding the elevator that took Shepard up to the Catalyst. Removed in EC too. People came up with Indoctrination theory, and it actually made sense. Until the EC. It felt like Bioware tried to make the ending in a way that made you question if it was actually real or not, and quite frankly that's exactly how people reacted to it.  It made sense to make an ending like that in Contact because it went hand in hand with the true meaning of the plot, but with Mass Effect it just didn't.

 

I really hope they've learned from that. Do you get any of this, Mac? Do you know why your company had to change the endings? If not, then read this again.

[Reorte]

It's an interesting topic if writers actually talked about how emerging AI actually might effect society (AI specifically and not technology in the abstract). The problem is that it usually becomes a stand in for those Pinocchio stories.

It was only in ME3 that it really did that. The geth in ME2 were becoming rather interesting, a compeltely different type of intelligence that also felt convincing and not just different for the sake of being different.

[Linkenski]

I love pretty much everything Chris L'Etoile brought to ME2. He did both EDI and the Geth. Then Chris Hepler crapped all over it in ME3.

[General TSAR]

Schlerf was the Lead Writer of Halo 4.

Oh no.

Mac is now Creative Director

 

OH NO.

[RatThing]

I don't see L'Etoiles synthetics theme really that much different. It is a different approach, but in the end it boils down to AI identity and acceping them as beings just like in ME3, Practically all content with AI revolves around these qustions, nothing about how they affect society or anything else. It`s the same Piniocchio story.

[Linkenski]

I don't think he would've made their Pinocchio sec as sappy though. All the talk of being alive and finally understanding organics and synthesis are counterpoint to what he wrote with Legion in ME2 that "Understanding was never the problem"

[Reorte]

I don't see L'Etoiles synthetics theme really that much different. It is a different approach, but in the end it boils down to AI identity and acceping them as beings just like in ME3, Practically all content with AI revolves around these qustions, nothing about how they affect society or anything else. It`s the same Piniocchio story.

Accepting them as they are is not the Piniocchio story. The Piniochhio story is about them wanting to be a real boy instead of accepting them as they are.

 

So what if there's nothing about how they affect society? That's a much less interesting question than exploring the natue of an intelligence made up of numerous parts that are constantly leaving and joining, making the sapient part very ill-defined and fluid. I find that very interesting (and nothing whatsoever to do with Pinocchio).

 

And what Linkenski said.

[RatThing]

Accepting them as they are is not the Piniocchio story. The Piniochhio story is about them wanting to be a real boy instead of accepting them as they are.

 

So what if there's nothing about how they affect society? That's a much less interesting question than exploring the natue of an intelligence made up of numerous parts that are constantly leaving and joining, making the sapient part very ill-defined and fluid. I find that very interesting (and nothing whatsoever to do with Pinocchio).

 

And what Linkenski said.

 

I did accept them as what they are. They're technology, man made or alien made products and nothing more. The problem is that the narrative wants me to see them as a real boy. I was supposed to apply the same standards I apply to people. Using and restricting them is slavery, not respecting them is racism and so on. To me it is  a Pinocchio story. It is always about robots seeking identity and personhood, what does it even matter what kind of identity they want.

 

And of course I can only speak for myself, but I have yet to see a synthetic story that is fundamentally different from the rest and personally I am already fed up with those.

 

Also I'm not looking for "AI's affecting society" stories either. My point was that you can't separate those from the "Pinocchio" aspect unless you focus on information technology in general.

[Reorte]

The whole Pinocchio point is that they want to be something else - which seems to be what ME3 is saying. In ME2 they were completely satisfied with what they were. A message of "accept and don't pigeonhole simply because of origins" is not that story.

If too many stories concerning AI are like that then it's because of the inevitable prejudice that'll exist even if they are completely sapient. Like I said the interesting part for me was considering the nature of the geth conciousness, although that unfortunately isn't really investigated and feels like it's something that arose by accident rather than design (talking about the writers and not the quarians there).

[RatThing]

So what if they want to be like organics instead of something else? It is still about mashines seeking identity. It is just one minor aspect that's different in a at the core same story that's been told a thousand times already. In the end Pinocchio is also a story about seeking identity.

[Reorte]

That's what ME3 turned it in to and that's more of Pinocchio story and that's the bit that's generally complained about.