112 réponses à ce sujet

[The Arbiter]

What I find to be slightly hilarious is when some fans of the series claim that the narrative is consistent is that they tend to choose to forget (or ignore) that the theme of Mass Effect's ending was changed at one point late in development.  According to Drew Karpyshyn, the original theme of the series was intended to cover the subject of Dark Energy but a change was made due to a leak and negative feedback response.

 

Critics of the Dark Energy idea tend to mention that it only appears in the Haestrom mission and had less relevance to the plot  I would argue that this is not a correct overview of how crucial Dark Energy was to the MEU.  This one theme ties all the essential elements of the Mass Effect together; from the essential element that makes the universe function, through the architecture of the network that allows the galaxy to communicate and the original reasoning behind the Reaper's motivations is more consistent across the trilogy and more logical and justifiable when compared with the released ending.

 

I can understand that the Dark Energy theme would have issues with the fan base. One of the design decisions that both endings share was that a lot was to be left unexplained. This would have undoubted caused a reaction against the ending similar to the release because the science of Dark Energy is a challenging subject to imagine that relies on ideas that we are only beginning to grasp about the expansion of the universe, its composition and some of these ideas can contradict accepted "wisdom". Also the DE ending also played out in a choice that was dark; IIRC it required a sacrifice of the player avatar and the human race itself in a gruesome climax that would have also been misinterpreted.   

"dark energy" was this the one mission that I have to save Tali in ME2? yes... I did talk to the Quarians they talked about accelerated death of stars that was interesting to hear and read for me... then in ME3 I began to wonder what happened this explains alot... wow...

[The Arbiter]

I can understand the objection to that original "dark" ending. Dark energy itself is interesting, but that they wanted to sacrifice to whole human race sucks. It's bad enough that Shep is (urged on to be) Space Jesus. We don't need a whole race of sacrificial lambs on top of that. Give me a ****** break. That's trying way too hard to be bleak. 

it wasn't finished right? maybe there was a consequence for not working with the reapers? or we could prove the reapers entirely wrong in that story? who knows that story is gone now sadly :c

[Iakus]

Ooh, ooh!  Can I play too?

Drew himself, on Twitter:

 

https://twitter.com/...282584155590656

 

 

"FROM WHAT I HEAR"  

 

 

 

His site/blog :
http://drewkarpyshyn.com/c/?p=381

another source :
http://www.gameranx....ies-conclusion/

 

"Okay, now onto Mass Effect 3… the game I still haven’t played"

 

He hadn't played the game.  He's operating on secondhand knowledge, not personal experience.  He has never expressed a personal opinion on the endings.  And I doubt he ever will.

[angol fear]

Bravo Iakus! Let's see :

 

Drew Karpyshyn actually once said that the ending is close to what he imagined and planned it to be, so much for using Drew Karpyshyn to bash ME3 and its ending.

 

Citation needed

He has never publicly commented on the endings as shown. Positively or negatively

 

Now let's see what I've posted. Drew has talked about the ending! Worst, he has defended the ending! txgoldrush said that Drew said that the ending was close to what he has imagined, and Drew said that "the basic concpet of the original ending is there". Isnt it the quotation you were asking for? Now that Drew becomes a problem for your hate (if even Drew is defended the game it's not good for you).

Then you're trying to find a way out, so the solution is :

 

"He hadn't played the game.  He's operating on secondhand knowledge, not personal experience.  He has never expressed a personal opinion on the endings.  And I doubt he ever will."

 

So now what Drew said doesn't matter because he didn't play the game and you think that he will agree with you that the game sucks so he will never play the game.

But a writer who talk about an idea, a concept has to play the game? A writer has to play the game to talk about the story? Do you really think that writers play the games they write and as long as they don't play their opinion doesn't matter? That sound very stupid, isn't it? Personal experience is needed to give an opinion?

We are not talking about the narration, we're talking about the story (maybe you don't know the difference). He doesn't need to play the game to say that the concept is here. You really think that Mike Gamble lied to him and told him another ending? Mike did tell him the original ending of Mass Effect, obviously.

 

You can try to make Drew say whatever you want, he has said that, he has defended the game publicly. You're ignoring that fact.

 

You've been trolling for years now, drew or anyone won't change your opinion because all you want is MEHEM. You know better than the writers what Mass Effect is about, isn't it?

[wolfhowwl]

Dark Energy was just as dumb if not more so than what we got lol.

[God]

@God, you simplify what I said (sure it's easier to attack!). I know what Tolkien means. I know what is consistency. I gave clues in my previous post if you want to understand what is consistency (a definition that could be more general than Tolkien's). But I think that you should know that Mass Effect's writing is mostly post-modernism, that's the basis to understand the entire game and the ending. Mass Effect didn't break any rule of storytelling ( there is no rule of storytelling!), and the different level was here from mass effect 1 to mass effect 3, you just didn't see it and couldn't understand the logic behind it. There's no "deal with it" in Mass Effect.

 

A quick answer is rarely a satisfactory response. 

 

First things first, I didn't simplify anything. I gave a response (three of them!), in which each paragraph was individually longer than your post. 

 

Rules of storytelling? Absolutely not, indeed there are no rules of storytelling! But the rule of storytelling? The golden rule of storytelling? That's simple: the rule is 'Don't Break the Illusion.' Mass Effect certainly is breaking rules if it comes by post-modernism and isn't trying to make sense.

 

I saw no such clues or evidence either in your post to any definition of consistency other than "the game means what I want it to mean!" And post-modernism? Yeah, not even close. 

 

Post-Modernism, short and sweet: Darker and edgier, parodic, fourth wall breaking, deconstructive, shout-outing, skeptical, symbolical, with a lot of Wild Mass Guessing, denying the Word of God and recursive canon or fanon reaction.

 

That is most definitely not Mass Effect. 

 

A quick google search on post-modernism and Mass Effect also yielded no results. The big thing about post-modernism that you're trying to pull on me though in this regard is this:

 

'It's not supposed to make sense.' That's the logic behind, and that's typically know as an 'paradox'. 

 

That is not what I would describe as a cogent argument. If that's the length that you have to go to defend the story and writers from any/all criticisms, then all I can say is wow, your tastes are really pretty bad. And you have an ego problem. And you're being told this from a person calling himself God. 

[AlleyD]

@AngolFear The opinion I expressed about a leak having a negative response on the Dark Energy theme was taken from this article http://www.ign.com/b...nding-spoilers/

 

I don't know how you can deny that Dark Energy is a theme that was designed into the MEU from the start. Most of the essential creative devices needed to make the fictional world work are related to Dark Energy. From the enigmatic material called EEZO; through how it interfaces with organics (Biotics) and how it is the essential techno space magic that enables the Interstellar world of the MEU work around known physical laws (FTL drives and Mass Relays).  All that creative work suggests that Dark Energy would have some form of massive influence on the plot resolution (And it did. The Crucible was a Dark Energy manipulation device of immense power)

 

In ME1 we are introduced to the Reapers and informed that their motivations etc are "beyond comprehension" to limited organic minds and how they exist in a time frame that is so far removed from an organics. We also discover that the  Reapers use a cycle of annihilation of all advanced lifeforms and that their relay network and citadel are an elaborate web of Dark Energy powered nodes that defy the effects of gravity and time dilation.

 

Then in Mass Effect 2 the Dark Energy theme took on even more significance and appeared in the forefront of a story thread. Here it was being linked into some enigmatic, but ultraviolent effect on the life cycle of a star in a manner that was challenging the understanding of 2 species: the Quarians And the Geth

 

Then finally in ME3 its appears in the form of the Crucible and the waves of energy that spewed out of the containment fields in the Mass Relays. Dark energy Particles (EEZO) previously contained within the Relay network explode outwards across the entire Milky Way

 

I've included the source notes for how Drew Karpyshyn interviews about the Dark Energy theme play out.  Looking at your own source, the author interestingly questioned the claim that the thread wasn't "fully fleshed out"

"Despite describing the plot thread as "something that wasn't super fleshed out", Karpyshyn was still able to give gaming radio show VGS a detailed summary of how the storyline might have developed"

 

"Dark Energy was something that only organics could access because of various techno-science magic reasons we hadn't decided on yet. Maybe using this Dark Energy was having a ripple effect on the space-time continuum.

 

"Maybe the Reapers kept wiping out organic life because organics keep evolving to the state where they would use biotics and dark energy and that caused an entropic effect that would hasten the end of the universe. Being immortal beings, that's something they wouldn't want to see.

 

"Then we thought, let's take it to the next level. Maybe the Reapers are looking at a way to stop this. Maybe there's an inevitable descent into the opposite of the Big Bang (the Big Crunch) and the Reapers realise that the only way they can stop it is by using biotics, but since they can't use biotics they have to keep rebuilding society - as they try and find the perfect group to use biotics for this purpose. The asari were close but they weren't quite right, the Protheans were close as well."

 

An earlier interview with Drew Karpashyn in March 2012 adds more "fleshing out detail"  http://www.gamewatch...ffect-3-endings

 

Dark Energy was a force that was going to consume everything. According to Karpyshyn, "The Reapers as a whole were 'nations' of people who had fused together in the most horrific way possible to help find a way to stop the spread of the Dark Energy. The real reason for the Human Reaper was supposed to be the Reapers saving throw because they had run out of time. Humanity in Mass Effect is supposedly unique because of its genetic diversity and represented the universe's best chance at stopping Dark Energy's spread."

 

The original choice was between killing the Reapers and trying to find a way to stop the Dark Energy threat with what little time was left before it consumed the galaxy, or, "Sacrifice humanity, allowing them to be horrifically processed in hopes that the end result will justify the means."

 

And the link I used as a source offers even more detail on the DE ending theme

 

Before we were given the synthetic uprising destruction as being the purpose of the reapers, Drew Karpyshyn (Former Bioware story writer) stated that the reaper's original purpose was to harvest organic and synthetic life in order to find a way to stop dark energy from destroying the universe. Mass effect contains dark energy however it was the reapers gift to life. Sounds strange although it was most likely used to guide species towards their eventual extinction as well as easy passage for the reapers to move around the galaxy.

 

As humanity is a very diverse species, the ending choices would have been two very different options.

1. Simply destroy the reapers as you have throughout the entire series and put your faith in the rest of the other species to find a way with what little time you have left. Maybe about 200 years until dark energy starts to destroy the universe. My guess is if you have a high enough EMS then the species would have found a solution to this dark energy threat due to the amount of scientists and technology. If you had a low enough EMS level, then the dark energy threat looks problematic and most likely can't be solved leaving foreshadowing over what will happen to the universe.

 

2. Let the reapers harvest humanity so they can figure out a solution. However its unknown what would happen to the other species or the extinction cycles. I assume that if you have a low EMS, the reapers will harvest all life in the galaxy as humans are not enough to figure out a solution to the problem but have found a way to solve the problem after the current cycle and if you had a high EMS then the tech combined with the reapers harvest figures out a solution. To start all this off, Commander Shepard would have to be harvested himself in one of the pods similar to the ones in the Collector base

 

The thing I find most impressive about the Dark Energy theme is that Bioware actually pre-empted the science community's acceptance of the idea and their visualization of Dark Energy is excellent. The discovery of Dark Energy and its role in accelerating the expansion rate of the Galaxy was recognized in 2011 by the award of the Noble Prize for Physics. The press release makes mention of how revolutionary the ideas are http://www.nobelpriz...2011/press.html

 

The motivation applied to the Reaper's seeking a way of controlling the impact of Dark Energy in the MEU ties in with our own new understanding of Dark Energy's role in our own universe. The acceptance of the theory of Dark Energy and its effect on the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe and its implications that acceleration will have on the capacity for the Milky Way galaxy to support and its eventual decay into heat death in the lifetime of a Reaper appear to be the sort of motivation for the construction of all the elements in the cycle.

 

[angol fear]

@God, you didn't see any clue? Maybe the three levels? If you really understand it, your definition will be better than Tolkien's.

Post-modernism, a lot of words for nothing. You may have find them on internet, they lead nowhere if you don't understand what it is. A clue : go back to the roots, makes some research about post modernism in architecture and then think about how it was used in other art and in literature.

Paradox, seriously, you don't know what it is? Para and doxa? Once again make your own research and try to understand why it is used in literature and in philosophy.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Can I play, too?

 

Paradox = to doctors walking down the street. :rimshot:

 

The paradox of all of the garbage with the DE ending was that humanity was one of the worst candidates for biotics in the galaxy. Cerberus was going through various gyrations trying to create human biotics. There weren't any except those created by accidents. Humans were special! Humans were diverse (BS).

 

"From what I hear, the basic concept of the original ending is there, though some details have been lost with time. It all happened so very long ago."

 

We perfectly understand post-modernism. It's cynicism at its best.

 

The Dark Energy ending - It's the "running out of time" for solving the problem for the reapers. Soon could be billions of years. I mean what the hell does Shepard care about this? Our races will be dead and dust well before any of this happens. But we know what they would have done in this cynical ending. Destroy our beloved reapers? "We know you thought about destroying us, but there will be a price. Since the use of eezo is at the root cause of the dark energy problem, you can wipe out all biotic life if you want, including the Asari. Even you are biotic. But the peace won't last. Soon new biotic lifeforms will evolve and the problem will begin again."

 

"There has to be another way."

 

"There is. You could sacrifice humanity and become a reaper. Humans, being the best at sucking up dark energy generated by others would solve the dark energy problem."

 

"I don't know."

 

"Releasing the energy of the crucible will destroy the mass relays. You have a difficult choice to make and little time in which to make it."

 

The story up until ME3 had been about hope. But then that's what post-modernism is about isn't it. It takes hope and dashes it.

[Iakus]

 

Now let's see what I've posted. Drew has talked about the ending! Worst, he has defended the ending! txgoldrush said that Drew said that the ending was close to what he has imagined, and Drew said that "the basic concpet of the original ending is there". Isnt it the quotation you were asking for? Now that Drew becomes a problem for your hate (if even Drew is defended the game it's not good for you).

Then you're trying to find a way out, so the solution is :

 

"He hadn't played the game.  He's operating on secondhand knowledge, not personal experience.  He has never expressed a personal opinion on the endings.  And I doubt he ever will."

 

So now what Drew said doesn't matter because he didn't play the game and you think that he will agree with you that the game sucks so he will never play the game.

But a writer who talk about an idea, a concept has to play the game? A writer has to play the game to talk about the story? Do you really think that writers play the games they write and as long as they don't play their opinion doesn't matter? That sound very stupid, isn't it? Personal experience is needed to give an opinion?

We are not talking about the narration, we're talking about the story (maybe you don't know the difference). He doesn't need to play the game to say that the concept is here. You really think that Mike Gamble lied to him and told him another ending? Mike did tell him the original ending of Mass Effect, obviously.

 

You can try to make Drew say whatever you want, he has said that, he has defended the game publicly. You're ignoring that fact.

 

You are actually the one making him say what you want.  DK was taking completely from secondhand information.  He had not personally seen the endings.  He's not saying the endings suck.  He' not saying the endings are great.  He's not even saying definitively that the endings were what he had envisioned only that "from what he heard" they sounded similar.  He has not defended or attacked the endings, and he likely never will.

 

Personal experience is needed for an informed opinion.  I'm not going to trust a book reviewer who hasn't read a book, but only heard about it through word-of-mouth.  Fortunately, he didn't actually provide a review.

[txgoldrush]

Can I play, too?

 

Paradox = to doctors walking down the street. :rimshot:

 

The paradox of all of the garbage with the DE ending was that humanity was one of the worst candidates for biotics in the galaxy. Cerberus was going through various gyrations trying to create human biotics. There weren't any except those created by accidents. Humans were special! Humans were diverse (BS).

 

"From what I hear, the basic concept of the original ending is there, though some details have been lost with time. It all happened so very long ago."

 

We perfectly understand post-modernism. It's cynicism at its best.

 

The Dark Energy ending - It's the "running out of time" for solving the problem for the reapers. Soon could be billions of years. I mean what the hell does Shepard care about this? Our races will be dead and dust well before any of this happens. But we know what they would have done in this cynical ending. Destroy our beloved reapers? "We know you thought about destroying us, but there will be a price. Since the use of eezo is at the root cause of the dark energy problem, you can wipe out all biotic life if you want, including the Asari. Even you are biotic. But the peace won't last. Soon new biotic lifeforms will evolve and the problem will begin again."

 

"There has to be another way."

 

"There is. You could sacrifice humanity and become a reaper. Humans, being the best at sucking up dark energy generated by others would solve the dark energy problem."

 

"I don't know."

 

"Releasing the energy of the crucible will destroy the mass relays. You have a difficult choice to make and little time in which to make it."

 

The story up until ME3 had been about hope. But then that's what post-modernism is about isn't it. It takes hope and dashes it.

 

Mass Effect series is not about hope, the series is about how decisions affect and alter the destinies of others and the consequences and conflicts of this.

 

That's what is about from ME1 through ME3.