Ok...this will be interesting to see if I can do this in one post
@anglo
[Where do you hear that the catalyst says that he is an A.I.]
Sorry, I thought we were discussing the EC ending. For the sake of arguement, and sanity, I will stick with the Vanilla ending. Apologies
I will structure this into Numbered segments so it is easier to reply to. If you agree, please list the number and say "I agree" if you do not, please list the number and say "I Don't agree", then please list what you don't agree with and give citations from the lore of ME3 as well as citations from either the web or a book to prove your arguement
#1: The catalyst is not implicitly woven into ME1 via ME3's ending.
[The presentation of the scene is deliberately ambiguous. The ray of light, the being of light, all of this could be interpretated in a different way (a god-child).]
Again..on the topic of what implicit writing is and how it is structured...You need to infer something from what we already know.
Please, take a look at my citations:
http://www.gingersof...plicit-implicit
Implicit writing is not structured the way you are making this presentation out to be. If you want to show that the Vanilla catalyst is implicitly written into the story as an AI or implicitly written into the story so that it makes sense from ME1 you need to match what we see in the vanilla ending with how implicit writing works.
So, let's again look at how implicit writing is structured:
"implied though not directly expressed; inherent in the nature of something"
So, the catalyst has to be an AI means that it has to be in the nature of what the catalyst is and what it represents. Well, since it is the collective consciousness of all reaper - and each reaper is independent (free of control) we have a bit of an issue here. This is, essentially, what happens when you initiate a retcon.
"(in a film, television series, or other fictional work) a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events, typically used to facilitate a dramatic plot shift or account for an inconsistency."
https://www.google.c...=utf-8&oe=utf-8
However, while it is ok to let loose retcons to your hearts content you need to be aware of the impact of a retcon - especially of this magnitude. Starkid being on the citadel the entire time and the citadel being part of him and controlling the reapers creates not only a narrative inconsistency (via the retcon) but opens the door for some unpleasant lore inaccuracies and problems.
http://forum.bioware...ity/?p=18388908
So, looking objectively we can see that the catalyst is not implicitly written into the ending. I am not sure what you are trying to say with this:
[The presentation of the scene is deliberately ambiguous. The ray of light, the being of light, all of this could be interpreted in a different way (a god-child).]
This does NOT match to what was defined as implicit writing. Please review what implicit writing is, use the examples provided, and then correlate that to the catalyst.
#2: The Relays go boom
[What the catalyst said (the mass relay will be destroyed) is very important for what will happen after because it means that civilisations will go back to some "dark ages" (advanced civilisation were built form reaper technology in Mass Effect).]
Nothing you have cited here shows or demonstrates implicit writing. You also don't seem to have a grasp of the lore. In the ending - no matter what - all the relays blow up. From what we know of the ME universe's lore. This means that the explosion will kill everything in that system. The only thing that is implicit is NOT a dark age...it is extinction. As, from what we know about the lore, we can infer (even via implicit structure) that the crucible firing will kill all life in the galaxy (as that is what happens when the relays explode)
"Destroying a mass relay to stop the Reapers' advance is infeasible. Although it has recently been proven that mass relays can be destroyed, a ruptured relay liberates enough energy to ruin any terrestrial world in the relay's solar system."
http://masseffect.wi...perate_Measures
So, again, how is this execution good? Objectively? Following Implicit writing structure, how is it implicitly told that everything is going to work out?
Again, I will cite the definition of Implicit Writing:
"implied though not directly expressed; inherent in the nature of something"
So, what we get from starkid is:
"Releasing the energy of the crucible will end the cycle, but it will also destroy the mass relays"
What we can infer and, in fact imply:
"Releasing the energy of the crucible will destroy all systems with a mass relay"
And even beyond that
"Releasing the energy of the crucible will destroy all life in systems with a mass relay"
This isn't headcanon, this is what the lore tells us and what we would logically imply from that statement. To say otherwise is, quite literally headcanon. And to say that there will be a galactic dark age but life survives and it is implicitly proven so is not only factually incorrect regarding the lore but an incorrect understanding of how implicit writing is structured.
#3 Synthesis
Oh boy...this one is good.
[And in the synthesis ending, we can see the eyes of Joker and his skin are changed. There is no close-up to show clearly to the player : synthesis worked.]
While I never doubted the options of the crucible wouldn't do what we were told they would do, I was severely doubting the plausibility of those options. The largest of which is synthesis. Which just works....given that there is nothing in the ME universe that can do that...somehow synthesis just works.
This is a perfect example of an artificial element being placed in a story. As synthesis is neither plausible nor even in-universe to ME. It cannot happen...and somehow it works...because reasons.
Now...going back to implicit writing structure we see that this is - again - NOT implicit writing. What starkid tells us is more contrived coincidence
"In order to keep a story moving, things need to happen a certain way. Sometimes everything is carefully set up and orchestrated, so that events unfold in an organic, natural fashion. More often than not, though, things happen the way they do simply Because Destiny Says So"
http://tvtropes.org/...ivedCoincidence
(though I do not really like citing tvtroups I could not find another link...sry)
Now..I will say that many stories kind of rely on this trope...contrived coincidence isn't necessarily bad...it is isn't that welcome. However, in the case of synthesis we have an out of universe concept and and impossible ability suddenly working because the writer demanded it.
[You see and understand with the details that can be seen.]
Unfortunately all you see is something that cannot realistically work within the universe somehow working. This is, again, not implicit since it does not follow implicit writing structure. Nor is it obviously explicit. Objectively, all we see is that synthesis worked - because reasons - and EDI and Joker survived the Mass Relay genocide - because reasons.
Implicit writing does NOT work off of unknowns. As I have cited, it works off the nature of something that IS known. and...noting in the nature of the ME universe can do synthesis the way starkid describes and nothing (to point 3) can survive once the relays blow up.
#4 Structure
Now, when it comes to evaluating narrative and narrative structure I usually follow this ideal:
"In the final portion of your essay on narrative structure, you should describe how effectively the writer controls the narrative elements in the piece. Look for a logical flow of events that are clear to the reader by the end the story. Consider and discuss any false leads the writer might use to take the reader down blind alleys or introduce twists that rely too heavily on irony, coincidence or other improbable circumstances. Effective narrative structure should not make a story predictable, but it should not defy a reader's common sense either."
http://classroom.syn...iting-1042.html
Major emphasis on that last sentence.
Now to what you said the structure was:
[And for the structure : Tuchanka explains the chaos (search of power over other organics), then the conflict organic-synthetics is in the middle of the game (why the central part?) then you have Thessia that shows the relation between power-technology (and religion). The catalyst doesn't have to explain what he thinks, the entire game is here to prove it.]
Now, anglo...you are a writer so I shouldn't have to explain narrative structure to you...But for the sake of objective argument I really think I need to...
I rather like this definition
"Narrative structure is about two things: the content of a story and the form used to
tell the story. Two common ways to describe these two parts of narrative structure are
story and plot.
Story refers to the raw materials of dramatic action as they might be described in
chronological order. Plot refers to how the story is told — the form of storytelling, or
the structure, that the story follows."
http://thecinematheq...ageofFilm01.pdf
Overall, narrative structure follows the basic design we have all come to know and love: The five act play
Act 1: The Exposition This is where the audience learns the setting (Time/Place), characters are developed, and a conflict is introduced.
Act 2: Rising Action This is where the action is, which leads the reader to the climax. In this stage, it is common for complications to arise or for the protagonist to encounter obstacles.
Act 3: The Climax This is the pinnacle moment or turning point of the play; the climax is characterized by the highest amount of suspense.
Act 4: Falling Action Is the opposite of Rising Action, in the falling action the story is coming to an end and any unknown details or plot twists are revealed or wrapped up.
Act 5: Denouement or Resolution This is the final outcome of the drama. Here the authors tone about his or her subject matter is revealed, and sometimes a moral or lesson is learned.
http://www.storyboar...e/five-act-play
You seem to have broken the structure of ME3 into Three parts:
Tuchanka explains the chaos (search of power over other organics)
then the conflict organic-synthetics is in the middle of the game
then you have Thessia that shows the relation between power-technology (and religion)
Now...this could be in reference to the Aristotle's three act structure
With the beginning being typical,
the middle or epitasis being the conflicts, thwarted protagonist, or complications,
and the end a catastrophe or nearly escape one
Now...what you are citing here (regarding Tuchanka) seems to be themes or observations? And...I will admit that you are getting a bit muddied up in your presentation. Please note we are comparing how the structure of storytelling is compared to the structure of the ending of ME3. What you seem to be doing is citing things you noticed and placing them in order. However, you still need to related them to the ending is some significant way. Even here we see a beginning that has no relation to the end (Power over organics =/= Synthetics killing all organics)
Regarding Tuchanka...That is not the chaos that is being looked at in the ending...at all. The chaos was never organics seeking power over other organics...the chaos was:
Shepard: "Solution, to what"
Child: "Chaos"
Child: "The created will always rebel against their creators"*
Child: "But we found a way to stop that from happening, a way to restore order for the next cycle"
Shepard:"By wiping out organic life?"
Child: "No, we harvest advanced civilizations, leaving the younger ones alone. Just as we left your people alive the last here"
Shepard: "But you killed the rest"
Child: "We helped them ascend so they could make way for new life, storing the old life in reaper form"
Shepard: "I think we'd rather keep our own form"
Child: "No, you can't. Without us to stop it synthetics would destroy all organics. We created the cycle so that never happens. That's the solution"*
So, looking at the dialog we see that the "chaos" being explored here is the problem of synthetics destroying organics...not organics searching for power over other organics. How did you come to that? There is no correlation between Themes of Tuchanka (as you say: "Seeking power over other organics") and the Syntheic/Organic Conflict theme being explored in the ending. The chaos, here, is synthetics killing organics. NOT organics seeking power over other organics. This is shown in the lore:
CLICK
Then we explore the conflict via Rannoch - this is good. This we can tie back. This is Implicit writing here. As the catalyst later reflects this conflict and bases the choices and cycle and essentially story around it.
Now we get to this portion...then you have Thessia that shows the relation between power-technology (and religion)
I am not sure if you view this as still the middle or the ending. Ten to one you probably will view it as the middle and the catalyst as the ending
So in the middle portions we get: the org synth relationship is explained and shown and then we get Thessia which shows the relation between power and technology.
How does this relate to the ending in a coherent way? Thessia, while brief, was our Thwarted protagonist & complications portion of the narrative. In addition, these themes of power and technology (and religion) are not expressed in the chat with the catalyst. It cannot wrap back up to that conversation. As that conversation is the theme of Created (synthetic) destroying Creator (organic). I can see where you are getting the themes of Power and Technology along with Religion. That is fine and very well articulated via the dialog. But it doesn't really relate back (or in this case forward) to the starchild convo. Are you trying to say that the prothean technology being ingrained and represented by a religion is implicitly showing how the reapers (ala starkid) are a religious icon? Because, again, understanding implicit writing structure and wording. That is not how it works...so...I am not sure here.
If, however you are saying that Tuchanka proves the created will always destroy the creators AND Rannoch proves the created will always destroy their creators AND Thessia proves the created will always destroy their creators as shown by this statement
[The catalyst doesn't have to explain what he thinks, the entire game is here to prove it.]
Then...no.
This is not implicit writing. Not by a long shot. Remember, implicit writing is taken from the nature of something. What is, by definition, the nature of something?
"the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it."
https://www.google.c...=utf-8&oe=utf-8
The closest characteristic we get is the Geth/Quarian example...and that is ONE example. Which does get resolved by the end of Rannoch. If you get Javik you get two examples albeit it is more an afterthought so I will add that DLC in to give your argument some weight (since, let's be honest. Day one DLC should ALWAYS be in the game). And while I am temped to cite Leviathan to give your notion credence, that was a post-release DLC that was created to justify the ending. It really should have been included, but it was not.
However, the as I stated, I had no issue with the logic of the catalyst. It is fine for a villain to have circular logic. That is fine. The issue I have raised is not with the Catalyst in thematic sense, but in narrative sense.
The catalyst is an implausible out of universe addition to the lore. In that it retcons it and creates inconsistencies within it. Now, while its motivation does not have to have an airtight logic applied, it should be at least rooted in the lore. And the catalyst's logic IS rooted in the lore. However, the catalyst itself (as a character or plot device) is NOT rooted in the lore objectively. Nor is it implicitly written in the lore. The 'revelation on Thessia' was what got me a bit worried...as there was no evidence prior to that level of a revelation. It is out of universe and contradicts established lore. When you do this in the initial installment - fine, albeit it gets a bit cliche'd. But if you retcon already established lore in the third entry...just to pave the way for a twist/plot device...then you are not really writing that well
Summarize: The catalyst arguments are implicitly written in the lore, albeit not completely in the way you describe (only via the rannoch arc). So you were 33% correct. In addition, the catalyst's existence and the justification of that existence and the in universe plausibility of that existence is NOT implied by the structure presented by the past three games nor by your examples.
Now...on to the fun part
Looking at the ending objectively and how to measure an effective narrative. Note, that citation I made earlier:
"Evaluating the Narrative
In the final portion of your essay on narrative structure, you should describe how effectively the writer controls the narrative elements in the piece. Look for a logical flow of events that are clear to the reader by the end the story. Consider and discuss any false leads the writer might use to take the reader down blind alleys or introduce twists that rely too heavily on irony, coincidence or other improbable circumstances. Effective narrative structure should not make a story predictable, but it should not defy a reader's common sense either."
http://classroom.syn...iting-1042.html
We will break this down into sub pieces
you should describe how effectively the writer controls the narrative elements in the piece
- The themes of the Trilogy (organic & synthetics, freedom, survival, extinction, hard choices are reflected in the final choices
- the central conflict is resolved
Look for a logical flow of events that are clear to the reader by the end the story
- By the end we have a retcon and narrative inconsistencies
- The catalyst presence is not implicitly written, nor inferred by the past 2 and 3/4's games
- there is a completely out of universe option presented to the player that has neither in universe plausibility nor possibility
- All options lead to the death of the galaxy no matter what (as shown by the lore)
- Squad mates magically teleporting to the Normandy and surviving the galactic holocaust (not implicit writing here, just artificial) Implicit is derived from what we know. From the nature of something. And, up to the beam run, Normandy was rejoining sword. No word was given that normandy would evacuate anyone.
Consider and discuss any false leads the writer might use to take the reader down blind alleys or introduce twists that rely too heavily on irony, coincidence or other improbable circumstances
- While there is a twist, and it is ironic in its own way, it isn't really bad. The execution of that twist is but in concept it is actually very clever.
- While I have been on a rant about narrative I should also mention mechanically none of our war assets made any kind of difference in the gameplay of the final mission. Though this is a mention only and not significant to the narrative structure but more to the Themes of galactic alliances and the game mechanics.
AND - Most Importantly
Effective narrative structure should not make a story predictable, but it should not defy a reader's common sense either
Oh yes...objectively by the end we do NOT have a predictable story any more - this is rather good. However, or common sense (using no headcanon) is bent, broken, and beaten. There are lore inconsistencies, plot holes, out of universe impossibilities, and the death and destruction if the universe - via the relays blowing up.
Now...most likely you are one that "fills in the gaps" or would more often than not say the the reader/audience should "fill in the gaps" when it comes to writing. This is, essentially a writing sytle called Compression. And I have a link on it here:
http://www.storysci....rt-3-three.html
Compression is traditionally in three parts: Structure, Character, and Text
While The article itself is a good read the ending does a lot of what is listed. However, there is one thing I really should point out:
4. Don’t say it, illustrate it.
Show, don’t tell. This cannot be said enough. There is a time and a place for summary (or a montage) but for the most part don’t just tell your audience about the world of your story and its inhabitants, show them by example. Unfortunately, this issue plagues the storytelling world of professionals and amateur alike, but it is especially important for newer storytellers to learn how to show—not tell—their story.
Nowhere in ME1-3 are we shown that the catalyst couldn't open the arms to the citadel during sovereigns assault, no where during the ending of priority earth are we shown how are squad mates got on the Normandy, no where in ME3 are we shown how the destruction of the relays =/= mass genocide...we just see two (or three) people standing in the garden world...somehow...Granted this IS difficult when dealing with compression and I don't begrudge Mac and Casey too much...but still, the ME3 team should have caught a few of those impossibilities during peer review.
So..to wrap up and look at your final arguments:
[It seems you dislike the execution of the ending but did you ask yourself why it was written this way? Did you try to see the relation between the themes and how it is done?]
We looked at the themes you provided and saw that, of them, only one really correlates to the ending. None, however implicitly give way to the catalyst. In addition, looking at the execution of the ending we see - upon objective review - that it seems to break the one true law of storytelling: Don't break the illusion
http://rpgmaker.net/articles/461/
If you break the illusion (via Suspension of Disbelief collapse) you have failed and your story has failed. No matter how grandiose the scale or important the themes...it is all for naught. It is by this notion that I have shown - objectively - how and why the ending of ME3 has failed in its execution and structure.
To say that all art is good art because it is art is not only pretentious...but provably false. If that were the case Uwe Boll would be winning Oscars...While I do say that ME3 - and just about anything is really art - I can say that there is an objective difference between Objectively Good art and Objectively Bad art. And this difference does not apply to the Themes or concepts of the Art, but rather how it is executed or presented.
In that presentation - ME3 objectively failed.
I write this to you so that you may take in the information I cited an hopefully become a better writer. Writing is hard, I would not want to do it. I work on automating corporate divisions. You need to step away from this:
[Good writing isn't about how to please people but how to make something coherent. Coherent isn't believable.]
Nice oxymoron statement there. lol
Sadly...Coherence As defined and believable have more in common than you think
https://www.google.c...oherent&spell=1
https://www.google.c...ievable&spell=1
And understand that narrative coherence IS and HAS TO BE believable from what came before in the narrative. This is what I proved via citations. If you still cannot understand that after all of this...I dare say I don't think you will make it as a writer.
Ten to one I fear you will respond with your usual gusto and poison the well on nearly every citation I make or write off everything I say as "trying to please everyone". If that is really your view..then you failed the FIRST aspect of story writing: Define and Know your audience
http://betterwriting...audience-first/
If your audience - as defined by you - does not want to be pleased...then you won't sell very many books.
Whew...
Cheers!
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Retour en haut
