590 réponses à ce sujet

[angol fear]

The Leviathan says they created one intelligence.

 

Indeed, I've just watch again the conversation and the Leviathan said : "we created an intelligence". But at the same time they never said that they created "one" intelligence and if we only trust what the Leviathan said  the A.I. studied and found a solution. There is nothing about when the catalyst tried synthesis or any other solution. The leviathan gives only what is needed to create an explicit foreshadowing of the ending. So everything focused on how the A.I., in the end, decided to harvest, nothing else.

 

 

Why would they change it? They don't need to change anything, because the Beings of Light are not the Catalyst.

 

I never said that they were the catalyst. I've said that they were A.I. created with the same purpose.

 

 

Well the Leviathans did

 

There was no war against synthetics when they created the A.I. :

"Over time, the species built machines that then destroyed them. tribute does not flow from a dead race. To solve this problem, we created an intelligence with the mandate to preserve life at any cost". They created it because they observed something that was a real problem. They were not fighting the reapers when they created the catalyst.

 

 

Maybe it was them who made the beings of light, maybe another species from their cycle. We don't know anything about them.

 

Agree it's open to interpretations but don't you think it's very strange to find the themes used in the ending in just one quotation? Don't you think it's strange to make the player pay more attention of this quotation from Mass Effect 1 in Mass Effect 3?

 

 

Beings of Light = Synthetics created by a species to protect Organics from the ''machine devils'' or maybe a species similar to the Virtual Aliens who wants to protect Organics from ''machine devils''

 

Machine Devils = Reapers and maybe even other Synthetics.

 

The way I see it is : "Machine Devils" aren't the reapers. It's just synthetics that destroy organic races. It would be how the Leviathan saw synthetics in general when they start destroying organics.

And for the "virtual aliens", there would be at least some theme about it, because this kind of theme is something that take time to be developed, there would be some idea about that in Mass Effect 1, not directly but some seeds. I didn't see it.

 

You may have noticed that the Leviathan said "species built machines" and not "built synthetics". The word Machine can be related to "Machine Devils", no?

[Ithurael]

@Anglo

 

Ah good!

 

Love the responses. Though I enjoyed the middle parts more than the beginning or end.

 

Please give me a week or so to respond. I know this is not really convenient but unfortunately my company has decided to go what I can only equate to call "Full Turbo". In addition I am tutoring someone in Database architecture & design.

 

Short answer: I agree with you on themes but not your views on execution- I will cite why.

 

Though, credit where credit is due, I love your interpretation and perception of the themes in the ending.

 

I will hopefully be responding within a week or so

[angol fear]

@Anglo

 

Ah good!

 

Love the responses. Though I enjoyed the middle parts more than the beginning or end.

 

Please give me a week or so to respond. I know this is not really convenient but unfortunately my company has decided to go what I can only equate to call "Full Turbo". In addition I am tutoring someone in Database architecture & design.

 

Short answer: I agree with you on themes but not your views on execution- I will cite why.

 

Though, credit where credit is due, I love your interpretation and perception of the themes in the ending.

 

I will hopefully be responding within a week or so

 

Don't worry! No problem.  

Actually I gave my interpretation, but I don't want it  to seen as if i was imposing my interpretations. My vision of the ending is the one I've got since the original endings. But what is very important for me is that the game is supposed to make the player an active reader, and what I wanted to show is that the writing of the ending is based on implicit, this explains :

-the "speculations for everyone" on Mac Walters notes.

-why people have their own vision/interpretation of the trilogy and the endings.

 

And that's something I really like. Everyone has played the same game but has played a different story. I mean in any other game where you have choices, you can talk about what you have chosen, but here you can go further and talk about how you interpret your story (with the implicit, the game became yours, it's not the choices that made the story personal).

 

When I talk about the "beings of light" with GalacticWolf5 I'm not trying to convince him. I just want to make him realise that it's all about implicit and it's an important clue. The fact that most of the important themes in the endings are in that description, and the fact that Mass Effect tells the player to think about it, it shows that it's an important clue. The fact that the themes (A.I., opposition organic:synthetics, religion) are here is in itself a foreshadowing. More than that would be like saying : "hey in the end you'll find an A.I. etc...", for me that's not foreshadowing, that's giving the answer. And what I really like with this quotation is that when we play and read this for the first time, we think that it's about the reapers, but when we reach the ending, we understand that there was nothing about the reapers actually. Our representation, our perception trapped us. But that's the way I see it.

 

I'd like to finish with some points :

-the ending is about breaking our representations : we've got the crucible that isn't a superweapon, the reapers who aren't the bad guys (they're just doing what they were made for, there's no good and evil), the harvest that is actually a solution to save us.

-the ending is also about determinism, the entire trilogy is about that. When you make choices in Mass Effect you notice that in Mass Effect 2 there is not a real impact. There are changes in the details (so the experience in itself is very different) but the overall structure is the same. Form Mass Effect 2 to 3 it's the same. In the beginning of Mass Effect 1 you've got that guy who told you that he saw "our destruction" and you actually can't do anything to stop that. Whatever you do, the reapers are coming. In the end, when the crucible is activated and the catalyst makes you reach him, you see that the A.I. is trapped in the cycles too. I means he needs Shepard to break the cycles. He knows that his solution doesn't work anymore but it's Shepard who has to choose, he doesn't do it by himself. I think that's interesting to see that everyone is trapped by the cycle solution.

Then we've got the cinematic of the choice that is almost the same for each choice in the original ending : the narration stay in a high level of perception but at the same time the music and what we know make us understand what is happening and what will happen at a lower scale (lower than cosmic). Then there are the credits. (edit : I'm talking about the original ending not the extended cut)

And finally an interesting scene, the stargazer scene where a child asked if that really happened. The old man answered that details had been lost in time. It gives the impression that when we thought that we were writing Shepard story, it was actually wrong : we were in a story (so now we're in a higher level where the events with Shepard and the reapers are just a story, it's a meta level.  So the structure was low level, human scale of perception of the events, to high level, percepetion of the A.I., to meta level, seeing it as a story which is what it is for a player). "Tell me another story about the Shepard" : What we played was a story about events that already happened. So each time you play the game it's like telling a story. Just like Epic stories, which is a genre coming from oral tradition, many details change but the basis still the same. We were trapped again with our representation, and there was no freedom (but actually when there are choices there is no freedom : you always have to choose between paths given to you) but at the same time, everytime we play we can change so many details. Narration still determinism.

 

"It all happened so very long ago.

-when can I go to the stars?

-One day my sweet."

 

So this scene makes us think that it was a story, but this scene isn't separated from the Mass Effect univers, these two characters are in the Mass Effect universe. And with this scene with no technology, with this kid asking when he will have the possibility to go to the stars, we have the impression that it's a "dark age" (from a technological point of view) that was implicitly made by the mass relays destruction.

[fraggle]

But what is very important for me is that the game is supposed to make the player an active reader, and what I wanted to show is that the writing of the ending is based on implicit, this explains :

-the "speculations for everyone" on Mac Walters notes.

-why people have their own vision/interpretation of the trilogy and the endings.

 

And that's something I really like. Everyone has played the same game but has played a different story. I mean in any other game where you have choices, you can talk about what you have chosen, but here you can go further and talk about how you interpret your story (with the implicit, the game became yours, it's not the choices that made the story personal).

 

So much this.

Any time you want, you can play a new character, with different motives, perceptions of the ME universe and approaches to your actions as well as character interactions from the previous one, and it's fun to think up a background story for them and how/why they decide which choice to make at the end.

Plus, people complain all the time that the endings were not many choices. I see it completely different, we got a lot of choices, basically shaping everything that happened after the Catalyst choice for ourselves. No wrong, no right, just a chance for everyone to shape an end themselves how they see fit.

I get why people might not like it, and it might've been too "artsy" or it wasn't complying with the standard for many, but for me it was an incredible experience.

 

I enjoyed reading what you two wrote so far btw, so keep it up

[Iakus]

So much this.

Any time you want, you can play a new character, with different motives, perceptions of the ME universe and approaches to your actions as well as character interactions from the previous one, and it's fun to think up a background story for them and how/why they decide which choice to make at the end.

 

Except I can do that with a game of Pac-Man.  What matters is what I can express on the screen.

 

 

 

Plus, people complain all the time that the endings were not many choices. I see it completely different, we got a lot of choices, basically shaping everything that happened after the Catalyst choice for ourselves. No wrong, no right, just a chance for everyone to shape an end themselves how they see fit.
 

Having a lot of bad choices doesn't feel much different than having no choices.  

 

 

 

I get why people might not like it, and it might've been too "artsy" or it wasn't complying with the standard for many, but for me it was an incredible experience.
 

"Incredible" =/= "good" though.

[DesioPL]

Okay so.

 

In ME1 Shepard was an hero for alliance, no matter how we create our Shepard.

 

In ME2, he was resurected by Lazarus. SPACE MAGIC!

 

In ME3, he was like messiah leading all to thier demise, or victory.

 

In ME4... Who the hell is Shepard?!

 

The end...

[CrutchCricket]

Okay so.

 

In ME1 Shepard was an hero for alliance, no matter how we create our Shepard.

 

In ME2, he was resurected by Lazarus. SPACE MAGIC!

 

In ME3, he was like messiah leading all to thier demise, or victory.

 

In ME4... Who the hell is Shepard?!

 

The end...

Shepard is Space Jesus. In ME4 some believe in him, some don't. Some believe he was historically real but his exploits were fiction and were only used as a means for the political system to control the masses.

 

And one day, someone will make a torture porn version of his story.

[CrutchCricket]

I'd rather not be anything close to Space Jesus. Unless I actually went the Space Jesus route and chose synthesis.

 

 

Otherwise, he was just a soldier who cared about his planet and got friends to help. Then shot at a tube.

You still died for our sins. The details have been lost in time.

 

Actually, I think a cult of the Shepard forming somewhere in-universe is inevitable. The symbolism is so forced, event the characters feel it.

[DesioPL]

You still died for our sins. The details have been lost in time.

 

Actually, I think a cult of the Shepard forming somewhere in-universe is inevitable. The symbolism is so forced, event the characters feel it.

 

This might explain existence of Conrad Verner.

[Iakus]

Okay so.

 

In ME1 Shepard was an hero for alliance, no matter how we create our Shepard.

 

In ME2, he was resurected by Lazarus. SPACE MAGIC!

 

In ME3, he was like messiah leading all to thier demise, or victory.

 

In ME4... Who the hell is Shepard?!

 

The end...

Shepard is a fictional character.  Famous throughout Alliance space.  Nearly as much as Blasto.

[CrutchCricket]

This might explain existence of Conrad Verner.

Conrad Verner became the first Pope of the Church of The Shepard.

 

Will photoshop image later.

[Ithurael]

Ok, good. I hope this reply finds you still interested in the discussion, I want to be as thorough, objective and succinct as I can be with this. You took the time to reply to me and Ill will do the same for you out of respect. On an off note, I do love that you mentioned you are a poet. I enjoy poetry and I read poetry to my cat every night. If you could, I would love to hear if you have any recommendations (it doesn't have to be cat-specific just thought provoking or sweet). As such, let's begin

 

#1: To your notions on the catalyst (as an AI) and implicit writing as a whole:

 

Ok, I did first give a definition and a citation for what implicit writing is vs explicit writing. And I even provided examples. How you missed those, I am not sure. I will just chalk it up to the post size.

 

Implicit writing

" implied though not directly expressed; inherent in the nature of something" or “implied or understood though not plainly or directly expressed.”

 

http://www.gingersof...plicit-implicit

or

http://writingexplai...icit-difference

Examples:

 

EG1: "I don't know if she's the cleverest person I've ever met, and I'm not sure how much I like her." (Implicitly mean.)

EG2: "Salad has fewer calories than meatloaf, maybe we should order that." (Implicitly saying you should watch your weight.)

EG3: "Generally manage the office and keep things organized." (Implicit description of duties)

http://community.wri...it-vs-implicit/

 

Now, to how you are defining Implicit writing:

 

==================
[" But I'm really curious : what is your implicit writing? When I'm talking about implicit writing, it's in the speeches and in the images."]

==================

 

Implicit Writing can be executed via dialog, text (in books), and images/cut scenes.  What you are describing is a method for implicit writing, not the definition of implicit writing itself. Though, to be fair, the delivery is just as important as the definition. We just need to ensure that we don't confuse the two though. Implicit writing is not always a picture just as a picture or image is not always implicit. It CAN be, as long as it follows the structure of implicit writing.

 

Let's look at this example (it is for fourth graders so it won't be too hard to get. I am strapped for time and only responding when I get precious few moments...)

 

https://www.portal.s...ler_grade_4_pdf

 

==================

"Marisa smiled. She thought of two reasons why she liked Penmark School. Shelly—and now Mystery Club. There were probably more, but those were enough for today"

==================

 

The implicit writing here is that Marisa is not at first fond of the Penmark School. While the example goes into detail that she is a new student, we can infer or imply based on the knowledge derived from this statement that Marisa's not fond of the school. We can take it a step further and imagine that she is a new student, and this could be reasonable, but if it is not supported in the narrative we are essentially headcanoning.

 

Let's try another:

==================

[Marisa wasn’t sure that she had heard right. “Mystery Club?” Shelly leaned across the

aisle. “There’s a bunch of us from school who like reading mysteries, solving puzzles, decoding messages, that kind of thing.”

 

“Could I join?” Marisa asked.

 

“Sure,” said Shelly. “But to become a member you have to solve a mystery.”

 

Marisa sat up straight in her seat. “I could try.”

 

“OK,” said Shelly. “I’ll talk to the others.”]

==================

 

From this statement we can craft an implicit understanding that this group wants people with similar interests and will become friends with them. We can also imply that Shelly is interested in having Marisa as a friend but wants to ensure she would be a good fit for the group. We can also infer or imply that Marisa is very interested in making friends with this new group of people because of how her body language is described. What we have observed has led us to a perception of what is going on but not explicitly said.

 

Explicit writing

" precisely and clearly expressed or readily observable; leaving nothing to implication" or “to fully and clearly express something, leaving nothing implied.”

 

http://www.gingersof...plicit-implicit

or

http://writingexplai...icit-difference

Examples:

 

EG1: "You're stupid and I hate you." (Explicitly mean.)

EG2: "Lose some weight, you fat lard." (Explicitly saying you should lose weight)

EG3: "File these documents alphabetically, answer the phone, and sweep the floor." (Explicitly describing your duties)

 

http://community.wri...it-vs-implicit/

 

And no, Implicit and Explicit =/= quality writing, they are writing styles or techniques. Though I will admit, implicit could potentially be a bit more difficult to pull off. So, using those definitions and the understanding therein. We can now look at the catalyst in ME3.

 

==================
[when did I talk about Mass Effect 1?]

==================

 

Ah, fair enough, I misinterpreted. To be fair, I was mentioning the catalyst being implicitly linked to ME1. But still, we don't have any implicit writing to infer or show that starkid is an AI (at least leading up to the catalyst convo or in the convo itself)

 

==================
[The nature of the catalyst (an A.I.) was implicit in the original ending]

==================

 

So, let's look at ME3's ending and ME1 and using both the definition of Implicit writing and the structure of what an implicit statement is find how and where the Catalyst (as an AI) is implicit in the original ending. Let's start with your sources, then we will look at the catalyst itself:

 

First let's start here:

==================
[You want me to show you that it's implicit, don't you see that it's ridiculous ( to show something that isn't explicit, that can't be shown)]

==================

 

 

First off, if you are saying something like this then you may be misinterpreting or mis-using what implicit writing structure is. Look at the definition and structure of implicit writing and you discern the following:

- Implied/not expressed

- inherent in the nature of something/understood

 

Implicit writing seems to be working off of what has been expressed and or known at the time of the implicit statement (please see examples). The implication is what you are saying (the catalyst is an AI and the lore issues it creates are solved or remedied by its implicit nature to ME1 and representation to ME3), what we are looking for is the understanding/inherent in the nature of (me1) or event the catalyst itself.

 

==================
[Implicit leads to interpretation.]

==================

 

It can and it will, but within the restrictions of what has been explicitly shown. If I use the example:

"Salad has fewer calories than meatloaf, maybe we should order that."

I can infer that the person mentioning this is talking about my weight and may not want me to get meatloaf. The bounds (weight, calories, salad vs meatloaf) are established and the "arena" of thought is set. I cannot imply that the person hates me because of my food choices...nor can I imply that the restaurant doesn't want to serve me. On a more extreme note, can I imply that I am not at a restaurant.

 

==================
[When you starts saying that the catalyst has to be an A.I., that's an interpretation created by the implicit elements. It's not directly expressed. Implicitly you agree with me that it's an implicit element.]

==================

 

When you start saying the starkid is an AI . Also, for it to be implicit to ME1 it has to be based off what we know in ME1 centering around the reapers (what the catalyst embodies) and what we learn via the codex and the lore in ME1. The most we know about the reapers - their nature - is that they are billions of organic minds interconnected to create an independent entity. This is not really how AI is depicted in ME3 (or ME1-3 to be honest).  But, in the end, what we learn about starkid is that he embodies the collective consciousness of the billions of organic minds. Those minds began as an organic - not a synthetic/artificial and then were transformed into something else...something...god-y.

 

==================
[Or you have to show me when you hear the catalyst saying that he is an A.I.]

==================

 

He does not say anything close to this in the vanilla ending - at all. Nor is it or could it be implied from both what we know about the reapers in/from ME1-ME3 or what we have seen from ME1-3

==================

You really want to talk about the relation between Mass Effect 1 and 3 while I never talked about it. So let's see :

In Mass Effect 1 : He claims that a vision of a higher being told him to seek on Klencory the "lost crypts of beings of light." These entities were supposedly created at the dawn of time to protect organic life from synthetic "machine devils."

 

In Mass Effect 3 : His once-ridiculed visions of "beings of light" protecting organic life from synthetic "machine devils" don't seem quite so far-fetched now.]

==================

 

 

To be fair, no, you never really did talk about starkids relation to ME1. Though you more often than not defend that he creates no narrative issues between ME1 and 3. As to the example you give, this is not really an example of implicit writing relatable to starjar as an AI or in the inconsistencies he creates - as a character. This could have - at best - been a reference Mac used when writing the ending with Casey (retroactively of course) since starjar was never envisioned in ME1. However, looking at the Klencory description I cannot see anything relating Beings of Light to AI...Nor even that this Being of Light embodies the collective consciousness of the reapers. Not implicitly nor explicitly.

 

https://twitter.com/...046276831772674

 

Although, if you were to say that this could give possible foreshadowing to starjar as a character...yeah. This could be very very possible. Although, again, by the end of the game  (ME1). The catalyst being the both controlling master consciousness of the reapers AND an AI is not foreshadowed nor is it explicitly or implicitly stated. However, we could have the notion of some god-y being that could exist that seeks to protect us from machine devils. Then, when we get to the ending, we see the implicit writing reflected as this god-y starkid seeking to protect us from machine devils (ironically using machine devils to do it).

 

==================
[You'll probably talk about retcon, but no we are not talking about that, it's about explicit or implicit. There's an implicit relation between the two things I quoted and the ending.]

==================

 

While the catalyst IS a retcon (and you did agree with me) there is no reason we can't make it work. Using the Klencory description we can see that there is SOMETHING possibly out there that is protecting organic life from these Machine Devils (whether this could mean The Reapers or just Synthetics itself could go either way and it allows - implicitly - for that interpretation)

Now. I would like to clarify that I firmly do believe the Catalyst embodies the Themes of the series (both implicitly and explicitly) and its logic is Implicitly woven into the lore and the narrative. However, the catalyst as an AI AND the master controller of the reapers is NOT implicitly woven. I have shown this via citation.

 

==================
 [But you really want the A.I. to create an inconsistency with Mass Effect 1]

==================

 

I don't want to, it objectively does. I have shown this and, looking at the structure and nature of implicit writing, we can see there are no answers (implicit or explicit) for the issues and problems the catalyst creates (as a character). You can headcanon it, but that is it. While there is nothing really wrong with headcanon, we have to understand that it IS headcanon and NOT part of the official lore. I am sure you have seen me try to explain this concept to ITers with mixed results. Vazgen was my favorite example be he/she has cited that while they use headcanon to fill in the issues with the ending, they understand that it IS headcanon. I am fine with this approach.

 

==================

[Your question was :

"What implicit writing was there in the ending?"]

==================

 

 

And you gave me Three answers:

The nature of the catalyst (an A.I.) was implicit in the original ending

what happened after the choice was implicit too,

the logic of the catalyst that is implicitly based on the structure of the game etc

 

The first (nature of the catalyst as an AI) is not really implicit

The second (what happened after the choice) is in no way implicit (and you will see why)

The third (catalyst logic) however IS implicit. While its logic isn't necessarily based on the narrative structure (5 act structure). The logic IS very much so based on and explored in depth in all three games. Not to mention that the catalyst represents the themes of ME3 and many of the themes explored in the trilogy.

 

I have cited that I acknowledged this (being corrected on the third portion) and I did thank you for pointing it out:

 

==================

[Is it implicit writing? Technically I could say so yeah. Does that make is good writing? The idea of the catalyst = yes. The execution of the catalyst=No...no it does not as we still have lore inconsistencies shown here. Thanks, at least, for pointing that out to me though. I haven't played ME3 for a while now.]

==================

 

http://forum.bioware...end/?p=19180269

 

I admit where I am incorrect at the very least

[Ithurael]

Point #2: Relays Explode = Death of the Galaxy

 

So, now that we understand Implicit Structure and implicit statements we can go after this bugger.

 

=============

[I disagree : we see the relay explosion, it wasn't strong enough to destroy all life in systems.]

=============

 

Source? How could you know...it sounds like you are speculating...like you somehow just know what is going on...Here is what we know from the lore:

 

=============

" 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

 

Note, this says nothing about explosion strength. This is an explicit statement. Then, we hear:

 

=============

"Releasing the energy of the crucible will end the cycle, but it will also destroy the mass relays"

=============

 

Hmmm...this can't be good. The implicit statement (based on what we know and the Nature of what we know) is releasing the energy of the crucible will destroy every terrestrial world in the relays solar system.

 

But somehow...it doesn't? Somehow we see our squad on some jungle planet...alive...somehow...This is in NO WAY implicit writing...nor even implicit logic. This is something I have cited before and will cite again:

 

" 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

 

You are going to see this quote a lot so you had best get use to it ...

 

In my detailed description on narrative structure and believability I will touch on why you can't just do whatever you want for the sake of dramatic effect. A major dramatic moment can have great effect and, in many cases I have seen, it can bend Suspension of Disbelief - just don't bend it too far. MrBTounge did a segment on this

 

[CITATION]

 

=============

[And you are actually working on the implicit of the mass relay explosion. How can you say that it's not implicit when you are doing interpretation.]

=============

 

 

What are you saying here? While I think I have answered this I am not sure what you are asking...You may need to structure you wording better here. I will try to answer as best I can, I am working off of both what is explicitly stated (in the codex and in what we saw in arrival and what is explicitly stated by the catalyst) and what the catalysts statement is blatantly implying. Knowing what we know about the crucible and the relays, releasing the energy of the crucible WILL destroy the mass relays and it WILL kill all life in the galaxy (or at least all life where a mass relay is present).

 

Skipping ahead a bit to you later posts (as I want to contain everything together)

 

=============

 

[The destruction of the mass relay is shown and there is no mass genocide because it's not powerful enough. But Sovereign said something interesting : "Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays. Our technology. By using it, your civilization develops along the paths we desire." Which means that the destruction of the mass relays means the destruction of the basis of the civilization. I'm not saying that it's impossible to recreate that technology, or that we will turn into prehistorical men, I'm just saying that civilizations will have to go through a "dark age".]

=============

 

 

To the underlined - do you have a source? Do you have a statement on this? Is there any implicit statement or even scene you can cite? How could you possibly know this from everything that came before? There is...one way...but it is not canonical. The catalyst gives us an absolute statement and the codex (and arrival) give us an absolute statement/scene. There is no implicit reason that allows the galaxy to live...none. The reason for the relays blowing up - however - is directly related to what you say next:

 

=============

 

["Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays. Our technology. By using it, your civilization develops along the paths we desire." Which means that the destruction of the mass relays means the destruction of the basis of the civilization. I'm not saying that it's impossible to recreate that technology, or that we will turn into prehistorical men, I'm just saying that civilizations will have to go through a "dark age".]

=============

 

 

This concept of removing the reaper technology and giving a reset (eg fresh start) is a great idea. It is perfect in its concept - especially in relation to the themes of cycles and control. However, in its execution we have to apply rule of cool:

 

=============

"Stated another way, all but the most pedantic of viewers will forgive liberties with reality as long as the result is wicked sweet or awesome. This applies to the audience in general; there will naturally be a different threshold for each individual.

The Rule Of Cool is another principle that seeks to dispel arguments among fans over implausibility in fiction. It has been cited by animation director Steve Loter (of Kim Possible, Clerks: The Animated Series, Tarzan, and American Dragon Jake Long) in response to questions from fans attempting to justify temporary breaches in logical consistency."

=============

 

http://tvtropes.org/...Main/RuleOfCool

 

Now...while I would certainly not call you pedantic, I would say that you may have a significantly larger Suspension of Disbelief when it comes to the ME trilogy than most. Why this is...I will attempt to get to in my final part. But, keeping on topic:

 

=============

[Which means that the destruction of the mass relays means the destruction of the basis of the civilization. I'm not saying that it's impossible to recreate that technology, or that we will turn into prehistorical men, I'm just saying that civilizations will have to go through a "dark age".]

=============

 

While I do agree that the destruction of the relays is the end of the basis of society (a society that has thematically been controlled by the reapers or more appropriately the cycle) in terms of themes and concept, in execution we get the death of everyone with a relay in their system. This is a case of "Great in Concept, bad in execution."

 

Believe it or not, this happens more (or just as much) than you think

 

http://www.goodreads...t-bad-execution

 

Thankfully, bioware recognized this and fixed it (kinda) in the EC. Now, what you said above (civilization basis) is still given in high ems (as the relays will be rendered inert) but in Low to Mid EMS it is destroyed as...again...that is what the lore is implicitly telling us. However, we have to deal with the slideshows that just happen...even though what we have seen before and know before do not sync with what we are seeing now. This is, essentially, going to tie into my discussion on Structure and Plot. As well as consistency which will tie into believability which will tie into the

 

One True Rule of Storytelling.

 

Finally:

=============

[Headcanon of the ending is created from what is given by the catalyst and the trilogy. You have to separate implicit from interpretation. Implicit lead to interpretation.]

=============

 

Headcanon was, essentially, created by players to fill in the logical and narrative gaps in the ending. Headcanon was also created by players trying to explore the lore a bit more and going a bit further from the source material than the material allows. And I like to think I do pretty well on separating what is presented to us in the story vs what people are interpreting or headcanoning. And I do agree, implicit leads to interpretation (as I have mentioned above) but that interpretation is still bound - and should be bound - to the rules that the implicit statement is bound to (Eg the implicit statement is derived from or what the implicit statement is based off of) otherwise we get IT...

[Ithurael]

#3: Synthesis

====================

[. Implicit is that if you take a look at every ending you'll see that it's done the same way.]

====================

 

I am not sure what you are trying to relate here. What is every ending being done the same way suppose to imply? What are we suppose to draw from this? How does this correlate to what we already know?

 

====================

[The player has to pay attention to understand. Implicit is everytime you have to make an intellectual effort to understand and interpret]

====================

 

To be fair, while implicit does take a bit more effort than explicit it is still based off what we know and have observed. It isn't completely nebulous.

 

====================

[If you want some foreshadowing of synthesis of organic and synthetic, the reapers are some kind of synthesis, Shepard is organic and synthetic since Mass Effect 2, in Mass Effect 1 Saren, the experience in Mass Effect 2 etc...]

====================

 

Again, you seem to be paying attention to the themes here. While I like your take on themes and do very much agree on the thematic correlation of synthesis, themes are not was is essentially wrong with the ending or where the ending fails. Synthesis - as presented by the catalyst - is not really explored in the game in terms of what is possible in the universe we have already established. Reaperization and Huskification and even Shepard are not really what we are shown in Synthesis.

 

StarJar (in the vanilla ending) describes synthesis as follows:

 

====================

Child: Add your energy to the crucible's

Child: Everything you are will be absorbed, then sent out

Child: The Chain reaction will combine all synthetic and organic life into a new framework...a new DNA

Shepard: I...Don't Know

Child: Why not? Synthetics are already a part of you, can you imagine your life without them?

Shepard: And there will be peace

Child: The Cycle will end, Synthesis is the final evolution of life, but we need each other to make it happen

Shepard: :/

====================

 

SOURCE

 

Both Reaperization and Huskification are taking melted bodies and dead tissue respectivly and using reaper nanites (or reaper tech) to create new reapers or animate new husks.

 

http://masseffect.wi...Creatures#Husks

 

Synthesis is somehow capable of not only not killing everyone to make them into a Synthesis...thing but it is also capable of achieving the small feat of combining all organic and synthetic life into a new framework that has never been seen or even alluded to.

 

The answer to "how this can be done in this universe" is not present. We just have this new ability that does what it does because...writers say so.

However, in concept, thematically this makes sense. The AI on the citadel stated the organics must either Destroy or Control synthetics but never could get a middle option. And, mechanically, when presented with two extremes most people will have a tendency to gravitate towards the middle option.

 

Synthesis working just because is, again, an example of Contrived Convenience. And it represents a major Genre shift. When I get into my segment on Story Structure and execution (in addition to rules) I will cite this as an example of something that can - and most likely will - break believability or suspension of disbelief. Breaking this breaks the story. You can bend SOD to a point, but if you push it too far the reader or the audience snaps out of the narrative and goes..."wait...what?"

 

Synthesis - thematically - is rather well placed. And it is even a good idea (kind) to explore. But I don't think that in a game that was in the genre of Mass Effect you should have an option to do what synthesis does and just have it work because it must work. This could denote rushed writing since Mac and Casey had to get the ending and ending dialog written and into the game ASAP. This is later elaborated on in the EC (and deservedly so) due to the overwhelming amount of ambiguity and lore inconsistencies. Still however, we are left with a contrivance - an impossible ability/option working just because writers needed it to work to have a third option that "solves" the organic vs synthetic problem.

 

OT: However...in observation...we see that the problem isn't really organics and synthetics. It is creator and created. Miranda & Ori vs Henry, Shepard vs TIM, Geth vs Quarians, Grunt vs Okeer, etc. There is no evidence or argument I have seen in favor of synthesis to denote that these new synthetic hybrids won't create purely synthetic servants or create some new organic/synthetic race of their own that won't rebel and kill them.

 

====================

["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."

 

 

Well you're not talking about implicit (the way to make sense indirectly with words or images), you're trying to show that the ending doesn't fit to what you know. ]

====================

 

 

I am actually talking about implicit and explicit. Understanding what we know about implicit or explicit writing style and structure there is nothing in the ME universe that has shown the possibility of doing what Synthesis does NOR is there anything that shows anything surviving the rely explosion.

 

Synthesis just works because it works and everyone survives because they do. This, breaks immersion and breaks suspension of disbelief.

[Ithurael]

#4 Structure

 

I won't lie...this is gonna be a doozy. While this is the easiest to answer it is the most difficult to word.

 

For starters, I do like that you mentioned your career and you interests. It does make sense that you would adhere to the "storys don't have rules" philosophy with an interest in experimental video. Though, I won't lie it is a bit of an alien concept to me. This isn't a music video is it? Or is it kind of like a short? I would like to know more. And I won't lie...the fact you say you are a lit teacher makes a lot of sense - to me.

 

I am, as my managers call me, a wild dog. They set me loose to do whatever they need done and I solve it. I have a relative moral compass so I don't get bogged down in red tape. I just make a script or program to connect to the source I need and process the data we want. I work for a large consulting firm and I focus on IT (no...not indoctrination theory..u guys). I make good money as a manager and programmer, but my main interest is cognitive computing. This is why I focus on static variables and look at patterns as my next step is in NLP and creative decision making. Thus, why I have taken an interest in creative writing. Leveraging the "rules" and standards of writing (and an understanding of neurobiology) we can hopefully build a creative machine that could mimic or even replicate a human to some extent.*

 

*total blade runner reference

 

Now...into the dark

 

Let's start with the most important part - where you agree with me

=======================

["Narrative structure is about two things: the content of a story and the form used to
tell the story"

I totally agree with that.]

=======================

 

Now, you do agree that the content and the form are essentially the two forms of Narrative structure (rather the two ways to design narrative structure).

 

Content is people, places, things, themes, conflicts, objects, locations, lore, etc

 

Form Used to tell the story is or could be linear, non-linear, traditional, nontraditional, revival, etc. There are quite a few forms and they all have benefits and allow the reader to experience a story a different way.

 

However, when it comes to how to execute a story (ala the form and the characters) we must follow one rule: Don't Break the Illusion. Or, don't break believability. Believability is the foremost aspect of the storytelling craft. Breaking it is what I can only imagine is equitable to a sin. If your story causes the reader or the audience to "snap out" for a second and go "wait..what?" this is a sign that you may have messed something up. In programming terms we have what is called a Run-Time issue. As this grinds the program to a halt.

 

How do we break believability? Easy, you make your story inconsistent with what came before. This can happen thematically, structurally, or (in video games) mechanically. Or your writing style could just be appalling

 

For Mechanics: Suddenly adding a new game mechanic that is divorced from what we have seen or been use to before (unlimited ammo gun, slow walk, no powers, blurry screen) can and most likely will snap the player out for a second. Mainly to understand this new mechanic and re-adjust. I am not saying this cannot be done, just do it well and perhaps have a good reason. The reason for the slow walk, blurred screen and no powers was rather obvious (as it was harbingers blast) however...the reason for the infinite ammo gun breaks the scene a bit. Now...I do rather know WHY they had to add an unlimited ammo gun. Most people - like me - are sh*tty shots and would run out of bullets. And conveniently leaving clips on the citadel - a place no one has ever been to ever - would be a bit too much.

 

For Structure: This can be done via retcons, sudden new characters, shift in tone, shift in central conflicts, personality changes, and lore inconsistencies (basically anything that does not make sense with what we have seen before).

 

For Themes: This should be rather obvious, if a theme of a story (say the central conflict) is predominantly recognized as say Organics vs Synthetics then you in a segment (at the end or anywhere) where the sole focus is sexuality, your audience will be a bit jarred. Though, to be fair, themes are much easier to play around with than anything (thus why I have listed them last). But you can hopefully get my drift. Keep the themes consistent to in how you portray them.

 

=======================

[But his logic is implicit. Just like when he says "chaos. the created etc..." there's a blank between chaos and the other sentence. The player has to understand how the catalyst comes to that conclusion so the description of the organics between them and the organics and synthetics is here to show why there could be a no turning point (synthetics evolve faster and can wipe out organic life in the end so the solution the catalyst found out is to not reach that point).

The circular logic is here because it's a game about circles and during the game there are many circles (cycles; movement from the citadel to come back to the citadel; the source of our problem, the catalyst, is our solution).]

=======================

 

His logic IS implicit to the lore, the themes he embodies IS implicit to the lore, he - as a character (via execution) is NOT implicit to the lore. We have a retcon and inconsistencies once he completes his dialog. This snaps the audience out. This can cause someone to put the material down and go "wait...what?" We can explain the inconsistencies away using headcanon. But that is not and in no way actually represented in the product we were given. And I do agree that starkids logic being circular is both fitting and reinforced by the narrative. I liked it. I was not the biggest fan of the central conflict shift but that is negligible. It bent my suspension of disbelief, it did not really break it.

 

=======================

[I think that the catalyst existence is implicit with the "being of light" I quoted that we can see in Mass Effect 1 and 3.]

=======================

 

And I do agree again on this - even on a character basis - however, the catalyst being the master-controller of the reapers AND the citadel being part of him creates a narrative break. We now snap out of the story and think about the entire plot of Saren trying to find a way through the citadel arms (when starjar is shown to open and close them at will. As well as raise platforms it seems.) This is not headcanon, nor is it misinterpretation of the lore. This is what the story told us up till the ending. And now, at the ending, we have something that does not structurally fit. This essentially is like trying to fit a square peg through a circle hole. You need a hammer to get it done.

 

=======================

[Vendetta makes the player think about the possibility that there's something or someone behind the reapers]

=======================

 

Now here is honestly where I did start to notice something wrong (obviously by Thessia onward the series went a bit wonky since Bio ran out of time). Once Vendetta said that I snapped out a bit. Though, at the time I was trying to make it work. The language he uses is very ambiguous and a bit cryptic - though I did love that. It hinted at a pattern, and that the reapers are servants of the pattern. However, I will admit on my first playthough that I got confused by him talking about patterns happening differently but resulting the same way and then talking about (essentially) a character.

 

Now, up to this point each reaper has been presented as an individual and independent and reinforced by our interactions with the reapers themselves. Independence is defined by a not being controlled and not depending on an outside authority.

 

https://www.google.c...=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

Now, while this was an attempt to hint at the Guardian it still comes off as a bit of a "wait...what?" Though, nowhere near as badly as what happens with the ending. You could still pull off the guardian as long as it didn't embody the collective consciousness of all reapers as well as control them and be the citadel as well. I gave a solution to this earlier in another thread a while back. In fact, if you really wanted to, bioware could have given us a really cool twist in that the reapers rebelled against their creator (reflecting the theme of created and creator). But no, if the reapers were capable of independent thought that would put a blemish on the control future and would raise way to many questions about the Synthesis future

 

=======================.

[And we can add an interpretation that is created only when we finish the game : the dream sequence can be seen as some kind of trauma, Shepard running to the past, but it can also be seen as a run to the future, Shepard trying to reach the catalyst with the kid's appearance and when he reaches it he will burn, die with the catalyst.]

=======================

 

Yeah, I had that thought too. Or that Shepard was running (slowly) towards what he couldn't save. Youth is often seen as life as well and having him run towards the child he couldn't save (aka life) and burning when he gets to him also can be implied that to save life you must burn (sacrifice) to do it. Add to this you get the whispers of dead crewmates and it makes for a good segment.

 

=======================

[this one is just an interpretation but the game was written to create some ambiguous meaning with the dreams. the dream sequence is an implicit foreshadowing of the ending that can be understood this way only when the player is at the end]

=======================

 

I get it. And I do like the idea of it. The dreams (while mechanically a bit difficult to endure) were well designed and did have great foreshadowing. That isn't really the issue. Also - to be fair - the dream sequences are pretty explicit in what they are showing.

 

=======================

[-yes we have a retcon, but the ending was made to have a reatroactive reading on the trilogy. For the inconsistencies, I disagree.]

=======================

 

The ending was made to end the story, while it does reflect the embedded themes and tone of the trilogy and third game respectively. On a structural level we have a few issues, and while you disagree, these issues (as I have pointed out and shown with citation) are not fixed or remediated in the lore. This is why I say you have a large suspension of disbelief. You are focusing on the themes and concepts - which honestly is great - but when it comes to structural aspects you seem to push them aside and give them less attention. While I can truly say that no story is free from sin (eg contrivance) the way in which you tell your story matters - to the audience and upon review - more than the themes you seek to encompass.

 

=======================

[The catalyst presence is not implicitly written, nor inferred by the past 2 and 3/4's games

-I've answered this one.]

=======================

 

And your answer focused around themes and starkid logic rather than structural. I have shown how implicit writing works and the catalyst - as an AI controller of the reapers - is not implicitly written into the plot. However, the concept of some god-like being IS implied by both klenkory then something is implied by vendetta. Neither of which hint at starkid being an AI. From a thematic point of view I do largely agree with you that the catalyst represents many of the themes from the game and the logic reflects much of what we have seen in the story. But, sadly this does not make up for the logical gaps he creates in the story. Remember, keep the story consistent to what came before. If ME3 was its own stand alone story with no tie into ME1 or ME2. I would be right with you singing praises (minus maybe the relays blowing up - but that was shown in ME2 so..yeah no issue).

 

=======================

[ - there is a completely out of universe option presented to the player that  has neither in universe plausibility nor possibility

-I think you're not talking about destroy or control but synthesis. The idea of merging organic with synthetic is here since the first game. It has "failed" many times but it was here. And for the plausibility, I think that there are a lot of things in whole trilogy that have as plausibility as synthesis.]

=======================

 

Again, I was not talking about the ideas or concepts of synthesis. I was talking about the execution and plausibility of it. And, to your later point...your wording is a bit odd, but like what? What else in the ME universe can suddenly alter the genetic makeup of all life by dissolving some dude who jumps into a beam? I am sure we may be able to headcanon one, but I have read through the lore and, seeing what is presented, don't agree. This comes back to implicit and explicit writing styles as well as consistency. If you say there is something in the ME lore that can show how synthesis is possible I would love to it. Otherwise we get contrived coincidence.

 

http://tvtropes.org/...ivedCoincidence

 

Now, if you meant to say you found things in the whole trilogy that have just as much IMPLAUSABILITY as synthesis. Oh yes, there are a few. The most notable I have found were the Beacon on Virmire (rendering ME1's plot moot), Lazarus Project, Thermal Clips (though they did try to give a citation in the codex for this), and the pinocchio geth (though, again bioware explained it was due to the quarian attack and the consensus was limited).

 

=======================

[ - All options lead to the death of the galaxy no matter what (as shown by the lore)

-yes all options lead to the death but I don't see how it is a problem : a serious narration try to deliver a message, when you change an ending you distort the message. Imagine you take Romeo and Juliet and change the ending : they live happily.... well it's not the same story at all. that's why it's really hard to create different ending with the same message. Some people wanted Shepard to live, but at the same time the game was saying that Shepard would die. Mass Effect is written like a tragedy : the notion of fate is very present. It's here from the beginning of Mass Effect 1 till the end.]

=======================

 

Now here I think I get what you are saying but I don't think you know what you are responding to. A part of me thinks you think I am saying "shepard dies which is bad". No no. That is not it. I explicitly say that everyone in the galaxy dies. No ifs, ands, or buts. This is what is shown in the lore and this is what will happen. But, somehow at the end out squadmates are shown alive on eden planet...and then we get a stargazer scene. This - again - breaks consistency. And in breaking consistency we break the illusion.

 

Romeo and Julliet (one of my favorite romances) does not end with everyone dying once Romeo poisons himself or when Julliet kills herself. Doing this would break what has been established by the narrative world as it would be completely out of place and just implausible. Showing squadmates alive on the eden world (somehow not scorched btw) is completely implausible to the ME universe.

 

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE a high body count. Point in fact that is the only reason I like Destroy and Refuse. I believe that a conflict or struggle doesn't mean much if it doesn't cost you. The greater the conflict, the more you need to sacrifice.  And I do agree largely on your take on the concept of Fate being present. I don't mind fate in a story. Though I would not really agree on your take on ME3 being a tragedy nor Shepard being a tragic character. Shepard in ME1-3 was never really written as a tragic character -though to be fair he wasn't written as a character at all. RPG playable characters essentially have to be blank boxes that the player can fill in order to immerse themselves in a story.

 

=======================

[I agree : squadmates teleport. But at the same time, I know why they have done it : the purpose is to have the player very close to Shepard.]

=======================

 

I understand this and I did pick up on it on my first play through. The issue is not the concept, it is the execution. Having squad mates with you in one scene and then on another planet in the next breaks consistency. Bioware recognized this and did what they could - sacrificing tone and breaking consistency again lol. The idea of having shepard alone is great. It makes us really connect to the character and the fiction being told on both a mechanical level and a story level. The concept is great, it is the execution - eg the structure - that is lacking when it comes to the squad mates.

 

To the war assets issue. This was more a mechanical issue rather than a narrative one. Though mechanically a company that is rushed for time cannot really create too much of a variance in the gameplay. And in terms of design, PE just feels a bit hollow. The game design gets a bit sloppy, the music and sound is out of sync, and we see sprites of JUST humans at most points. We see a Krogan/Salarian at one point - which is good - but that is all the payoff. ME2 had a great mechanical payoff for both your ship upgrades, mission choices, and final mission decisions. This was great game design and it is unfortunate that we saw it only in the second installment.

 

Your reasoning for why we get no war assets though...hmm...that seems to be more your cup of tea than anything. And it does seem like you are trying to reason it out but I can't stop you. PE's failings are more mechanical than narrative (minus of course STEVE and "I was born in London").

 

=======================

[Nowhere in ME1-3 are we shown that the catalyst couldn't open the arms to the citadel during sovereigns assault"

 

I agree, it's shown nowhere but why would he try to open the arms?]

=======================

 

This is dodging the question

 

http://en.wikipedia....uestion_dodging

 

=======================

[The catalyst doesn't think like an organic. The reapers are his solution, the catalyst has no ideology, he doesn't want to prove something, he doesn't think he is right. He is just doing this]

=======================

 

He thinks more like us than you would be willing to admit I think. His logic (created will rebel and kill their creators) is sound, it is his methods that don't sync with organics. And, I do believe that the catalyst thinks that the solution (the reapers) is the correct thing to do - until the crucible docks.

Then he outright says "it will not work anymore". He is pretty right though and he believes he is right regarding the Created killing the Creators.

 

=======================

[Now the solution isn't the one who control the solution.]

=======================

 

What? Are you saying that the catalyst is the solution? This is not said anywhere, the dialog explicitly states that starkid was created to solve the org/synth problem and that the reapers are the solution.

 

=======================

[I mean I feel like the catalyst is more an observer during the trilogy. He never acted. He just watch his solution. And if his solution doesn't work then he would try something different. That's what he did in the end, he proposes to Shepard to destroy the reapers (which means that he doesn't think that he is right or that his solution was the best). When Shepard tried to activate the crucible and fainted, it's the catalyst who woke him up. It's the catalyst that made Shepard access to him.]

=======================

 

The first part is unknown and un-provable. The second, is that he did show the capability to act and he acted only AFTER the crucible docked and presented him with new solutions to the organic and synthetic issue. That is the only reason he brought shepard up...and opened the citadel like a flower...and then closed the arms in the blue ending.

 

So from what we are seeing, we can see that he has control over the citadel arms and he would know that soveriegn could not open the relay - as he is the collective consciousness - and prior to the end of ME3 he had no other options on solving the Or/Synth problem. In addition, we know that the catalyst never existed in ME1 - via drews citation.

 

=======================

[I think that if he would have helped Sovereign, then he would be implicated in his own solution, so he would be thinking that he was right, and he would be trying to defend his solution.]

=======================

 

He does defend his solution until the crucible docks. Once the crucible docks he says his current solution - the reapers - will not work anymore. However, prior to the crucible docking he is pretty sure that the reapers are the best solution to the problem he is in charge of solving. I know we are only talking about the vanilla ending here but in the EC we are given further evidence to support that the catalyst really believes in his solution.

 

=======================

[He just let the reapers (the solution) do what they have to do (the harvest) and if the solution doesn't work any more, then he has to find another solution.]

=======================

 

The solution only did not work anymore when the crucible docked. Only then did starjar know that the reapers could no longer implement the solution. So, looking at what we are shown: Starkid raising shep up, the citadel arms opening/closing, and being the collective intelligence of the reapers, and having no other solutions to the org/synth problem in ME1 we can see that this creates a narrative plot hole that can be filled in with headcanon. But it still is a plothole none the less. And it also breaks believability as the catalysts presence on the citadel is not really consistent with what we know about the citadel relative to the reapers.

 

=======================

[no where during the ending of priority earth are we shown how are squad mates got on the Normandy"

 

Agree for the original ending. But this doesn't make an ending bad just because you don't know how. But yes in the original game it was a problem (but I still think that it's a detail).]

=======================

 

Good or bad, it does break the consistent flow of events happening. What we know prior to the beam is that everyone is charging it. What we know after is that coates ordered a retreat. What we see and hear after that is that Anderson follows us up and - after the choice is made - the normandy running and then our squadmates on the normandy. This is chronologically impossible given the time frame and sequence of events presented to us. Thus, it is bad presentation and bad writing.

[Ithurael]

#4...cont Story Structure, Execution and Believability

 

Now, this part will focus more on narrative design, execution, and the rules of storytelling. It won't have AS much ME focus as my prior responses. I will be citing a lot of articles, journals, and book excerpts,. You are free to check the books if you want and I do recommend them very much so. In my eyes anyone can be a writer (or really anything) if they put their mind to it. Some people just have a natural gift for something and others have to work at it.

 

==================

[ "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"

 

First there is no objective review. We all know that.]

==================

 

This is patently false and provably false. I keep thinking that you believe when I say there are rules to storytelling you think I am saying YOU MUST KEEP TO THIS STRUCTURE, or YOU MUST WRITE ABOUT THESE THEMES. No, I do not really say that. What I am trying to tell you is that there is a way to tell good writing from bad writing. Here are the essential Rules of writing represented as a parody of themselves for greater poignancy

 

1 Avoid Alliteration. Always

2 Prepositions are not words to end sentences with

3 Avoid clichés like the plague. They're old hat

4 Comparisons are as bad as clichés

5 Be more specific or less specific

6 Writers should never generalize

Seven: Be consistent!

8 Don't try to be redundant; don't try to use more words than are necessary; its highly superfluous

9 Who needs rhetorical questions?

10 Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement

 

https://i.chzbgr.com...9552/h5F77C839/

 

==================

[Second, there is no rule in storytelling.]

==================

 

See above

 

==================

["Don't break the illusion" doesn't work. In the XXth century there are books that break with the illusion, it's their aesthetic. So these book are bad? I disagree. The "don't break the illusion" rule only apply for one aesthetic. that's why from my experience, If I have to tell some rules I would say : no rules, only coherence.]

==================

 

I think you are misinterpreting me again. Breaking coherence breaks the illusion, breaking those 10 rules mentioned breaks the illusion. I think you are thinking about a 4th wall break rather than a structural break. Or you are reading books that are running parallel with our universe but have logic (abilities, characters, etc) that behaves in a way that would not be realistic in our world.

 

This brings me to the concept of consistency. and consistency and coherence are incredibly similar in their definitions:

 

[the quality of being logical and consistent.]

 

https://www.google.c...=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

[(of a person, behavior, or process) unchanging in achievement or effect over a period of time.]

 

https://www.google.c...=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

Hell, the definition for coherence has the WORD consistency in it.

 

Don't break the illusion applies to ALL aesthetics. The concept of "Storytelling has no rules" was more popularized by the author Robert McKee. His book, Story: Substance, Structure, Style and the Principles of Screenwriting looks into the narrative structure of a work and what makes a story compelling (or to this discussion - good). He has stated in his book and in interviews, much like you, that art has no rules. Rules are a bit too rigid for him. In the interview with Debra Eckerling he goes into more detail surrounding his findings about writing:

 

==================

[Robert McKee: The term "ground rules" is inappropriate when talking about any aspect of writing, Inciting Incident included. As I've said many times: Art forms have no rules; all art is guided by principles. Rules are rigid. They say, "You must do it this way!" Principles are flexible. They say, "This form underlies the nature of the art and is conventional in practice. However, it may be bent, broken, hidden or turned upside down to serve unconventional uses that may enhance the telling."]

==================

 

 Now this is very much equatable to what we have been discussion with ME3's ending. Especially his last statement. ME3's ending did do a LOT to try to enhance the storytelling. However, the idea of breaking the 'rules' of storytelling is NOT EQUAL to breaking the consistency of the story. Robert, was then asked about believability (as I have said again and again that this is the one true rule of any story) and he responds:

 

==================

[Q: Does a story always need to be believable? What makes it believable?

 

Robert McKee: Yes. The audience/reader must believe in the world of your story. Or, more precisely, in Samuel Taylor Coleridge's famous phrase, the audience/reader must willingly suspend its disbelief. This act allows the audience/reader to temporarily believe in your story world as if it were real. The magic of as if transports the reader/audience from their private world to your fictional world. Indeed, all the beautiful and satisfying effects of story - suspense and empathy, tears and laughter, meaning and emotion - are rooted in the great as if. But when audiences or readers cannot believe as if, when they argue with the authenticity of your tale, they break out of the telling. In one case people sit in a theatre, sullen with anger, soaked in boredom; in the other, they simply toss your novel in the trash. In both cases, audiences and readers bad mouth you and your writing, inflicting the obvious damage on your career.

 

Bear in mind, however, that believability does not mean actuality.

 

The genres of non-realism, such as Fantasy, Sci-fi, Animation and the Musical, invent story worlds that could never actually exist. Instead, works such as THE PRINCESS BRIDE, THE MATRIX, FINDING NEMO and SOUTH PACIFIC create their own special versions of reality. No matter how bizarre some of these story worlds may be, they are internally true to themselves. Each story establishes its own one-of-a-kind rules for how things happen, its principles of time and space, of physical action and personal behavior. This is true even for works of avant-garde, postmodern ambition that deliberately call attention to the artificiality of their art. No matter what your story's unique fictional laws may be, once you establish them, the audience/reader will freely follow your telling as if it were real - so long as your laws of action and behavior are never broken.

 

Therefore, the key to believability is unified internal consistency. Whatever the genre, no matter your story's specific brand of realism or non-realism, your setting must be self-validating. You must give your story's setting in time, place and society enough detail to satisfy the audience/reader's natural curiosity about how things work in your world, and then your telling of the tale must stay true to its own rules of cause and effect. Once you have seduced the audience/reader into believing in the credibility of your story's setting as if it were actuality, you must not violate your own rules. Never give the audience/reader a reason to question the truth of your events, nor to doubt the motivations of your characters. ]

==================

 

http://www.storylink.com/article/321

 

 Believability is such a key aspect of a story that one professor actually went so far as to construct a "believability" scale:

 

Plausibility

• I believe this story could be true.
• This story was plausible.
• This story seems to be true.

Completeness

• It was easy to follow the story from beginning to end.
• It was hard to follow this story.^a
• If I were writing this story, I would have organized it differently.^a

Consistency

• The information presented in this story was consistent.
• All of the facts in this story agreed with each other.
• The "consistency" of a story refers to the extent to which a story does not contradict itself or contradict other things you know to be true or false. How would you rate this story in terms of "consistency"?^b

Coverage

• There was important information missing from this story.^a
• There were lots of “holes” in this story.^a
• The "coverage" of a story refers to the extent to which the story accounts for all of the information presented in the story. How would you rate this story in terms of "coverage"?^b

^aItem should be reverse-scored.

^b7-point item with anchor points 1 = Very Low, 7 = Very High.

 

http://www.robertyale.com/nbs-12/

 

With this we can both measure the ending sequence or the story of ME3. And, depending on the score we see how believable the story or scene is. Look at the language of the arguments being presented. Personally, I would give low marks in Plausibility and Consistency.

 

==================

["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."

 

Mmmmh... I really dislike the way your saying that (as if I was a child, while you're talking about something I'm working in for many years now). So before saying it's good or bad we have to see if the intention and the writing are coherent. If these two are coherent then if the reading doesn't see it, then it's the one who failed.]

==================

 

Sorry to make you uncomfortable, my writing is usually a bit direct. I try not to lecture but I do try to explain things as effectively as we can. I will try not to sound so aggressive in this reply. Now, to your argument. First off, you working in art or arts for years is a faulty argument. It is essentially saying that your notions hold more weight simply because of who you are and your history. Both the validity and the correctness of an argument are determined by the argument structure - not the person making it.

 

So, your notion is that if the intention and the writing are coherent, the writing is good. The latter part I would agree with but intention? Never judge something on what they intend to do. You certainly don't grade your students papers or projects based on what they intend do you? You grade them based on how well they show comprehension of the material you are teaching them. But, for the sake of discussion, let's use the Anglo-approved method of grading a story.

 

==================

[Text is a word that comes from "textus". Like the cloth it's made of many lines. One text is several possibilities.]

==================

 

We are not looking at the possibilities of the text, we are looking at how well it is reflects the intent and how coherent it is to the narrative that came before.

 

==================

[So let's take a look at Mass Effect  :

 

It's a story about cycles and to break the cycles. But to break the cycle you need to step away, to see the big picture. Shepard in the end needs to get to a higher level to break the cycles (you can't break a circle when you're in the movement). That's why stories about brealing cycles (like the Snowpiercer, a film, or Bloodborne, ps4 game) are working on implicit endings. In the end the character is supposed to get to a higher level but if it's only the character, there's a problem of form : the story is a basic story about transcendance without the notion of transcendance being integrated to the story. For any seious writer, if you tell a story about transcendance, you have to make the reader/spectator/player get involved in that movement. Otherwise you completly fail in why you're telling that story.

 

So the ending of Mass Effect was based on implicit, just like the other stories about cycles. It's about implicit and paradox. So the ending is here to make the player think and imagine. So the ending is here to have Shepard who breaks the cycle and the last choice is the only one to get free, and the ending is here to have the player who make a choice and get free from the narration (which is the circle imposed by the storytellers, so the developers).

 

But if in the end, the high level is a conversation where all is explained just like the lower level, then there is no difference and you don't make the player get to a higher level. No difference between high level and Shepard's perception of the event before reaching the catalyst, this means that the reapers are not higher beings, they have the same perception than we have. In Mass Effect 1, Sovereign talked about the difference to perception, so it was implicitly about low and high level. So in the end you have to reach the high level to break the cycles.

 

That's why in the original ending you can't say to the A.I. that you refuse his choices : Shepard has to understand, the player has to understand. He can disagree, but the most important is to understand. It's quite similar to Alan Moore's Watchmen's ending : only the human perception refuse to understand and refuse to break the cycles.]

==================

 

Again Anglo, you are only paying attention to themes and concepts not so much on the narrative structure. While I do agree on themes they are not correlating to the structural issues (new characters, retcons, story events, etc)  I have mentioned above and have mentioned so many times. We see that the writer intent (the themes) are expressed well and reflected in the ending. However, the way in which we see those themes presented to us is inconsistent with the series and breaks believability.

 

You are trying to use Implicit writing as your catch-all to write off any plotholes. Just saying "oh its implicit" and not giving the citation to HOW it is implicit is a bit pretentious if you ask me, but it is also a bit arrogant. As demonstrated in section one, the plot holes cannot be explained by any implicit statements as they (the implicit statements) do not exist and have no basis or reference to the lore that came before.

 

==================

[So the ending of Mass Effect was based on implicit, just like the other stories about cycles. It's about implicit and paradox. So the ending is here to make the player think and imagine. So the ending is here to have Shepard who breaks the cycle and the last choice is the only one to get free, and the ending is here to have the player who make a choice and get free from the narration]

==================

 

This is by far your most important statement in trying to justify why the ending is not poorly written and you are not wording it well at all. You still are citing themes and concepts - which is good - but you are not paying any attention to presentation and execution. Having a really cool concept (eg the catalyst or the choices or the ending cinematic) is great, but you NEED TO MAKE THAT CONCEPT FIT with what came before. This retains consistency and keeps believability. The concept of the catalyst and the ending colors is really great, the execution is not. God, said something similar to this in so many fewer words:

 

"I have no issue with the catalyst - I have issue with how it is presented, I have no issue with synthesis - I have issue with how it is presented"

 

The issue here is not the concepts or themes of the ending Anglo, it is the execution. You really need to remember that.

 

==================

[Oh that's quite harsh. I hope you understand that I'm usually arrogant only because most people here are very pretentious (they really overestimate themselves and their knowledge which are for most people just lessons or wikipedia).]

==================

 

Again, apologies for being a bit harsh. I am trying to work on how I word statements. And, to be fair, you are a bit correct. People do tend to overestimate themselves on the internet. But posting citations from wikipedia is no real evil (though I would prefer they post the citation from the source material wiki is pulling from). I tend to believe that no one should really act arrogant. Arrogance is a byproduct of small-man syndrome and fueled by ignorance. Confidence is fine but the line between confidence and arrogance is ignorance. Someone who is confident can reference what they are talking about and apply it to other topics or other concepts while still being open to the idea of something new. Arrogance is more or less just believing an opinion based on no citable sources. Don't be arrogant...that is not becoming of you. Your ability to interpret and catch onto themes is not becoming of someone who is or should be arrogant.

 

==================

[And indeed , I don't sell many books and I won't sell many books, in a way, we can say that it's because that's my choice. If I wanted to sell books, I would write novels, and I would write them in a way people are expecting it (i know how to do it). But I prefer to write and trying new possibilities of relation between non-narrative and narrative structures, I prefer to write in rewriting genre.]

==================

 

The sad truth here Anglo is that economics will trump art every time. I do understand and respect your ideas about experimenting with narrative structure and playing with the principles of writing. And, sadly, it is true that some stories will sell more than others or be more likeable than others. However, it is a bit over the top to say people won't enjoy your stories because they "don't get it". Writers should be free to write a story the way they want about what they want. They just need to remember to try their hardest to immerse the reader in the story and not break consistency.

One great example of playing with tough themes or people not enjoying a well executed work is Song of Ice and Fire. GRRM does a fantastic job in creating this fictional world and exploring the themes he sets down through the plot and the characters. However, there is one theme even I tend to get worried with: Sexuality. It is no mystery that the Song of Ice and Fire novels have a LOT of sexuality and a LOT of violence. It is inevitable that they will bleed into each other at some point. This does happen and rape is very very prominent in the books. Now, while many criticize the writing for using rape as a plot device, to be fair - the universe that GRRM built was derived from our history. He doesn't pull punches or tip-toes around these concepts. He addresses them head on. And, it is consistent with the universe he creates.

 

Here is his interview on the topic

 

http://www.theguardi...-reality-of-war

 

The re-writing genre is a cool concept and I do like to see experimentation, and its focus appears to be on new ways to present story genres (or present story objects and narrative no matter the genre). While I am all for this, the rewriting genre will - inevitably - fall into how well believability is maintained throughout the story. You can get creative with your art, just keep it consistent to itself and maintain good format/writing style. To the notion of you writing to other peoples interest...don't do this for the sake of doing it. If you begin a story with concepts that are artificial to you, it will be reflected in your work. Write what you want but keep the writing consistent with what you have written before. Breaking the illusion is tough to come back from, thus why you need a good editor and/or good peer review.

 

There are a number of well executed stories out there that I don't like. It doesn't mean they are bad or poorly executed, it just means they are not my cup of tea. The structure is there, the format is there, the themes are there - I just may not enjoy the genre or concept. This is fine Anglo, but to say that stories (or art) can and should be inconsistent - and that it is the audience's fault for not getting it- is not really the best thing. A story is only as good as the person writing it, and all the responsibility comes down to the author or screenwriter to create that story and execute it.

 

==================

[I do work like Nicolas Winding Refn. Writing in a experimental way doesn't mean that only very few people can appreciate. It's not because we're working on experimental structures that we don't want a large audience to appreciate.]

==================

 

Looking at Nicolas' work I can still see a lot of consistency with what he has already created, I do enjoy it - The Pusher movies and Valhalla Rising the most.

 

==================

[I actually dislike the "define your audience" because it sounds to me like "follow the recipe to please people and make money".]

==================

 

This is usually a first step. You start with what you want to write, then you try to understand how the genre presents that to the audience. While it isn't really neccessary to be leveraged in the final product, it is a good concept to undertand that people who enjoy reading biographical crime dramas would not be interested in a romantic period piece. A more apt phrase would rather be "Define your genre".

 

==================

[Sorry but for me it's more "write the story you want to tell, if you like it some peopel will like it too".]

==================

 

Write what you want to write is the first principle when starting to write a story. If you show talent in how you execute the story via the themes, characters and plot you will receive praise. If, however, you just throw in a lot of concepts to explore themes and those concepts are not consistent with the story you created before people will more often than not just leave your work on the shelf. This also applies to how you actually write, if your grammar is poor, your sentence structure is lacking, and your portrayal of characters is bland many will not really like your books. Personally, I find 50 Shades of Grey and Twilight to be the biggest offenders as they perpetrate what I call Narrative Manipulation. The concepts and themes are really great however, the characters, execution, and overall presentation of both these novels is so appalling that I couldn't even get through the entire books. If I had a gun to my head...I guess I would go with 50 Shades over Twilight...

 

==================

[But I know that writing is an industry, I just don't want it to be only that. I totally understand why some people write to make money and I don't blame them, I would do the same if I was living on my writing.]

==================

 

I know, but to be fair Anglo, everything is an industry these days. I don't like that companies will use what I create to remove jobs...but I cannot create or do anything else. However, you can still make money doing what you love. Write what you want to write, just keep it consistent with the rules you set up. IT Follows was a great example of what happens when you break the rules you created. Don't get me wrong, I like the film but I had a few immersion breaking moments that snapped me out of the story. Mainly because the story broke its own rules that it set down. And, sadly, ME3 did this as well (as did ME1 and ME2). The reason there is so much damn emphasis on ME3 is mostly because it is the finale, the most hyped, and the ending actually caused us to retroactively look at the entire series flaws once the illusion of choice was shattered.

 

Part 5: Summary

 

Now, while I do really love your take and perception of the themes of the story, I worry that you are only paying attention to those themes. A story (a good story) is graded and reviewed based on how immersive the content is and how well that content is portrayed and represented via the form. If the content is inconsistent or unbelievable to what came before or the form breaks believability you lose the willing participation of the audience for that segment of the story at least. This is not a good thing.

 

==================

[I wanted to show is that the writing of the ending is based on implicit, this explains :]

==================

 

This is represented in how the story came together thematically, however, some aspects of the content does not mix well with the others. And the form - while compressed and abstract - does not totally sync with the ME storytelling format. Though it isn't the form that breaks immersion, rather the content that is presented and how it is presented. The themes are there, the consistency is not. There are no in-universe explanations for the catalyst nor the problems it creates nor for synthesis just working, nor for the relays blowing up, nor for the squad mates teleporting, etc. The concepts and ideas behind these are great - and I do get it. I dislike the ending not because I "didn't get it" I understood pretty well the themes and reasons, I dislike it because how the execution and exploration of those themes and ideas contradicts established lore in the final act.

 

==================

[-the "speculations for everyone" on Mac Walters notes.]

==================

 

To be fair, this is fine. This is a great idea, however we should not have to speculate on lore consistency. Nor should we have to grasp at straws to retain coherence. Nor should bioware have to lead a subset of fans on into believing their headcanon will come true and the real ending will be revealed. When a reader rejects a piece of work for sound reasoning - fully understanding the concepts and themes behind it - the issue is not with the reader, but the writer. I have seen the "but my shepard died" argument many times and I don't agree with it - at all. The everyone wins scenario or conventional victory would be just as contrived as synthesis or the Normandy Evac (using the other ending but you get what I am saying). I am glad bioware gave us a heady and tough decision to end the series - though I do wish mechanically they did it a bit differently.

 

==================

[And that's something I really like. Everyone has played the same game but has played a different story. I mean in any other game where you have choices, you can talk about what you have chosen, but here you can go further and talk about how you interpret your story (with the implicit, the game became yours, it's not the choices that made the story personal).]

==================

 

Technically Anglo you can do this with any piece of work. I have some really cool ideas and interpretations of Far Cry 3, and that story (the second half) fell on its face in execution. Interpretation of themes is a great discussion. However, when you are discussing narrative inconsistencies...this is bad. Rather, when the narrative inconsistencies are a larger topic than the themes...this is bad.

 

==================

[When I talk about the "beings of light" with GalacticWolf5 I'm not trying to convince him. I just want to make him realise that it's all about implicit and it's an important clue.]

==================

 

Again, I love your imagination but you really do need to reference section one. The catalyst - as shown by how implicit writing works - as a character is never really reflected as an AI. Though I do grasp what you are trying to say. You are saying that the concepts - the themes - are there for the player to find and experience. However, as I have said, the issue is not the themes Anglo...it is the execution and how it is inconsistent with what came before.

 

==================

[-the ending is also about determinism, the entire trilogy is about that.]

==================

 

I do agree, both mechanically and narratively there is little difference between 1 and 2. However, upon reaching ME3, all our choices did - to bioware's credit - vastly change and impact our EMS score. Now, EMS had little effect in the gameplay in addition to the narrative. I chalk this up to a shortened development time. Bioware did do the best they could with the time they had. I can only imagine what would happen if they had 3 + years to develop, test, and finally release ME3. But, we have what we have...

 

==================

[Then we've got the cinematic of the choice that is almost the same for each choice in the original ending : the narration stay in a high level of perception but at the same time the music and what we know make us understand what is happening and what will happen at a lower scale (lower than cosmic).]

==================

 

Here is where you are starting to lose me. The highly similar ending cinematic screams rushed design. And, looking at what we know about the ME3 lore, how does the music mean the relay explosion doesn't kill everyone in the galaxy. If anything "An End Once and For All" directly implies that everyone is dead no matter what. However, then we get an eden planet and our squadmates magically surviving...because "lots of speculations from everyone". This is not a good writing technique. When an author wants the reader to fill in narrative gaps or inconsistencies, it is usually the sign of an inexperienced writer or someone just making an controversial ending for the sake of controversy.

 

==================

[And with this scene with no technology, with this kid asking when he will have the possibility to go to the stars, we have the impression that it's a "dark age" (from a technological point of view) that was implicitly made by the mass relays destruction.]

==================

 

What we get is not an implicit dark age from the relay destruction, we get a galactic holocaust. The reader is explicitly told and shown what happens when a relay blows up and then we are told breaking the cycle destroys the relays. Then we see - as per what was said - the relays being destroyed and the energy spreading throughout the start. Then we see the Normandy escaping...somehow...and landing on some planet somehow unravaged by the relay explosion (which covered the galaxy). Then we see squadmates that were with us at one moment and then not come out of the normandy then we get credits and then we get a stargazer scene (that somehow survived the relay explosion destroying all worlds) telling us life is a story. The concepts behind all of that is great, the execution is where we have issue. This snaps the reader out of suspension of disbelief via the inconsistencies that are being shown. You cannot and have not been able to remove these narrative inconsistencies by saying it is implicit or it is implicitly inferred. Implicit writing does not work like that. Implicit writing works by deriving itself from what is already known (eg the Nature of something). I gave examples to better illustrate my points. While the catalyst logic and themes it embodies are implicitly woven and represented in the ending, the character of the catalyst is not and it contradicts established lore, as does synthesis, as does much after what happens after the choice sadly.

 

Hopefully this will give you better perspective on my point of view and my general distaste for the ending. I am no fan of people pushing their headcanon as established lore - as you have mostly seen via my spats with a few IT'ers. In addition, I really hope you read through my citations on writing and writing structure - particularly Robert Mckee's stuff. It is really good. And finally, I do hope you try to become a writer - or at least start small with some sonnets or short stories. You have a wonderful imagination and analytical ability to see and express themes and concepts from a story. Just remember the primary Supreme rule of any kind of story (or art form really): Don't Break the Illusion!

 

Cheers!

[Ithurael]

Further Reading and Sources:

https://writersinthe...nd-contrivance/

http://lynnmcc.blogs...ontrivance.html

http://home.earthlin...4/Counterpt.htm

http://www.annhandle...f-good-writing/

http://www.barnesand...es-for-writers/

http://www.writersdi...-fiction-series
 

http://www.slideshar..._the_day_email2

http://en.wikipedia....uestion_dodging

http://www.limorship...nt-of-a-mirror/

http://wheresmyquart...lling-part.html

http://www.limorshiponi.com/2011/06/

http://www.reddit.co...urately_a_lack/

https://killzoneblog...ting-novel.html

https://aspeakinghum...riting/my-book/

http://www.storylink.com/article/321

https://i.chzbgr.com...9552/h5F77C839/
 

belivability
http://strategic-nar...ecision-making/
http://gradworks.umi...80/3480927.html
http://www.writewell...ity-in-fiction/
 

inconsistency in review - IT follows Film,

Click
 

[AlanC9]

Did I miss the announcement of the WoT contest?

[AlanC9]

I don't really want to get in the way of you two too much, but there are a couple of minor points regarding relay explosions.
 
First, the italed below has to be ruled out.
 

 Knowing what we know about the crucible and the relays, releasing the energy of the crucible WILL destroy the mass relays and it WILL kill all life in the galaxy (or at least all life where a mass relay is present).

This is not coherent with the Catalyst's belief that synthetics will be recreated by "your descendants" after Destroy. I presume the italed part was just empty rhetoric anyway, so this shouldn't matter too much. OK, some idiots here did profess to believe that, but I never took them seriously.

Second, we plainly see that the Citadel relay explosion isn't big enough to vaporize even the Citadel, let alone Earth. I suppose a player could for some reason believe that the first Crucible wave is generated in a different fashion from all the other Crucible waves, but that doesn't strike me as a natural interpretation. Unless, of course, the player is unaware that the Citadel is a relay.

[Ithurael]

I don't really want to get in the way of you two too much, but there are a couple of minor points regarding relay explosions.
 
First, the italed below has to be ruled out.
 

This is not coherent with the Catalyst's belief that synthetics will be recreated by "your descendants" after Destroy. I presume the italed part was just empty rhetoric anyway, so this shouldn't matter too much. OK, some idiots here did profess to believe that, but I never took them seriously.

Second, we plainly see that the Citadel relay explosion isn't big enough to vaporize even the Citadel, let alone Earth. I suppose a player could for some reason believe that the first Crucible wave is generated in a different fashion from all the other Crucible waves, but that doesn't strike me as a natural interpretation. Unless, of course, the player is unaware that the Citadel is a relay.

 

 

Thanks for the input,

 

I am not really talking about the citadel explosion (when the blast first fires) I am more talking about the relays exploding. What we know -from the lore - is that a relay explosion will destroy and ruin all terrestrial worlds in that system. This is affirmed with Arrival and stated in the codex.

 

How you are drawing this to the synthetics and organics thing I am not sure...The issue is a narrative inconsistency with what is presented by the catalyst (in the vanilla ending) and what we see and know. What we know is destroying a relay kills all life in that system. What we know is that releasing the energy of the crucible will destroy all relays. What we see is the relays blowing up and then the un-ruined garden world...and squadmates surviving...somehow. This is a narrative inconsistency as well as an example of contrived convenience.

 

But no, it has nothing to do with the citadel blowing up...not sure where you got that or where I mentioned it. Also, it should be noted that Anglo and I are discussing the original ending - not the EC. The EC tried to patch up the relay explosion in High EMS and it kinda works...

[angol fear]

@ Ithurael,

you have written a lot. I'll take a lot of time to answer. 

I just started to read, and today I can only read and answer the very first point : implicit.

You misunderstood what I wrote. I didn't give a definition. The one you gave is the one we all have. That's mine too. That's how I teach it too. That's why I didn't say anything about it. But I felt like you were only talking about words and didn't talk about the implicit we could have in the images. That's why I said :

But I'm really curious : what is your implicit writing? When I'm talking about implicit writing, it's in the speeches and in the images.

This wasn't a definition. The one you've got is the right one.

[Ithurael]

@ Ithurael,

you have written a lot. I'll take a lot of time to answer. 

I just started to read, and today I can only read and answer the very first point : implicit.

You misunderstood what I wrote. I didn't give a definition. The one you gave is the one we all have. That's mine too. That's how I teach it too. That's why I didn't say anything about it. But I felt like you were only talking about words and didn't talk about the implicit we could have in the images. That's why I said :

But I'm really curious : what is your implicit writing? When I'm talking about implicit writing, it's in the speeches and in the images.

This wasn't a definition. The one you've got is the right one.

 

 

Take your time man - I surely did.

 

For what it is worth, I don't have the most time to respond. Even now I am in a far corner of my office trying to type this...hiding from the powers that be.

 

I actually really like that this discussion has allowed me to look into writing and more about writing theory/execution. I will try to implement this into my programs one day.

 

 

EDIT: Also remember to end with either #/END/# or mark END somewhere -or respond all at once like I did. Either is fine.