590 réponses à ce sujet

[GalacticWolf5]

Put a respawning thermal clip there

Haha that would be pretty stupid. Like, 'Hey you're somewhere no one has ever been before, but here are some thermal clips in case you shot all your ammo like a little kid on your way here'.

[Iakus]

The extended cut did fix one thing, the flashbacks when Shepard is choosing whatever ending

Darn thin silver lining, though

 

I guess you missed the "for me" part.

"Lots" of other people still thought the game was great, despite the ending. "Lots" of other people are fine with the ending, especially after the EC.

Everyone has opinions. It's not BioWare's job to cater to them all, especially the willfully negative ones.

I did say "for me"  So no I missed nothing.

 

Sure "Lots" of people thought the ending was great.  and "Lots" didn't.  Bioware claimed they were listening.;  But EC merely doubled down on what was already there.  EC might have won over a few people who were on the fence.  But also demonstrated that Bioware's claim to be listening was a PR thing more than anything else.  A polite fiction so people would go away.

 

And as I said, this is not a willfully negative opinion.  I have thought this through, I have examined the ending, I've read post and watched videos both positive and negative.  I have examined why these endings caused such a reaction in me.  Remember, I want to like Mass Effect.  I don't want these games, Bioware games, to be gathering dust on a shelf.  

 

But I got the very distinct feeling that because my opinion is negative, it is rendered meaningless.  That I must be an unreasoning hater just because I think the endings suck.  And sadly, I get this sense from both fellow players and Bioware itself.

[Iakus]

Haha that would be pretty stupid. Like, 'Hey you're somewhere no one has ever been before, but here are some thermal clips in case you shot all your ammo like a little kid on your way here'.

It worked for Aiea.  

[dreamgazer]

Why shoot at all?
 
This makes the least sense any way you slice it. Even if you take everything at face value, you get digitized and uploaded into the Reapers in Control and in everything in synthesis, but how does busting up that one pipe release the destroy wave? It's absolutely nonsensical.

Tech bursts in the MEU follow similar logic. Doing this to ignite the reaction doesn't really surprise me.
 

Not to mention that if you wanted Shepard caught in the explosion of the pipe, forcing him to beat on it with a stick, or his fists makes far more sense. Well, not really, but you eliminate the derp of walking forward.  You even get a symbolism bonus by making the action to destroy savage and "Shepard Smash"-y

The material needed to be strong enough to withstand space travel, though, and it clearly took a good cluster of close-proximity rounds to pop the outer casing.

[CrutchCricket]

Tech bursts in the MEU follow similar logic. Doing this to ignite the reaction doesn't really surprise me.

Tech bursts are layering one type of energy over another to produce a reaction (probably having to do with electric charge). They don't make much sense either, beyond being there as an equivalent to biotic explosions.
 

The material needed to be strong enough to withstand space travel, though, and it clearly took a good cluster of close-proximity rounds to pop the outer casing.

Shepard arm-wrestled a yahg. Your argument is invalid.

[angol fear]

And as I said, this is not a willfully negative opinion.  I have thought this through, I have examined the ending, I've read post and watched videos both positive and negative.  I have examined why these endings caused such a reaction in me.  Remember, I want to like Mass Effect.  I don't want these games, Bioware games, to be gathering dust on a shelf.  

 

 

Do you have any link? I'd like to see some video made by people who defended the endings. Thanks.

 

@Anglo

 

I have a free moment!

 

If there is any confusion when reading any argument or a story, that is more often the fault of the author than the reader.

 

I apologize for the confusion. I will try to be more succinct in my responses.

 

 

Don't apologize! I totally disagree with the confusion caused by the author otherwise I wouldn't be working in art (don't see any pretentious meaning in that!). It's just that I have very few time to really read, so to read carefully. By "reading carefully" I mean to understand what you say, what makes you think this and how you interpreted what I said. I don't want my answers to create conflict just because i misunderstood (because I didn't take enough time to really see all the points I said).

[Iakus]

Do you have any link? I'd like to see some video made by people who defended the endings. Thanks.

 

A couple of examples:

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=iwwuC7XnJGw

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=oGSGZqJnHo8

 

Most of the videos defending the endings are IT videos to some degree.  The ending defenders are primarily articles and forum posts.  

[angol fear]

@ Ithurael,

Ok, I'll explain why I've got some problem with what you said. Your first point is to prove that the nature of the catalyst (to be an A.I.) is not implicit, which means that it's explicit.

 

Your definition of implicit is the right one, I've already said it but I'll add few things. There are different way to use implicit.

 

You can use litotes. When saying "it's far from being wrong!", the immediat meaning is that it's not totally right but some things are right. The litotes meaning is that it's totally right. So the one who listen or see that has to interpret it with the context to know if it's a litotes or not.

You can use euphemism. When saying "she left" instead of "she died", we try to say in a better way something that is hard to accept. But the immediat meaning is not that she died, it's far from being it. You have to understand figuratively not literally. Once again it's the reader/ listener who has to do the interpretation part to understand the meaning. With the sentence itself there's nothing that show that she died.

You can use irony. If I answered to the OP with that : "I totally agree!", no one, except those who know my opinion, could understand that what I'm saying is ironical. It would still be irony but if I wanted to make it obvious, I would need to exagerrate and add something like : "you're a genius!".The first part would be ironical and the second part would emphasize it. There's a real gap between the immediat meaning (I totally agree) and the real meaning (I totally disagree). Once again it's the reader who has to understand it.

You can also see implicit meaning in structures. If I take Eastwood's "American sniper"some people think that this film is an eulogy of war. We can only see this way if we ignore some part of the film but yes, I totally understand why some people think that. Some elements in the film put together lead to that kind of interpretation and that would be an implicit meaning. I can use the fable too. That kind of stories has an implicit or explicit moral. Every story has a meaning, and every story has several meaning. When in a fable you've got only one explicit moral, it's to emphasize one idea btu the writer knows that there are many other way to understand it.

There's implicit with connotation too. If you take a color like red. The immediat meaning is it's red, but red can lead to passion, to violence, to love etc... You probably have seen that stupid facebook thing with "the poet writes the grass is green, the teacher teaches that the grass is a space of hope (or something like that), the student understands that the grass is green and the poet wanted to say that the grass is green". That stupid facebook image is just saying that the writer doesn't mean more than the literally meaning, which is totally wrong. If someone stay on the very basic level, on the literal meaning, he isn't reading. Things has to be put together because that's what a writer do. Only students (teenagers) can think that a writer thinks like a teenager only in a basic level of meaning. Writers would be at the same level that student are and teacher are just babbling deliriously? I'm pretty sure you know what I mean. So connotation is also implicit. Red is red, but can mean other things depending on context (actually it's the co-text if I want to be more precise, but that's a notion that doesn't need to be developed).

 

So implicit can be everywhere, and it's used quite often. It's always the reader/listener/spectator who has to find the implicit meaning. In writing, to give an information, you have two ways : explicit, which is the direct way, the immediat meaning, or the implicit, the indirect way, the one that needs interpretation of elements from the receiver.

 

So for the nature of the catalyst, in the original endings, being an A.I. isn't explicit, it's not given to the player. The player has to interpret elements to understand the nature of the catalyst. I've already said it but the difference between the original ending and the extended cut on this point is that the original ending gives you the information implicitly, which means that you have to interpret things, while the extended cut gives you the information explicitly ("I'm an A.I.").

You can say that in the original ending we can understand that he is an A.I.. I agree but not everyone understood it. If not everyone understood it, it's because it's not explicit but implicit. The "godchild" word people use when they talk about the A.I. was used since the original endings. I don't think that people who used that noun to talk about the A.I. did an analysis about the relation between nature, artificial and religion (I didn't see any on internet). Most people didn't understand that the catalyst was an A.I. This information is very important to understand the ending and the logic. That's why Bioware turned it into an explicit information.

 

The only way to prove that the nature of the catalyst being an A.I. isn't implicit is to prove that it is explicit.

 

Edit : So with words, it's easy to see if it's implicit or explicit because if it's explicit you just have to quote and that's all. With images it's more difficult. Images show, so when is it explicit or implicit? You probably have seen Pacific Rim. There's a scene that is probably the best scene but I didn't like how it ended : the scene with the little girl running and saved in the end. Her saviour is the guy who will become her boss. When we see this scene, when we see the girl saved we already know that it's this guy who saved her. The identity was implicitly given until Del Toro shows his face. So if Del Toro had stopped before we saw his face, it would be implicit, but actually we saw his face and it confirmed what we didn't need to see. That information was clearly shown, so it was explicit in this scene.

If we take the breath scene in the destroy ending, we don't see Shepard, we just have N7 logo that makes us understand that it's Shepard (that's a metonymy), the breath that only appears in one ending makes us think that its' Shepard's breath, and he is alive. All these informations are implicit. If we saw Shepard like in Mass Effect 1, the information would be explicit. So with the images, explicit and implicit become more complicated : it's just about details, if we see clearly the information it's explicit, if not, it's implicit.

[angol fear]

@ Ithurael,

 

"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."

 

To show me that the catalyst as an A.I. isn't implicit in the original ending you have to show that it's explicit. Any information given is explicit or implicit.

 

"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"

 

Sorry but I've never said that. I've only talked about the catalyst being an A.I., I've never talked about any "lore issues". You interpreted what I said. I only said that it was an important information to understand the ending.

 

"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."

 

I agree and I've never said that the catalyst itself was implicit in Mass Effect 1. I only gave an information that could be linked with the ending. I've already explained (in the conversation with GalacticWolf5) how we could read it.

 

"He does not say anything close to this ( catalyst=A.I.)in the vanilla ending - at all."

 

So no explicit information about that in the dialogue. Then if you want to prove that the information is explicit, you have to find it in the images.

 

"To be fair, no, you never really did talk about starkids relation to ME1."

 

Well... is "starkids" the A.I. in the end or the ones in the quotation? If you talk about those in the quotation and you don't see any relation between this and the ending, well, I'll have to stop that discussion here because the relation is really clear. It would only mean that you refuse the implicit aspect of that quotation, and to refuse something that is obviously linked means that discussion is impossible.

 

"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."

 

"Starkids", "Starjar" if you want a real discussion we have to talk the same language. If you use that pejorative words, you reveal that you hate this, and I can understand through this that you'll never change your mind on. There is no starjar, there's a catalyst or an A.I. (and actually there's a catalyst because there's a crucible), the other words you used are just your interpretation, or just reveal your frustration. Neutral language = discussion ; subjective words  (you can't say that you're objective and talk about the A.I. saying "starbrat/starjar/starkid etc...") = no discussion.

Once again, I've never said anything about any inconsistencies. And for the relation between the quotation and the endings, I've already explained it : the main themes of the ending are here. If you don't want to see that, then it's just because you don't want, there's nothing objective in that, it's actually subjective to refuse to put together two things about the exact same themes.

 

"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."

 

So now we're no longer on reading. Implicit and explicit were on the reading level. Now to justify yourself you change the analysis, and now we're on writing point of view. I agree that they didn't think about the details of the endings. The quotation was a seed. That's something I've already explained to GalacticWolf5. So I just repeat the same thing here. In that quotation, if you don't see that the being of light were created means that they are synthetics, they probably are A.I., and their purpose is (explicitly) to protect organic life, if you don't see any relation between that and the endings, well, I don't know what I can say. And there's nothing in that quotation about the A.I. and the reapers, that's something I never talked about.

 

"Although, if you were to say that this could give possible foreshadowing to starjar as a character...yeah. This could be very very possible."

 

That's exactly what was implied in my answers.

 

"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)."

 

That's exactly what I was saying. The writing is retroactive. That's exactly what I was saying to GalacticWolf5, you only can understand this quotation when you have reached the ending. Before that it's a clue that you can't understand. Bioware didn't want to emphasis the foreshadowing of the trilogy. It's like the very first guy on Eden Prime you talk to. First you can never see him if you failed to enter the place, and when he says that he sees our destruction etc..., you can punch him and ignore what he said. You only understand the importance of what he said when you are at Mass Effect 3. The same with the guys talking about the noise in their head when Sovereign appeared on Eden Prime ("Sounded like the shriek of the damned") you can only understand it and interpret it with Mass Effect 2 revelation about the repears being synthetics and organics. Coincidence can happen one time, but it can't be systematic. If it's systematic, then it's the aesthetic, it's their way of writing the trilogy. And just about one point : "devils", the ending is pretty clear about that, there is no devil.

 

"While the catalyst IS a retcon"

 

I agree and I've already said that the whole writing of Mass Effect is just like that.

 

"However, the catalyst as an AI AND the master controller of the reapers is NOT implicitly woven"

 

I agree the relation between the catalyst and the repears has no foreshadowing until Vendetta says that there must be something behind the reapers. Anyway, you'll never find one foreshadowing that will give you all the clues. Bioware gave clues like in an investigation game. It's like a puzzle. Different clues that you have to put together to understand.

 

"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."

 

I don't see any problem. I can solve it with headcanon but some problems are headcanon too. I mean when people say that the fact that the catalyst did nothing in Mass Effect 1, it's a problem, well... that's a headcanon. The catalyst never really acted, even in Mass Effect 3. I don't understand why some people want to make a synthetic think like an organic. Here it is a headcanon problem not an inherent problem. I didn't take a look at the list of the problems you gave me, I'll look at it later.

 

Sorry, have to stop here for today.

[angol fear]

@Ithurael,

 

So to finish with the first point : the information of the catalyst being an A.I. is here, that's something that can't be denied. Now is it implicit or explicit? The only way to prove that it's not implicit is to show/ to quote something during that scene that gives directly the information that the catalyst is an A.I.

 

Point 2

 

If you want to interpret that way, I'm ok. But the destruction of the relay in arrival isn't the same that the one in the end of the game. In arrival we've got additionnal force and all internal energy liberated. In the ending, there is only energy thrown, though the relays was destroyed too. And how could Joker and the Normandy survived the mass relay explosion? Just because it's not the same thing that happened for the relays in arrival and in the ending.

 

" 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."

 

The ending isn't showing a deliberately ruptured relay. This explicit statement is in "desperated measures", isn't it? It's about breaking the Mass relay in arrival. The ending doesn't work this way at all. The context isn't the same (crucible) and the visual isn't the same.

At 2 min :

 

 

And Shepard is watching the wave destroying everything.

 

at 8 min

 

 

The Mass Relay destruction isn't shown the same way if you compare Arrival and the ending. And When we see from a higher point of view, it's not a wave that we see it's a beam going from relay to relay. There's nothing showing us that everything is destroyed by the relay's destruction (nothing like the white wave in Arrival). The cause/the context of the destruction of the Mass Relays is different, the consequence is also different. But that's my opinion. Anyway, the explicit statement is true for arrival, not for the ending.

You'll probably say that we can see waves, but these waves are green, blue or red. So what that waves are is shown in the cinematic : when the crucible was activated and the citadel did what Shepard has chosen, we could see some kind of colored field growing, then we saw what happened on Earth (synthesis, control or destruction of the reapers). But people didn't die during that cinematic so that colored wave isn't what you're talking about (energy of the relay that would destroy an entire galaxy).

The citadel is a relay and if the developers decided to show what happened here it's because the same happened for every relay. Same thing repeated that's why we only see the beam and colored wave, the beam and colored wave etc...

You can decide that the destruction of the Mass Relays will kill everyone but that's not what we explicitly see (what happens with the citadel) and what is implicitly said (same thing for the other mass relays). 

 

 

"Thankfully, bioware recognized this (=bad execution)and fixed it (kinda) in the EC."

 

Well, you have to prove this (source?)! I've never seen Bioware doing this. They sure did the extended cut, and they have always said that it was because people needed it, never because the story needed it. That's not the same thing at all. You talk about writing (bad execution), they talk about reception (people needed it).

 

 

"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. "

 

TVTropes, well... I really dislike that site. I really don't think I'm in the rules of cool. But my "significant larger suspension of dibelief" comes from the books I've read. You know, for instance, when a serious writer writes a book that turns to be some kind of anticipation novel in the last page, you have to understand why.

 

Edit : I'll add your answer to AlanC9:

 

"We are told the Mass Relays will be destroyed - Not the citadel. This is an explicit statement

We are then shown the relays blowing up and - thus - killing everything.

Although, to be fair. The citadel is an inactive mass relay. But, to keep to consistency, yeah, if the regular relays blow up and the citadel blows up, the lore does dictate that all terrestrial worlds will be ruined.

Showing the opposite is not implicit writing giving us clues that the genocide didn't happen because people survived. This is an example of contrived convenience."

 

Yes, it is said that the Mass Relays will be destroyed and no we don't see the relays blowing up killing everything. The explicit statement you use comes from "desperate measure" and in a way the isn't what the ending is about. So you can interpret it this way if you want. But you can't blame the writing of the game when it's your interpretation of the events and the writing that create inconsistency. Arrival and the ending aren't the same context of destruction and we don't see the same thing.

[angol fear]

Point 3 synthesis

 

"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."

 

Well, I disagree, I'll repeat that you're not talking about implicit or explicit, you're using this to give an opinion on the writing. I mean I wasn't talking about what you're talking about. There's a misunderstanding here. I was just saying that in synthesis ending we could see that synthesis worked : the details in the last images showed implicitly that it worked, joker and everyone had a new DNA..

You are actually talking about synthesis and the whole trilogy. I was talking about synthesis writing in the ending.

 

"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."

 

In an universe where a burnt body can come back to life (Lazarus project), where space has memory (Javik), where organic "essence" can be mixed with synthetic form (the reapers)etc..., I don't think that synthesis feels disconnected to the universe created. We can already modify DNA so in Mass Effect why wouldn't it be more advanced modification?

[angol fear]

Point 4 Structure

 

"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."

 

Indeed, it's more like short. But narration is not used the same way. Most artistic videos are non-narrative. I must say that I work on narrative and non-narrative. Trying to create narration with non-narration and to create non-narration in the narration. This may sound quite strange but in the end it's not new. If you take a look at jean-Luc Godard, David Lynch, and Nicolas Winding Refn's films, you'll have an idea of the way I'm trying to do. Trying to find a new way to tell a "story", new structures without using the formulas that impose events and (passively) ideas/meanings created by those events. So this doesn't really fit to the art market and it doesn't really fit to the cinema market. There are expectations about what is art for most people, just like there are expectations about what is a film. But what I'm doing is closer to art just because it's more contemplative and the "story" isn't that important (it seems to be this way, it feels this way but it's actually not true!).

 

"the fact you say you are a lit teacher makes a lot of sense - to me."

 

You may have noticed that english isn't my native language. I'm actually French, teaching french literature (actually it's from antiquity to XXIth century french literature). I've read english and american books too but I'm far from being an expert in that literature. That's why I use mostly cinema references.

 

"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."

 

I do agree about the content and the form being essentially the two forms of narrative structure but there's something I disagree : "content is people" (if you mean character). I don't see it this way : a character is for me a structure, it's a form. I'm essentially a structuralist/ post-structuralist influenced by Roland Barthes and many others. For me, the character itself is an element of the narration, it's what is conveyed by this character that is the content. For me, it's like a glass : the glass itself is the form, what is inside is the content. Drinking whisky in a wine glass is "inappropriate". For me, characters, place, things and many other things are structure, they are form. The content is mostly the abstract part (tension, message, theme, conflicts etc...), it's what you put in these forms.

But actually, form and content are usually tied together. Basic form is for basic content (that's how clichés are created, somethinhg new can turn into an empty form that people got used to). In stories that try to create a new content, you've got a new form. One of the best example (and it's very useful to understand Mass Effect) is Nietzsche's writing. If you have read Thus spoke Zarathustra, you have noticed that the form is not what we've got usually in philosophy. Nietzsche used a new form in occidental philosophy. This book is some kind of philosophical poetic apologue. While philosophy usually develop the idea, in this book it's totally different. And that's something that, in art, we do think : a new form means a new idea/aesthetic. A new form doesn't always mean a new macro-structure, it can be new micro-structure (the way you write your sentences, the punctuation etc...). The impact of the idea depends on how new is the idea/ the aesthetic.

I can talk about a book (Jean Echenoz's Ravel) where the first 80 pages on about 100 pages are the introduction. That book is incredibly well written but doesn't follow the "rules" of storytelling. The form is shaped by the idea. In that book where Maurice Ravel got Alzheimer's disease, it's totally normal that once the car accident changed his life, we feel the tragedy of emptiness. People who are used to Tvtrope's rules can't appreciate that way of writing. But the example I talked about have got one thing : coherence between form and content, the form is created because the content need that kind of form.

 

"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." 

 

That's where I totally disagree. Let's take two example of masterpieces : 

-Denis Diderot's jaques le Fataliste ( https://en.wikipedia...es_the_Fatalist) which is a book that play with the illusion and doesn't hesitate to break the illusion of the story. The form is really complex.

-Pierre Corneille's Le Cid ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Cid) which is a tragicomedy where the main character turn into a muderer, then a national hero in 24 hours. Le Cid is a masterpiece but seriously the believability doesn't exist. you can't believe such a story. Why is it a tragicomedy? Because it's a tragedy that ends happily. But no one can believe that story.

 

I think that these two examples are enough to show that that rule comes from popular writing and doesn't really work in Literature.

That's why I said if there's one rule it's not "don't break the illusion" or "don't break the believability", it's "be coherent". that's not the same thing at all, though there's some similitaries.

 

"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."

 

I agree with this one. But while you use "believability" like a passive reading, I use coherence for an active reading. I mean, a story that breaks  with what was done before break the believability of the reader but it's not a necessarily a bad thing. And you can break the believability and stay coherent, that's the most important.

 

"For Mechanics: [...]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."

 

I understand that it can "break the illusion" but I think that it's a detail. And the mechanics of gameplay have changed in the three games. But I understand that if there's a big difference between Mass Effect 1 and 2 in the gameplay each game keep the mechanic till the end of the game. So why unlimited ammo? I can only give an interpretation (because if it has been done this way, there's a reason, otherwise they would have kept the same gameplay). I think that in that scene Shepard isn't really lucid. After what he went through it's quite obvious that physically and mentally Shepard was injured. The unlimited is more for me something that Shepard can't count. If you can count how many you still have, you are lucid. Shepard isn't able to do that, so the player will not be able to do that, otherwise there would be a distance between how shepard feels and how the player plays. That's how I see that scene, and that's my explanation of the change of the gameplay. And in the end, something like that is a detail that can't make a great game turn into a bad game.

 

"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)"

 

retcon : that is the basis of the writing of the whole trilogy so the ending of Mass Effect can't be blamed for that.

New character : there is a foreshadowing, and no Mass Effect isn't the only story that did that.

Shift in tone : the higher level was here with the sovereign speech, with the Harbinger speech and the reaper on rannoch. those moment where pauses where an explanation about something "high level" was here. And the philosophical aspect was introduced since Mass Effect 2 with the "essence" word.

Shift in central conflicts : there is no explicit central conflict during Mass effect trilogy. So the is no shift.

Personnality changes : Shepard act the same way he did. He asks what is needed to act, he never ask for answers he won't understand. His choice can be something that he would not choose before the ending, but he doesn't have the same knowledge now. Anyway his personnality still the same.

lore inconsistencies : that's something larger and I'm pretty sure you've developed this after this quotation.

 

"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."

 

I don't see how it can be a problem, if the character is a structure.

 

"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."

 

That's a paradox. That's totally intentional. Here I won't give answer, not because I don't have any answer (I actually have an answer) but because it's some of the most personal part, here the player has to understand. And at the same time, if you played Jade empire written by Karpyshyn and Walters you may have noticed that when there's a higher level, to create something beyond us, they use paradox. So it's not the first time it has been done in Bioware, and in Mass Effect 3 it's obivous that it's intentional. you have to redefine independance in a specific way/ context. Here, we enter in the philosophy realm and that's not a joke. Anyone who can't understand philosophy will say that it's stupid. Bioware isn't trying to make something cool here. Bioware is trying to oblige the player to think about some concept and to understand the writing at the same time (circle/ determinism).

 

"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."

 

Actually that's not true (we can almost say that I'm a post structuralist, so I'm far from being ignoring structural aspects). I'm focusing on theme and concepts because this is the basis to understand the structure. Without them, the narration itself can't be understood. People usually say that the original ending is lazy writing, bad writing etc... From a narrative point of view that totally wrong. The narration is tied to the themes and concepts. The narration itself creates the concept. I'm sorry but there's almost no video game that reached that level of writing (creating the concept, the ideas via the narration, the structure). I focused on themes and concepts because these are the clues to understand why the original ending was made this way. Someone who has read Nietzsche understand easily why the original ending was made this way. but I'll explain it later. Explanation of the ending is something that takes a lot of time, and defending the ending takes more time because we have to redefine what is writing and what is reading.

 

"And your answer focused around themes and starkid logic rather than structural.

[...]Again, I was not talking about the ideas or concepts of synthesis. I was talking about the execution and plausibility of it."

 

Themes are content but these contents come from a form. A content without a structure doesn't exist. So the Klencory quotation is a structure itself, and an inresting one because it's for the player, Shepard doesn't have access to this.

But to show you that form and content are not really separated I'll use architecture : architecture can be art or not, just like anything else. It seems that architecture is only form, just like music. Actually, in architecture and music it's the form that creates the content. You can't really separate form and content. Form creates content and content shapes the form.

So when I said that the idea was here since the first game it means that there are structural elements that create that idea. A them, an idea can't exist without a form. Or you'll have to show me a story where a theme has no structural existence.

Another example : a word written or told is a form and it's meaning is the content that can have a connotation. The place of a word in a sentence (structure) will impact on the content (theme, connotation etc...) that's what we do in stylitic analysis.

But by "execution and plausibility" do yo mean that you needed explanation of how it works precisely or the structure doesn't lead to this choice. If you mean the last one (the structure doesn't lead to this choice) I disagree.

 

 

"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)."

 

Few? They are important elements and it not only one or two elements,these elements can't be ignored. I'm sorry but Mass Effect has never been real "hard" science-fiction. And many elements of the game proves it. The plausibilty you want comes from a way of reading the game that has been ignoring most aspects of the writing.

 

A part of me thinks you think I am saying "shepard dies which is bad".

 

No that's not what I said. I said that Mass Effect was written with one intention, and people wanted something else. It has nothing to do with breaking consistency and the illusion. What I'm saying is that when the writing says something you can't expect something else. Mass Effect 3 insisted on "Shepard will die", people who are asking for different endings like Dragon age : origin, these people didn't pay attention to the writing, they don't care about the writing, they only care about what they want. That's not reading! So what I'm saying when you say All options lead to the death of the galaxy no matter what (as shown by the lore)   is that it's because there's a message. Mass Effect has got a message, dragon age doesn't have. Any writer will tell you that the ending is important because it decides what is the message people will remember. Romeo and juliet living, getting old and dying this way doesn't deliver the same message than Shakespeare's ending. Shakespeare could not let them live! If you change the ending you change the whole story's perspective.

 

"Though I would not really agree on your take on ME3 being a tragedy nor Shepard being a tragic character"

 

Then you have to explain me what is tragedy and tragic character. The roots of the tragedy is the fate. The roots of the tragic character is to face the fate and loose whatever he does. A tragic character isn't a weak character. Oedipus is a tragic character, he just fight one line (he will kill this father and marry his mother), he did everything without knowing it and he was happy. The tragedy comes from the fact that whatever he does, he can't change his fate. And tragedy doesn't end happily. In Mass Effect, I've already said it but the first guy on Eden prime tells you something that makes you understand that the reapers will come whatever you do. Whatever you do Mass Effect 1 and 2 doesn't change anything about the reapers coming. Shepard can't stop them, He just delays them. In Mass Effect 3, the dreams show his fate, he will die. The reapers are an unstoppable force, just like fate.

Mass Effect is at the same time tragic and epic. but not in the modern (Hollywood) meaning. 

 

"RPG playable characters essentially have to be blank boxes that the player can fill in order to immerse themselves in a story."

 

That's wrong. You can't apply what you said on japanese RPG. People on this forum always forget that there are japanese games that are RPG and don't follow the same rules. Final Fantasy 6, Xenosaga etc...

 

"He (=the catalyst) thinks more like us than you would be willing to admit I think."

 

I totally disagree but I think it's useless to develop that point. But don't forget that it's an A.I. programmed. And take a look at what the reapers do when Shepard and the A.I. are talking. The more you try to make the A.I. think like us, the more inconsistent the story will be.

[MattFini]

I've always wanted to board Harbinger and kick him in the ass from the inside out.

 

After all the **** talking he did in ME2, I was looking forward to it in ME3.

 

Imagine my surprise when he was nothing more than a cameo. 

[Statichands]

Why does everything have to be remastered these days? I think 2015 should be remastered, my face should be remastereed.

[angol fear]

@Ithurael,

 

For the last part, the point 4 we'll never agree.

 

Never give the audience/reader a reason to question the truth of your events, nor to doubt the motivations of your characters. ]

 

To that I can answer : Boris Vian's Turmoil in the Swaths. 

When I said that in the XXth century we've got books that don't follow the "don't break the illusion" rule, I never talked about parralel universes that don't follow our logic. The example I just gave is not in a parralel universe and we're always questioning the events. We know that they are not true. Everytime the illusion starts, the narrator breaks it. With this example you may argue that it's a comedy, but the purpose of the writer isn't to make the reader laugh it's obviously to play with the illusion. And sure it creates a fun book for people who can read that kind of book.

 

Well we can say that I end here.

Sorry, this last part is the most interesting but I really won't have enough time to answer. You know that I totally disagree with almost everything. I can agree with some points but for me almost everything has to be redefine.

 

--------END----------

 

edit :

 

http://www.enviedecr...e-james-salter/

 

the source is in french but it's very interesting : Salter is a  real great american writer (not the same level of writing than the "writers" who criticized Mass Effect) and his advice :

 

"N’écrivez pas quelque chose que les lecteurs vont reconnaître et accepter. Ecrivez quelque chose qui va surprendre, qui soit complètement différent de leurs idées et qui va les changer. Soyez brefs, lucides, clairs."

 

Don't write something the readers will recognize and accept. Write something that will surprise, something that is totally different from what they think and that will change them.

 

These advices from a real great writer go against the "do and don't do" people love on this forum and that they think they are the rules writers have to follow. Experimental doesn't mean not accessible. Writing is experimental, if it's not it's just a product made for consommation, just like food.

[Ithurael]

@Ithurael,

 

For the last part, the point 4 we'll never agree.

 

Never give the audience/reader a reason to question the truth of your events, nor to doubt the motivations of your characters. ]

 

To that I can answer : Boris Vian's Turmoil in the Swaths. 

When I said that in the XXth century we've got books that don't follow the "don't break the illusion" rule, I never talked about parralel universes that don't follow our logic. The example I just gave is not in a parralel universe and we're always questioning the events. We know that they are not true. Everytime the illusion starts, the narrator breaks it. With this example you may argue that it's a comedy, but the purpose of the writer isn't to make the reader laugh it's obviously to play with the illusion. And sure it creates a fun book for people who can read that kind of book.

 

Well we can say that I end here.

Sorry, this last part is the most interesting but I really won't have enough time to answer. You know that I totally disagree with almost everything. I can agree with some points but for me almost everything has to be redefine.

 

--------END----------

 

 

It is ok, Angol. I imagine you are as busy as I am at times so I do understand.

 

Give me some time to process. I can't guarantee a response in a few days but I will try my best to deliver one when I can. I just need the end of the statement to build a more cohesive response (thus so I understand the entirety of the response before I reply).

[mickey111]

It could have been that simple folks, why could they not just keep it simple? Instead of all that thought provoking us versus them, here is your convenient super weapon, deus ex, matrix, kill them to make us so you can join us then make us later blah blah blah WHAT?!?!

 

Yes I want a remastered trilogy if not only out of curiosity to see if they would actually have the balls to redo the ME3 ending all together. The Reapers should have remained what Sovereign was in ME1 THE ENEMY!!!!! Come on Bioware.

 

Give Us What We Really Want.........yeah many want to bury their heads in the sand and just say screw it make new and better content, game, etc. but at the end of the day THE ENDING THE ENDING THE ENDING is a wound that runs deep.

 

Bring all your surviving team members together, fight Harbinger, defeat Harbinger, big freaking beam of light comes from Harbinger destroying all the Reapers and their minions, the sky opens up, the sunshines, the day is won, the end, role credits. SIMPLE SIMPLE SIMPLE, EASY. May not be the best idea but it is better closure than what we got people.

 

For Heaven Sakes DAT ENDING

 

go write a fan fiction ending or something.

[malace_ixo]

Whoever wrote the ending to ME3 probably read some asimov and was willing to shamefully plagiarize the original deus ex in order to naively attempt an exploration of the themes/questions both those projects introduced. Unfortunately, even with the slides/additions from the EC there are extensive gaps in what is coherently presented. I find it likely development cycles and inexperienced project/creative leads are responsible for why we have no adequate conclusion for what happened in the Milky Way and arrogance will prevent them from ever revisiting the setting in its current form. Although I wish they would. NO IP more deserving of a remaster.

They broke their own logic with the relay explosions not simply eradicating all life in the explored galaxy. We clearly see in the final moments this event doesn't happen but any explanation as to why they originally left to pure headcanon. They wrote themselves into a corner on that one but hey, they felt we'd want galaxy-wide repercussions. This oversight, now corrected, powerfully illustrates poor quality assurance over the breadth of retconning they were originally willing to implement so as to lend their fake/placeholder ending some gravitas. This is an obvious and substantive indication of how attentive the writers were at securing a legitimate narrative pre EC. I think it should rationally be taken in that also affirms the context behind the plethora of other inconsistencies because it is notably influential to overlook the premise behind the transition dlc of your current product.

Contrary to most, I actually found the starchild's character to be quite plausible -- even if I personally found its presentation relied on the abrasive assumption I would feel engaged in the final moments being startled and subsequently lectured by a child (where an opposite gendered version of shepard would have been far more appropriate). They clearly erred on having us experience the portrayal as the thoughtful artifice of an intelligence. The existence of the AI, narratively, is perhaps one of the only ways to enable an interaction between your player character and the entirety of the reapers while exploring in consequence all the themes they apparently wanted to at the final conclusion. Its presence in SF is not altogether unprecedented; if you've read asimov's series there you also discover an intelligence behind the scenes who spends an eternitity considering a far more subtle, nuanced, and intellectually developed version of the same issue (chaos/order/free will/consequences/sustaining a modality of life). It came out of nowhere here but, admittedly, the nature of the catalyst was always a mystery (something bioware should and could have sold more into). I believe mechanically the presentation is in error and why none of it really makes sense.

Shepard's limited partipation in that "discussion" turns the entire ending into a joke. The veracity of the catalyst's descriptions as well as the choices it offers - both their intent and implied consequences - offer so little to go on (in some places more questions than answers) they are narratively out of place. Every path deserved more dialogue and additional responses from your player if that was what they were going for, not an eventual slideshow of what follows. Some may argue the extended cut, in letting you observe the consequences, justifies the implementation and gives it the finality it was missing. They did at least notice we were invested in what happened to various societies, etc.

The lack of thematic introduction for something as vague as "now everybody's going to be partially synthetic" makes that particular ending wholly inconsistent with any purpose you've been emotionally engaged in previously, let alone the disbelief created by whatever ridiculous mechanic could instantly do this. It's a non sequitur. That much you can face. Why would Shepard go this direction after a 5 minute lecture? Just to see how cool it would be and because it's a potential solution to the problem that's just been posed? It can be stimulating for some to get a chance to create that kind of singularity but the current transition in narrative into suddenly doing that to the entire galaxy is even weirder than the sudden appearance of the starchild itself. And frankly, considering all the options involved killing/disintegrating yourself at the AI's request, the presentation of that scene was going to need some back and forth to justify why, mechanically, they had earned the open ended trust from us to steer our hundreds of hours of participation in the trilogy's narrative in that direction. It fails to do so without headcanon, knowledge of the endings, and an appreciation for the conflict's unexplored juxtaposition into our central purpose.

Several aspects of the AI's rationale are not entirely flawed. They could have gone somewhere with this and turned it into a worthwhile character. Might have even accomplished it with more exposition (the narration by a child is a huge reason why this shouldn't be pursued in the current product). They probably suspected the idea itself would sell the reveal of the story's meta. Imo a far more intelligent and cunning voice actor could have turned that into an interesting give and take between ever trusting if the thing was real or even honest and investing in its logic (reflecting on the cost of continuing to oppose it in the context of its current dilemma in preserving life).

The beauty of ambiguous endings is in how viable the variety of interpretations that can be made from them really are. They may have attempted that with the stargazer ending, establishing that everything across the trilogy is just an iteration of a story (as is poignantly also the case with ancient fables meant to explain the origin of specific constellations). For all we know Shepard was just conversing with the catalyst telepathically as it pursued input from the most obvious representative of organic tenacity and will in the current cycle, where each choice was simply a symbol for whatever logic path the organics identified with. Whatever choice was made, it could have upon reflection pursued this end. Then again it also could have left us afterward wondering if we were talked into various methods of suicide from witty, deceptive dialog with something looking for ways to prevent or stall rebellion in future cycles, where the stargazer lives in a society that found a time capsule/recording and incorporated it into their oral history.

The problem is that ending conversation fails to engage us in such a way that we narratively transition to the following scenes with an appreciation for how we got there. Little if any agency is offered, let alone perceptively enabled through discourse. The ending the OP suggests offers only a single way to interpret ME3, one nearly as cliche as the multicolored variety of regurgitation bioware gave us initially. Idk man. I don't prefer it. I want a small dlc to fix what we have if it's being remastered. They may have helped flesh out the content (especially over what repercussions there are for a lot of decisions leading up to the end) with the slides but nothing after that conversation with the catalyst makes sense because what's going on in that conversation doesn't make sense, mechanically. Multiple replays doesn't get rid of the WTF

[Ithurael]

@Angol

Been a while but I assure you I am back at it! I usually only respond on the days when I can (thus when I work 12+ hrs in a day I just go to bed). In addition, I should note that I ordered both Le Cid and Turmoil in the Swaths. The former came in my native English, the latter came in French. Now, while I am not a native French speaker I should note that I am not one to shy away from a challenge. Thus I forced myself to learn French in the past few weeks and did successfully read the book – to which I did like it. Note, I am not fluent, just beginner – intermediate, I will certainly admit that I used a dictionary where applicable and google where I could, but let us begin with a few notes:

 

 

 [You may have noticed that English isn't my native language. I'm actually French]

 

Well, that explains the arrogance . I jest of course. I could not resist goading a Frenchman. Though I do give you credit, your sentences, spelling, and grammar are well (or at least well enough) put together for someone who is replying in a language other than their mother tongue. Kudos good sir. You have impressed me.

 

In addition, I would like to address this in more detail:

 

[Don't apologize! I totally disagree with the confusion caused by the author otherwise I wouldn't be working in art (don't see any pretentious meaning in that!). It's just that I have very few time to really read, so to read carefully. By "reading carefully" I mean to understand what you say, what makes you think this and how you interpreted what I said. I don't want my answers to create conflict just because i misunderstood (because I didn't take enough time to really see all the points I said).]

 

Now, I am not sure how to process this remark. Usually, when there is an issue with something (say a story or a meal or a product) the traditional standard is to look at the product first to check for any errors, if there are you blame the Author/Chef/Creator (respectively). If there are no issues with the product, you can blame the user. That is how I was taught to manage break/fix or customer complaints. There is a principle in Computer Science called GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). It is a beautiful principle that I have honestly seen recreated across just about every facet of this universe. What you put in is what will come out. To immediately say that the issue is always not the author or creator worries me a bit, While I don’t think this is a pretentious statement I should look into it more. So let’s see what is pretentious:

 

[attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.]

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

 

Hmm, looking at this statement, I don’t see anything relating to greater importance or you trying to impress me or anyone. I can clearly say that there is nothing pretentious about that statement – don’t be so hard on yourself J. However, I can say this statement is certainly a bit opinionated and it does follow suit with your Post-Structuralism ideology…somewhat.

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

 

 

From what I have seen post-structuralism does put a lot more emphasis on the reader (as opposed to the author) though only in the meaning. Being that the meaning of a particular work is primarily the reader and not the author. Now, this does give a good amount of perspective to your arguments and why you seek to redefine things. But do note, I am not arguing about authorial intent – just the content provided and the form used to present it. What the authors meant or wanted to mean is – essentially – out of my grasp. The closest I have come to understanding what they wanted to do what Casey Hudson’s post on the ME3 endings:

http://forum.bioware...-mass-effect-3/

 

The main intent, at least as I have seen it, was the “Victory through Sacrifice” and Bittersweet. And I do wholeheartedly agree that to do otherwise is to betray the notion of the series and everything that came before. However, I do not take issue with the themes or even the tone (I should note that I prefer the tone of the original ending to the EC), I take contention with the form used to present the content, and the inconsistencies in that content relative to the prior installments of the series.

 

Now, while I know you will respond I should ask that you try to refrain from using headcanon, speculation, assumption or redefinition. If your true intent is to show how Mass Effect 3’s ending truly is objectively coherent and, in fact brilliant, you need to do so objectively. There are three ways you can do this, one is to actually represent how the lore is not inconsistent using objective citation for each inconsistency the other is to attempt to pick apart my arguments (and my citations) as subjective or opinion. While the last possibility is to represent how each inconsistency or ‘plothole’ is a mechanic of the form/narrative used by the writers intentionally in the ending to represent a kind of meaning that we were meant to derive from the ending as a whole. To do this, you may need to show how this storytelling mechanic was represented across the entire trilogy or at least in just the third installment. I won’t lie, the first option will be more difficult, but it will give a significantly larger credence to your position. The second option will require a bit more arguing techniques (which I may or may not be privy to and could lead to a fallacious argument – we will see), but certainly allows for more wiggle room and abstraction. The final one, while at first is the most difficult, is the most abstract but the most damning. You would – in essence – need to show this kind of methodology across the entire game and show how it is NOT Rule of Cool writing (something that ME3 has been shown – or speculated – to have a lot of)

 

Ok, now let’s start from the top:

 

I am using a document link so let me know if this works...here goes nothing

[Removed Link] (see next page)

This should work...if not I will remove.

[Obadiah]

I'd be happy if they just got rid of that Marauder Shield sequence at the beam.

Hells, that bit is embarrassing...

[Dantriges]

You wrote 51 pages on this topic with citations and links to sources/references etc.?    

[Ithurael]

You wrote 51 pages on this topic with citations and links to sources/references etc.?    

It was over 100 with examples links to diagrams, interviews and more.

 

But yeah...I don't know how to compress writing. And I am methodical. And horribly meticulous and OCD. And kind of a shut-in with no girlfriend and limited human social interaction.

[angol fear]

@Ithurael, glad to hear that! I'm very sorry, this time it's me who is very busy and don't have enough time to come on the forum. So I will write little by little, piece by piece my answer. Sorry for that.

You have ordered Le Cid and Turmoil in the Swaths. If you have any question about it, don't hesitate.

 

 

 [You may have noticed that English isn't my native language. I'm actually French]

 

Well, that explains the arrogance . I jest of course. I could not resist goading a Frenchman. Though I do give you credit, your sentences, spelling, and grammar are well (or at least well enough) put together for someone who is replying in a language other than their mother tongue. Kudos good sir. You have impressed me.

 

Ahahah, thanks but I don't think I'm good in english, I'm just trying my best.

 

 

Now, I am not sure how to process this remark. Usually, when there is an issue with something (say a story or a meal or a product) the traditional standard is to look at the product first to check for any errors, if there are you blame the Author/Chef/Creator (respectively). If there are no issues with the product, you can blame the user. That is how I was taught to manage break/fix or customer complaints. There is a principle in Computer Science called GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). It is a beautiful principle that I have honestly seen recreated across just about every facet of this universe. What you put in is what will come out. To immediately say that the issue is always not the author or creator worries me a bit, While I don’t think this is a pretentious statement I should look into it more. So let’s see what is pretentious:.

 

I totally agree with you. But here I have to explain why I sound so condescending toward the reader. So I will explain theory about writing. Maybe this will be long but that's really important.

First semiology teaches us that there are three levels : poesis, neutral and aesthesis. I will explain this three level and go further because in practice these three level aren't separated (like Philippe Sollers says "writing is reading and reading is writing").

-the poesis level : it's the level of creation.

      a ) A piece of work can be influenced by the life of its creator. this will explain some obsessions, some theme that can be exploited many times etc... there's a part of the criticism (In France we had this in the XIXth century with Sainte-Beuve who was one of the most influent critic in France during the XIXth century) who thinks that we have to know the life of the author to understand clearly the meaning, the "depth" (I dislike this word because I don't trust in "depth") of the writing. but for Mass Effect this part is useless (maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that this point of view is relevant)

      b ) Mostly writing is about writing against an old aesthetic. We don't write like the generation before us wrote. For instance, post-modernism is opposed to what was just before, and it was modernism. Writing is always writing in a history of writing. That's why there are some movement (don't know the word in english for that), there are people who share the same aesthetic. This part is important for Mass Effect because while some don't admit it it's a post-modernist writing. From the first till the third episode, the writing is based on reference that the player can identify. There are so many examples like the outfits that remind the player of the science fiction series of the 60's-70's in the first game but then we have more modern outfits. It would be too long to talk about the references and in that topic I have already explained the importance of the last scene with the old man. But there's an aesthetic, a way of writing choosen by Bioware. They have decided to show their love of science-fiction through a writing that make visible every reference (2001, Babylon 5, Star Trek, Star Wars, Star control,  Deus Ex etc...)

      c ) And after the general (the conception of writing which will structure the form) there's also the intentions (that can be linked to the aesthetic) that are revealed in interviews (Mac Walters saying that Casey Hudson insisted on the ending to be high level is an example of intention that will give a form to the writing).

 

-the neutral level : it's the text/ the film/ the video game etc... itself. That's what interested structuralism because the text itself is a meaningful structure. We don't need to know who wrote the text to have a "sense", a "meaning". A text is made of themes, of connotations and denotations, the text itself doesn't have one meaning, it's a potential of meanings.

 

-the aesthesis level : it's the reception level. The reader creates one meaning. But the reader creates one meaning that will define his opinion. His meaning is created by his knowledge, his reception is defined by his knowledge. Most of the time, he will like because he will recognize form he has already seen. Most readers will only valid things.  But there are approach without any opinion :

       a ) to understand the reception there's a generic critic, critic of genre. Anyway, here a link about the conception of generic critic (that's in french but if you need a translation I will do it!) :

http://www.fabula.or...lier.php?Genres

But the critic of genre tried to define genre, it was trying to classify, an now it's more about how it's in order.

       b ) there's the genetic critic which try to understand how a text comes to be the final text. It takes the text written before and take a look at the changing. It asks why it was changed. Sometime people try to do the same here with Mass Effect (dark energy, Cerberus coup etc...) but they only do that to make a judgment, to give an opinion, that's not genetic critic. They don't try to understand why it was removed, changed.

        c ) There's also analysis on the imagination created in the writing. this part is kinda based on phenomenology (if you don't know this philosopher, you have to read gaston Bachelard! You will love it!). Anyway, in Mass Effect it can be applied on the notion of "body" in the trilogy. A real analysis can be done on that.

 

 

But just like I have said ealier, those three levels aren't separated :

-the creation part thinks about the reception part : just before the release of Mass Effect 3 I remember a twitter message before the release of the game saying that the ending wil "make some people angry". They knew that It will not please everyone. They were thinking about the reception (actually everyone does when we write).

-the neutral level have trace of the creation part in it. The intentions can be read in the neutral level, we don't need to go and find some interviews saying this or this, reading properly the neutral level is enough to understand what it was intended.

-the reception is like writing part : it's about creating meaning with the writing. Through the writing, the neutral level, the reader consider that the intention is this and he anticipate on the writing, he always creates the writing before it happens. 

 

 

So why did I talk about that? It's just to make perfectly clear that a text (in a very large meaning, so it includes books, films, etc...) is very complex.