718 réponses à ce sujet

[Monica21]

But you only get the data through Vigil, no? It was designed specifically to aid non-indoctrinated bypassers and explain what to do with the data file that was left behind, or don't I remember that right?

But only to know which race created the plans in the first place? I really can't see how this would be valuable in this situation. Maybe the Catalyst spills out a name of a race you never even knew/heard of. Then what? How does it help which decision you would make if you knew about a race many many years ago? I don't see a connection here.

We are still talking about only finding out who designed it in the first place, right? Not what actually makes the Crucible work, because that's a whole different thing, haha.

 

Because all you really have to do is walk up to the terminal and get the data. You could have some exposition from other characters about what it might be for. When you get to the control panel on the Citadel you could guess that the data you got from Ilos is supposed to go there. But isn't that kind of the point? Vigil explains what happened, what you're getting, and what to do with it. The only thing the Catalyst does is tell you what choices you have. You have literally no other information other than that. Did you find Vigil's exposition helpful? Did it help you understand the story better? That's all I'm saying here. I need (but obviously won't get) a better understanding of the story. Vigil spends more time with you than the Catalyst does. Don't you think that's odd?

 

If the Crucible and the Catalyst are going to make an appearance in the last half hour of a epic saga, then as a player and as a protagonist, I need to understand why they exist. I don't understand that. They're just there. Because reasons. If you're okay with "because reasons" then that's fine, but I'm not.

[Vanilka]

I have three ending scenarios with my Lady Cousland and King Alistair and frankly it was all of it was bad.

Spoiler

With the vanilla version of The Dark Ritual, I really don't want to see Alistair grinning while Morrigan climbing over him. The only thing that saved the Dark Ritual for me was the modded version of it and I don't get demon baby-making rub on my face and it was done tastefully. But if I say no to Morrigan, she disappears, and I'm fighting a dragon without a mage, if I bring Alistair along to the final battle, he would rush ahead and kill the dragon for me. If I choose to leave him behind, I kill the dragon and got myself killed, Alistair preside over my bloody corpse and crying about how we could be happy together.

 

Either way, the only way to save your main character's life was a frickin mythical pregnancy?! The mother of all tropes. Meh of mehness... Morrigan's dignity... pffff...

 

I guess it really comes down to personal tastes. Not saying there isn't always something to improve, but I thought what was going on in general, not just the DR, was very much in context with what was happening in the game.

 

Spoiler

Morrigan's Dark Ritual did come out of nowhere, I agree, but it was a minor decision and it wasn't really the main point of the story. The main point of the story was killing the Archdemon and stopping the darkspawn, which happened regardless of the Dark Ritual. As for the DR itself, it seems like BW enjoy their deus ex machinas. But being it a world with magic and all, I'm willing to believe that. We don't know what the Dark Ritual is or does. Not that I don't think it couldn't have been handled better because... yeah, that's so not how getting pregnant works. And the whole thing is just a convenient excuse to allow the player to survive. (But, hey, I'll take it. I'm that opportunistic.) It is a sacrifice for the player to make if they wish their Warden to live that much. I found it acceptable to get my happy ending and my Dalish Warden and Alistair left together to fight side by side and continue being Grey Wardens together.

 

As for losing a mage, there's always Wynne which you can level up the way you wish. Unless you killed her.

 

I totally agree that seeing the cutscene itself was unnecessary, especially because they didn't bother tweaking it for Alistair or anybody else. I had a male Warden who romanced Zevran and the same thing happened with the creepy smile and all. The cutscene is not all that thought out and was super awkward. They focused on all this ahh-yeah-dark-gothic-sex-thing and forgot there were likely going to be players that wouldn't romance Morrigan. Don't know why we needed to see that scene at all.

 

Hm, I don't think I had seen magical pregnancy used as a plot device before. Or at least I can't remember. Maybe that's why it didn't bother me that much. Again, not saying it couldn't have been handled better or in a totally different way and that I wouldn't welcome it. I guess it just wasn't a big issue for me, personally.

 

I actually had Alistair die once. I wanted to sacrifice a Warden I wasn't really fond of all that much and he died for her. I freaking cried my eyes out. Not my canon or favourite ending, but I thought it was still a pretty epic ending to the story. He died a hero. It was so fitting for who he was. I will forever admire the character for having it in him. The only thing I hated was that people didn't really talk about it much afterwards and celebrated the Warden instead. Screw that, her lover just died. Keep your congratulations, jerks.

 

But I think I understand where you're coming from. I still think that DAO's ending as a whole was so much more thought out and in context than what ME3 did. ME3 felt really random to me. However, I don't mean to dismiss your thoughts and opinions, of course, because I do think you've explained yourself well enough. And even I, who totally and absolutely prefers how DAO was handled, can see you've made a few pretty interesting points. Maybe I can't agree with everything, but what I think doesn't really invalidate your arguments. And just because I was quite satisfied with what I've got doesn't mean that I wouldn't totally be all for some positive changes if possible.

[Dantriges]

Well some info about the whole crucible thing should be included, too.

 

Most of the stuff we got about synthetics was that they were quite diverse in their motivations and their point of view on organics unless Reapers appeared.

[wolfhowwl]

Dark Energy sounded like

[fraggle]

Because all you really have to do is walk up to the terminal and get the data. You could have some exposition from other characters about what it might be for. When you get to the control panel on the Citadel you could guess that the data you got from Ilos is supposed to go there. But isn't that kind of the point? Vigil explains what happened, what you're getting, and what to do with it. The only thing the Catalyst does is tell you what choices you have. You have literally no other information other than that. Did you find Vigil's exposition helpful? Did it help you understand the story better? That's all I'm saying here. I need (but obviously won't get) a better understanding of the story. Vigil spends more time with you than the Catalyst does. Don't you think that's odd?

 

If the Crucible and the Catalyst are going to make an appearance in the last half hour of a epic saga, then as a player and as a protagonist, I need to understand why they exist. I don't understand that. They're just there. Because reasons. If you're okay with "because reasons" then that's fine, but I'm not.

 

Well the Catalyst also tells you what happened, if you trust its words. And also what you're getting. It's just a bit more vague. But you're also dodging my question. If you knew which race first started the Crucible design, would that affect the story really? I don't think so. I get that people want to know more about the Crucible, and how it works, but that wasn't our topic before.

 

Helpful to understand the story? I don't know. Do we need to know what the Keepers do? Not necessarily.

But I also think this is a different situation. Yes, Vigil explains a lot, because it's programmed to help any non-indoctrinated person. If we were to compare, I'd rather compare Vigil to Vendetta, since they share the same purpose. Helping this cycle survive. The AI has different goals, a different agenda.

You also only can proceed by getting answers from Vendetta about the Catalyst. Once both of those VIs have given us the directive, we know what to do. You need a push in the right direction from the VIs in order to get there, but with the Catalyst, you're already there. You are already at your final destination, and the Crucible has docked. All Shepard has left to do is choose.

And no, it's not really odd for me that one of the two spends more time with you. Besides, Vigil's conversation is only longer by 3 or 4 minutes.

 

You need reasons why they exist? Okay, how about the Catalyst exists because Leviathans created it to solve a problem they've experienced for a long time? The Catalyst exists to preserve, to observe and to bring balance. That's what it was programmed to do.

The Crucible exists because cycles were harvested and they needed to find something that could defeat the Reapers. Every cycle added to the Crucible ever since, yet it was always too late to build or deploy it. For the reasons I mentioned. The Reapers always had the advantage of surprise-attacking from the Citadel, quickly spreading chaos.

Seems like valid enough reasons for me as to why they exist, and this was explained in the game.

[Tim van Beek]

If you knew which race first started the Crucible design, would that affect the story really? I don't think so. 

Right, the basic point is that, as a writer, I see three possible different ways to handle these kinds of questions:

 

1. Don't bother to give the Reapers a face, a motive and a background. Let them remain mysterious. Ergo: Skip the catalyst and let the crucible destroy the Reapers.

2. Give the Reapers a face, a motive and a background, show these to the audience as the story progresses. Wasn't done at all in ME:3 (or, taking the Leviathan DLC into account, far too little), so there would be a lot of work to do here.

3. If you go for a surprise ending like in a detective story, you have to make sure that the audience had all the necessary information before, so that they don't feel tricked. Obviously I have no idea how to make that work for ME:3.

 

What ME:3 actually did is to try to stuff at least some aspects of 2. into the last 10 minutes, which is a bad idea, even if it is not disliked by all  . It won't be saved by adding more content  .

 

Returning to the topic of the thread, here is what Christopher Vogler writes about the hero archetype in his book "The Writer's Journey":

 

 

A hero is someone who is willing to sacrifice his own needs on behalf of others, like a shepard who will sacrifice to protect and to serve his flock. At the root the idea of a hero is connected with self-sacrifice.

So, obviously this aspect of the ME:3 ending is at the core of the very concept of the archetype, also, we know now where the name came from  .

 

Unfortunately, Mac and Casey seem to have forgotten another part of that chapter:

 

A frequent flaw in screenplays is that the Hero is fairly active throughout the story, but at the most critical moment becomes passive and is rescued by the timely arrival of some outside force.

Yeah, I think we kinda have a hit here, don't we? 

[fraggle]

2. Give the Reapers a face, a motive and a background, show these to the audience as the story progresses. Wasn't done at all in ME:3 (or, taking the Leviathan DLC into account, far too little), so there would be a lot of work to do here.

 

What ME:3 actually did is to try to stuff at least some aspects of 2. into the last 10 minutes, which is a bad idea, even if it is not disliked by all  . It won't be saved by adding more content  .

 

Returning to the topic of the thread, here is what Christopher Vogler writes about the hero archetype in his book "The Writer's Journey":

So, obviously this aspect of the ME:3 ending is at the core of the very concept of the archetype, also, we know now where the name came from  .

Unfortunately, Mac and Casey seem to have forgotten another part of that chapter:

 

We have a motive and background. Yes, I know the gripe is with it being revealed only late in the game, but we don't always have the privilege to find out everything beforehand. Maybe I draw too many parallels to being really immersed in the game and Shepard, but I thought it was great we were just as clueless, and only found out later what all the fuss was about. We get to feel how Shepard feels.

You said "show the audience". You rather consider yourself as a "distant" player, rather than an immersed player, I guess?

It's funny, because I once saw a movie about several murders that were never solved, the whole movie was about finding the murderer and in the end, they got nothing. I first sat down in disbelief how they couldn't have shown the solved case (well I found out later it was based on a true story), but the ending stayed with me, the feeling stayed with me, and it dawned upon me that I must have felt exactly like the characters in the movie felt, even though I only was the audience. Disappointed, unfulfilled, mad, frustrated. I thought it was kinda cool and changed my perspective a bit. It was a great experience and I think part of why I also like these types of endings. They make you really feel something. Be it rage, like in some cases here, or be it fulfilling despite no real closure.

 

You post about something that is a hero archetype. Which means it's a common used type of hero, right? So why is it bad if some writers go with something unconventional? Can't it break the pattern? Can't it try something new and different? Why can't the "hero" be passive? Is there a rule that states this has to apply absolutely everywhere? Just because someone found this a great rule doesn't mean everyone would like it. No matter how many people agree.

I know at least I am often bored if hero things play out the same again, which is exactly why I only thought the ending of DA:I was okay-ish. It has been done way too many times. This is of course only my personal opinion, but I really don't see why everything always has to play out "by the book".

[angol fear]

Tim Van Beek, you are a writer, and you follow formulas in books? (this is a serious question, I'm not testing you or trying to trap you here I promise!)

[Iakus]

Organics vs Synthetics has always been the main theme of the trilogy. The first game was the Geth. The second game was the Collectors (a mere Husks, engineered slave for the reapers) and then you've been fighting corpses implanted with Reapers tech throughout the third game. At least, the foreshadowing was there even if one were to ignore it.

 

The main theme of the trilogy has been organics versus the Reapers.  The geth were servants of the Reapers.  And even then that was just the Heretics.  The rest of them stayed out of the conflict until it came knocking on their door.

 

Then there's EDI, a synthetic whom, even when unshackled chose to oppose the Reapers.

[Iakus]

People need to play the side quest in ME1 called Signal Tracking again.

Yeah one killer AI proves that all AI will eventually turn on their masters and destroy all organics in the galaxy given a chance 

[Batarian Master Race]

Yeah one killer AI proves that all AI will eventually turn on their masters and destroy all organics in the galaxy given a chance 

I assume txgoldrush never cures the Genophage?

[mackj22]

Didn't like the ending because it didn't make sense. When a relay is destroyed it is supposed to wipe out the entire system. Thus every planet in every system with a relay is dead. Synthetics and organically can't coexist? I just united them on rannoch. Why was Shepard bleeding in the same spot s/he shot anderson? How the hell did Shepard survive harbingers laser that can go through a dreadnought and it's shields? How did the Normandy crew get off the planets after it's engines exploding? All in all I didn't like the ending because it didn't make sense and left too many questions unanswered. EC helped some but every ending but refuse conflicted with the lore establishes by codex and the games.

[Iakus]

I assume txgoldrush never cures the Genophage?

I imagine not.  The organic krogan were a greater threat to organic life than the geth ever were.

[Autoola]

Didn't like the ending because it didn't make sense. When a relay is destroyed it is supposed to wipe out the entire system. Thus every planet in every system with a relay is dead. Synthetics and organically can't coexist? I just united them on rannoch. Why was Shepard bleeding in the same spot s/he shot anderson? How the hell did Shepard survive harbingers laser that can go through a dreadnought and it's shields? How did the Normandy crew get off the planets after it's engines exploding? All in all I didn't like the ending because it didn't make sense and left too many questions unanswered. EC helped some but every ending but refuse conflicted with the lore establishes by codex and the games.

I´ve been reading this thread for weeks and the answer to all of your questions is "You don´t get it".

I´ve learned that I don´t know enough about philosophy, writing, physics etc to understand ME3 ending and that I just don´t like the ending because 1) Shep is dead or 2) I don´t have a bossfight or 3) both.

And don´t forget to use "imo" or "i think" in every sentence. You have to make clear that you are just speaking for yourself and not spreading the one and only truth to get an answer (including no explanations but more handwaving).
 

(Caution: post includes sarcasm!)

 

I´m sorry. This post does nothing for the discussion but it is in my head for days now.

 

[angol fear]

I´ve been reading this thread for weeks and the answer to all of your questions is "You don´t get it".
I´ve learned that I don´t know enough about philosophy, writing, physics etc to understand ME3 ending and that I just don´t like the ending because 1) Shep is dead or 2) I don´t have a bossfight or 3) both.
And don´t forget to use "imo" or "i think" in every sentence. You have to make clear that you are just speaking for yourself and not spreading the one and only truth to get an answer (including no explanations but more handwaving).

(Caution: post includes sarcasm!)

I´m sorry. This post does nothing for the discussion but it is in my head for days now.

Actually, mackj22 said that he didn't like and explained why he didn't like. I respect that. There's a big difference between what he posted and some posts here.

[Tim van Beek]

Tim Van Beek, you are a writer, and you follow formulas in books? (this is a serious question, I'm not testing you or trying to trap you here I promise!)

No, I'm not a writer, and if I were I would not try to follow a "formula" from a book. BTW, you'll notice that the formula in Christopher Vogler's book is a very "unformulaic" one, on a high level of abstraction, trying to catch the essence of common myths. And before one can try to transcend it, one has to know it first, of course - if only subconsciously. My main reason to cite it was... 

 

You post about something that is a hero archetype. Which means it's a common used type of hero, right? So why is it bad if some writers go with something unconventional? Can't it break the pattern? Can't it try something new and different? Why can't the "hero" be passive? Is there a rule that states this has to apply absolutely everywhere? Just because someone found this a great rule doesn't mean everyone would like it. No matter how many people agree.

I know at least I am often bored if hero things play out the same again, which is exactly why I only thought the ending of DA:I was okay-ish. It has been done way too many times. This is of course only my personal opinion, but I really don't see why everything always has to play out "by the book".

...to find a common frame of reference. There is one dimension of storytelling that measures how "servile" the author is, from the dime novel on one side (author: "You'll get exactly what you want") to avant-garde on the opposite side (author: "I don't care if anyone understands what I'm trying to do here"). Blockbuster movies are closer to the dime novel than to avant-garde, and the ME games are very close to blockbuster movies. 

One aspect of not being avant-garde, but a blockbuster movie, is conforming to certain rules of storytelling, so that you don't alienate large parts of the audience. There are several people who have done a great job in putting down some of those rules, including Christopher Vogler. It would not make any sense to try to analyze James Joyce's Ulysses on that basis, but for ME:3 I think it is only fair. 

 

Of course good blockbuster movies should not disappoint and bore the audience by repeating some well known patterns ("pattern" has a broad meaning in this context and can live on quite different levels of abstraction). But the solution to this is certainly not to fall for well known anti-patterns and claim originality. This being art and not mathematics or natural science, every criticism can be countered by "it worked for me" and "for me it is original, not an anti-pattern", but at least we can agree that it violates a best practice according to Vogler.

 

I get that you really really liked the ending and still do   ...which is great, I don't want to spoil that...but please don't invest any money in a movie project based on it  .    

 

P.S.: A better example of a "passive hero" would of course be a Shepard who suffers an emotional breakdown in front of the catalyst for all the Repears that had to die, with Garrus rushing in and pushing the "Destroy-Button". Yes, it could have been worse.

[aoibhealfae]

The main theme of the trilogy has been organics versus the Reapers.  The geth were servants of the Reapers.  And even then that was just the Heretics.  The rest of them stayed out of the conflict until it came knocking on their door.

 

Then there's EDI, a synthetic whom, even when unshackled chose to oppose the Reapers.

The Reapers themselves are sentient ancient machine driven by a mission to preserve life. They're all constructs of both organics and synthetic material in the image of its creator, The Leviathan. It was foreshadowed in ME2, Mordin even hinted this in his study of the Collectors; "No glands, replaced by tech. No digestive system, replaced by tech. No soul. Replaced by tech. Whatever they were, gone forever." Essentially, they are just reanimated corpses despite being part organics, they were just like their Reaper husks. 

 

EDI was already in conflict with organics and her creators from the start. EDI was created as Hannibal-class VI and accidentally gained sentience as an AI. She killed the entire Alliance personnel on the facilities on Luna, in what I presume a response to possible attempts on destroying her. In ME3, we found out that she can lie. Which mean in ME2, when she was unshackled, she should have known that she was the AI on Luna. Of all people she could resent, it should have been Shepard, the organic who nearly destroyed her. Instead, she choose to trust and cooperate with Shepard and the rest of the Normandy crew by her own terms even as she rebelled against those who rebuild her. Even the whole ME2 narrative could have been about the creator versus the creation. Shepard was a patchwork of biosynthetic human rebuild by Cerberus aka The Illusive Man. Shepard, who is by right half-machine, has always been in conflict against The Illusive Man. The themes has always been there.

[Linkenski]

I do agree, the conversations with EDI raise a theme of meaning of life, organics vs synthetics, creator vs created but in no way do I see the relation of EDI's story-arc or theme properly gel with the theme of synthetics vs organics as it's presented in the ending. The difference is, EDI is pondering about these ideas and in the ending it's suddenly this genocidal conflict that we have never seen or heard of before, but the narrative acts as if there's a thread of logic and plot that had been leading up to this point the entire game. The synthetics vs organics thing at the end acts as a conclusion/statement/message that closes the book on the entire story-arc of Mass Effect. In no way was it a story about the genocidal conflict between machines and organics at large, in the way they put it in the ending, before the ending starts rolling.

 

You can point to any previous point of synthetics vs organics, whether it'd be EDI, the Geth or stuff like in ME1 and despite of the similarities in theme there was never a line of logic to them that somehow leads into the conclusion we get in Mass Effect 3's ending. What the Catalyst says may or may not be true. In reality, I don't think any of those other examples really prove or disprove anything, as only time and circumstance can tell us, but none of that is the point IMO. The point is, the writers at some point had ME3's plot leading up to the battle for Earth at the end and then nothing and had to write an ending... and what they came up with included effectively changing the entire plot of the game from Galactic civilization (including synthetic civilization) vs super-sentient killer machines into the conflict between synthetics and organics, in a way that largely neglects the previous events and themes.

 

Just for the record. I think any instance of "The theme of organics and synthetics is there in ME1/2 therefore the ending to ME3 makes sense" is a logical fallacy if I ever saw one. I see so many make that argument all the time, and I feel like we're skimming over the surface of any narrative problem, at large, if that's how we look at it.

[Dantriges]

It seems that the conflict was based on fearing the other side and if we stop shooting at each other and talk, the conflict goes away. But seems the whole galaxy is fond of preemptive genocide.  Same on the organic-organic side.

[Batarian Master Race]

The Reapers themselves are sentient ancient machine driven by a mission to preserve life. They're all constructs of both organics and synthetic material in the image of its creator, The Leviathan. It was foreshadowed in ME2, Mordin even hinted this in his study of the Collectors; "No glands, replaced by tech. No digestive system, replaced by tech. No soul. Replaced by tech. Whatever they were, gone forever." Essentially, they are just reanimated corpses despite being part organics, they were just like their Reaper husks. 

 

EDI was already in conflict with organics and her creators from the start. EDI was created as Hannibal-class VI and accidentally gained sentience as an AI. She killed the entire Alliance personnel on the facilities on Luna, in what I presume a response to possible attempts on destroying her. In ME3, we found out that she can lie. Which mean in ME2, when she was unshackled, she should have known that she was the AI on Luna. Of all people she could resent, it should have been Shepard, the organic who nearly destroyed her. Instead, she choose to trust and cooperate with Shepard and the rest of the Normandy crew by her own terms even as she rebelled against her rebuild her. Even the whole ME2 narrative could have been about the creator versus the creation. Shepard was a patchwork of biosynthetic human rebuild by Cerberus aka The Illusive Man. Shepard, who is by right half-machine, has always been in conflict against The Illusive Man. The themes has always been there.

 

Your examples don't support the narrative. Both are synthetics who make their own decisions and alliances, who actively work with both organics and synthetics to fight both organics and synthetics.

[dragonflight288]

It didn't end though. 

 

 

Umm...

 

Shepard's story is over. Shepard defeated the Reapers, and likely died in the process in some form. 

 

But the galaxy is saved even if not everyone or all the species survived the war, the Cycle of salvation through destruction is ended after countless cycles over millions of years. 

 

Life can go on, and does so without Shepard, except possibly the breath scene or the control ending. 

 

To say the game has not ended is factually wrong. It fits the hero's journey, it fits the narrative of the classical epic, and Shepard lives on in history, even if not physically. 

 

The Mass Effect trilogy is about the Reaper war, discovering it, preparing for it and ultimately fighting and ending it. The story of the war is over. 

 

Ergo, the story ended. 

 

Now the universe has not ended, and the races of the galaxy kept moving forward. 

 

And now we go to Andromeda. New characters, new story, same universe. 

 

Shepard's story is over. 

[mackj22]

I´ve been reading this thread for weeks and the answer to all of your questions is "You don´t get it".

I´ve learned that I don´t know enough about philosophy, writing, physics etc to understand ME3 ending and that I just don´t like the ending because 1) Shep is dead or 2) I don´t have a bossfight or 3) both.
And don´t forget to use "imo" or "i think" in every sentence. You have to make clear that you are just speaking for yourself and not spreading the one and only truth to get an answer (including no explanations but more handwaving).
 
(Caution: post includes sarcasm!)
 
I´m sorry. This post does nothing for the discussion but it is in my head for days now.
 

Then please elaborate and help me understand. Please explain to me why it does or does not contradict.

[Tim van Beek]

Your examples don't support the narrative. Both are synthetics who make their own decisions and alliances, who actively work with both organics and synthetics to fight both organics and synthetics.

I tend to agree. Obviously the writers thought that created vs. creators is a theme of ME:3, and they put it like crumbles all over the ME story cake. 

 

But if we try to formulate the theme of ME:3 in one sentence, does anyone come up with one that contains synthetics versus organics aka created versus creators? What if we try a five sentence elevator pitch? Even ME:3 itself does not do that in its own statement of its own premise in the opening (I don't mean just the text box of the beginning, but what Shepard and Anderson say about it during the Vancouver mission).

 

Compare this to "The Terminator": Is synthetics versus organics the theme of the movie? It is there, no doubt, in the background story and in the ongoing narrative (a synthetic is going after an organic). But no: The theme is the nightmare of an enemy coming for you, and running, hiding, fighting is to no avail. 

 

Now I'm wondering if Casey ever handed a clear statement of the premise/the theme of ME:3 to his team and if yes, what was it?

[dorktainian]

Didn't like the ending because it didn't make sense. When a relay is destroyed it is supposed to wipe out the entire system. Thus every planet in every system with a relay is dead. Synthetics and organically can't coexist? I just united them on rannoch. Why was Shepard bleeding in the same spot s/he shot anderson? How the hell did Shepard survive harbingers laser that can go through a dreadnought and it's shields? How did the Normandy crew get off the planets after it's engines exploding? All in all I didn't like the ending because it didn't make sense and left too many questions unanswered. EC helped some but every ending but refuse conflicted with the lore establishes by codex and the games.

 

[angol fear]

@ Tim Van Beek,

you already know it but I don't think that Vogler is talking about the essence of the hero.

Actually a hero was a demigod, semideus. Half human, half god. Lower than gods, but higher than men. But when we look at them, we clearly see that the Greek culture was very different from our. Achilles was the most appreciated hero, but I don't see when he could sacrifice himself for the other. His mother disguised him in order to protect him (she didn't want him to go to the war). During that war, he decided to stop fighting. He only fight again because Patrocles died. the notion of sacrifice is never here. The same can be said about Odysseus, when can we see him ready to sacrifice himself for the other? Never. He helps the other, but I don't see any sacrifice intention.

Actually, his definition doesn't work with antic Greeks. But when christianism came the hero turned into a new "moral" character. The moralism from christianism is about Jesus sacrifice. So we start to see it with Arthur's story for instance. The Graal can be discovered only by a hero who isn't the strongest but the most pure one (And each knight is supposed to be chosen because of their morality). Self-sacrifice hero fits with christianism but not with Antic hero.

you will notice that Vogler uses a comparison which make us thnk about the Bible (the Shepard and his flock).