180 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

Mass Effect =/= Lord of the Rings

 

Get over it.

[Linkenski]

Mass Effect =/= Lord of the Rings

 

Get over it.

And this is an argument to prove what? We're just comparing.

[angol fear]

And this is an argument to prove what? We're just comparing.

 

Comparing science-fiction with fantasy which are opposed genre (not talking about elements, I'm talking about genre themselves). It's like comparing apple to banana, you can't wait the same thing from the two fruits.

[Abalone]

All the ending- and "how can they introduce a char directly at the end?"-haters surely also hate A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of thrones
Oh, and George R. R. Martin should've better become a baker than a writer.

[Linkenski]

Comparing science-fiction with fantasy which are opposed genre (not talking about elements, I'm talking about genre themselves). It's like comparing apple to banana, you can't wait the same thing from the two fruits.

Mass Effect pretty much is just Science fantasy space opera. It is as much reliant on its lore and rules as LOTR or even less, because of how much the Writers started neglecting it.

It's also a trilogy, hence the comparisons. IMO it's rather about the subtext and thematic coherence than anything else though. It's a problem that goes beyond genre and setting that I was trying to highlight, or rather what I think is the root cause of the multiple things that went wrong in the ending.

[Dantriges]

Fantasy also borrows from sci-fi quite often. The early Might and Magic games for example, even Howard threw in some shaky pseudoscience into his Conan stories. M.Z. Bradleys DarkOver cycle is fantasy and the humans on Darkover arrived with a spaceship and met the very sciencey Terran Federation in the later books. On the other hand science fiction borrows a few things from fantasy from time to time. Star Wars for example or all the settings which use psionics. There is often some apple in you banana cocktail, perhaps they aren´t so opposite after all.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Wait, I think I actually had a joke about this a while back.

 

A what the hey her's another one:

Pre-EC

 

Post EC:

[aoibhealfae]

Mass Effect 3's ending is the same as the time you're watching Battlestar Galactica's finale but you can choose to kill Caprica and all the Cylons and you're not a descendant from a Cylon-Human hybrid that came from the stars.

 

 

Oh, and Jimi Hendrix is a Cylon. Totally.

[AlanC9]

Oh, and Jimi Hendrix is a Cylon. Totally.

What about Bob Dylan?

[angol fear]

Fantasy also borrows from sci-fi quite often. The early Might and Magic games for example, even Howard threw in some shaky pseudoscience into his Conan stories. M.Z. Bradleys DarkOver cycle is fantasy and the humans on Darkover arrived with a spaceship and met the very sciencey Terran Federation in the later books. On the other hand science fiction borrows a few things from fantasy from time to time. Star Wars for example or all the settings which use psionics. There is often some apple in you banana cocktail, perhaps they aren´t so opposite after all.

 

Fantasy can borrow elements from science-fiction and science-fiction can borrow to fantasy. I never said the contrary. I'm talking about the genre themselves, not about elements of genre. I've said it in the parenthesis in my post. Recent research on the concept of genre show that elements is not enough to create a genre. Do you think that "Twilight" can be classified in "Fantastique"? There are vampires and werewolves but no it's not "fantastique". Do you think that "Pan's Labyrinth" can be classified as "fairy tale"? No, though there are elements. elements are not what makes a genre. The elements only reveal the genre.

In your examples, there's one that everyone know (so I'll use it) : Star wars. So let's see what George Lucas himself says about his own work :

 

"I wanted to tell a story. I wanted to make sure that what I was doing was not construed as science fiction: This was space fantasy. This was like opera. This was a genre of fairy tales or mythology."

 

http://archive.wired...fflucas_pr.html

 

Sorry but Lucas has always said that he never wrote Star wars as a science-fiction story, he read a lot of fantasy to create Star wars. Yes there's space, but that's all, it's not science-fiction at all.

Don't you think that though Star Wars is generally classified as "science-fiction", it'sinteresting to see that the author and the critics don't classify it as science-fiction? Why does he say that it's not constucted as science-fiction. What is the difference between space fantasy and science-fiction?

The more you'll learn about genre, the more you'll see that elements don't make a genre. New genre are just one genre with elements coming from another genre. We already have the genre that are at the basis. Fantasy and science-fiction are genres that are basically opposed in the way they think the writing.

So if you compare Mass Effect to LOTR, it shows that you don't care about genre (or don't know them). It only reveals that you were not reading properly Mass Effect and you read it the way you want, not the way it was written.

Mass Effect can have elements close to fantasy, it has never been fantasy. Mass Effect can use horror element, it has never been a horror game.

Elements are not what make a genre.

[aoibhealfae]

What about Bob Dylan?

Bob Dylan is obviously Number Seven.

[Dantriges]

So if you compare Mass Effect to LOTR, it shows that you don't care about genre (or don't know them). It only reveals that you were not reading properly Mass Effect and you read it the way you want, not the way it was written.

Mass Effect can have elements close to fantasy, it has never been fantasy. Mass Effect can use horror element, it has never been a horror game.

Elements are not what make a genre.

 

I know that Star Wars is labeled as science fantasy or space opera. The point was that quite a few writers blurred the lines or at least borrowed heavily from the trappings of the other side which are incompatible at all in your opinion. All of it was in response to the comparison of the ending of LotR and Mass Effect which was more or less an expression of how the writer of this partcular comic felt, about the ending of Mass Effect. 

[angol fear]

I know that Star Wars is labeled as science fantasy or space opera. The point was that quite a few writers blurred the lines or at least borrowed heavily from the trappings of the other side which are incompatible at all in your opinion. All of it was in response to the comparison of the ending of LotR and Mass Effect which was more aor less an expression of how the writer of this partcular comic felt, about the ending of Mass Effect.

Ok then define fantasy and science-fiction.

[Dantriges]

Why should I? It was your point that the switch to a different genre matters and it´s like comparing apples to oranges. Mine was I don´t think it matters to the message the writer was trying to send and there is overlap between sci-fi and fantasy anyways.

 

So please go ahead and elaborate why it´s like comparing apples to oranges.

[CrutchCricket]

On a more serious not

 

The ending of Mass Effect 3 is the same as if in Return of the Jedi, Luke could

 

1) Throw himself into the Death Star's reactor, spreading his midichlorians throughout the galaxy (somehow) making every living being in the galaxy from Han Solo down to the lowliest womp rat Force Sensitive

2) Let the Emperor kill him, but afterwards, haunt him as a Force Ghost hoping it will turn him back to the Light Side

3) Kill the Emperor, but doing so would also destroy Kashyyk and kill every wookie in the galaxy.  Because reasons. 

 

Also, in every case, the Millennium Falcon crashes on some world (not Endor) but not before it manages to swing by and pick everyone up.  For some reason.

Nah it's more like:

 

Luke gets shot by the Death Star and then makes his way up to it (somehow). He is then confronted by Darth Vader holding Han Solo hostage for some reason. After some bullshit he can either kill convince Vader to redeem himself and take his own life or kill him himself. Either way, Han dies. Afterwards, Luke is brought before the Emperor who explains that genocide and oppression are totes necessary because the Yuuzhan Vong are coming and only this way can they be defeated. You have at best one or two feeble attempts to ask questions but no way to disagree or suggest better alternatives. But Luke being here changes his mind for reasons so now he gives Luke three options.

1. He can Destroy the Death Star and every ship everywhere, for reasons.

2. He can turn to the Dark Side and take over as Emperor (somehow)

3. He can merge with the Emperor (down the pit) thereby turning everyone in the galaxy into Lobot (and this is the best option, apparently).

 

Oh and there is a fourth to refuse, but then the Emperor just blasts you with lightning and the Empire wins. Later in an offhand remark, Lucas implies someone else went up there and picked a choice.

 

All endings destroy the Force and Luke dies in all of them except in Destroy where you see a pile of woodchips move briefly. Years later, an old man played by George Lucas tells us the story of Jar Jar.

[angol fear]

Why should I? It was your point that the switch to a different genre matters and it´s like comparing apples to oranges. Mine was I don´t think it matters to the message the writer was trying to send and there is overlap between sci-fi and fantasy anyways.

So please go ahead and elaborate why it´s like comparing apples to oranges.

Because you want to prove me that reactionary writing and the opposite work the same way. If you don't know what are science-fiction and fantasy then you can't see the problem.

[aoibhealfae]

Even if they're different genre, they're still sets of fictional narratives. Similar rules do apply; the beginning, the middle, the ending. I think there's some similarities with the endings and both of them were quite anticlimatic in the end.

 

And it seems rather uncalled for... science fiction always have its roots on fantasy. Even Alice in Wonderland is by modern definition is a science fiction, there's a lot of fantastic elements in it but a lot of logic puzzles as well. Even early science fiction works hardly base themselves on actual science. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was hardly scientific. The current Steampunk genre fit more into the fantastical elements that grey the line between Fantasy and Scifi.

 

Its not really apples and oranges, more like grapefruit, lime, lemon.. all under a large family.

[Dantriges]

Well mr literature teacher/critic, as you are undoubtedly aware, the definitions of sci-fi and fantasy and how they evolved are pages long with stuff like the following showing up:
 

Unfortunately, the clearest (or most aggressive) definitions are often the least definitive, although many sceptics have been attracted to Damon Knight's "Science fiction is what we point to when we say it" or Norman Spinrad's "Science fiction is anything published as science fiction". Both these "definitions" have a serious point, of course: that, whatever else sf may be, it is certainly a publishing category, and in the real world this is of more pragmatic importance than anything the theorists may have to say about it. On the other hand, the label "sf" on a book is wholly subject to the whims of publishers and editors, and the label has certainly appeared on some very unlikely books.

 
And as a conclusion:
 

There is really no good reason to expect that a workable definition of sf will ever be established. None has been, so far. In practice, there is much consensus about what sf looks like in its centre; it is only at the fringes that most of the fights take place. And it is still not possible to describe sf as a homogeneous form of writing. Sf is arguably not a genre in the strict sense at all – and why should it be? Historically, it grew from the merging of many distinct genres, from utopias to space adventures. Instinctively, however, we may feel that, if sf ever loses its sense of the fluidity of the future and the excitement of our scientific attempts to understand our Universe – in short, as more conservative fans would put it with enthusiasm though conceptual vagueness, its Sense of Wonder – then it may no longer be worth fighting over. If things fall apart and the centre cannot hold, mere structural fabulation may be loosed upon the world!

Source: Encyclopaedia of science fiction. http://sf-encycloped...finitions_of_sf

I think it is a valid source. https://en.wikipedia...Science_Fiction

So you want a definition of science fiction from me, when the writers in the field disagree? Is that a trick question?

Oh, new buzzwords. You have anything to validate your claim or how that relates to the comic? The previous poster explained it probably better than I could.

[aoibhealfae]

There's nothing wrong with any discussions on how several work of fiction could share a common derivative from one another. And if anyone want to draw a comparison between either, they're free to do so even if you disagree with any of them. It's not helpful at all to simply copy-pasting random texts without context from other site just to prove yourself right. Nobody is right or wrong. People are just talking. There's absolutely no need to rage or calling people names.

[angol fear]

Sorry for both of you but you are totally wrong and totally misunderstand what I wrote.
Saying that it's relative is easy and help to say things that don't make sense from a writing point of view. I gave you a clue in my last post, you didn't see it.
Dantriges you should really pay attention to what you read when you read. Your purpose is just to show that I am wrong when you didn't understand the comparison. Read again my last post, the answer is here. Once again it has nothing to do with the elements. And the concept of genre has to be redefined. Internet won't help you for this.

Ps : aoibhealfae, I will develop for you later if you want to discuss about it.

[Dantriges]

Really? I finally found my purpose.   Well your last post had a claim you didn´t explain and more or less stated as fact. And another claim you cannot know. Or more or less it was a condescending statement.

 

Your purpose seems to be making claims that you simply know better. 

I am actually not even sure if you grasp basic communication theory.  

[MrFob]

Oh, this sounds like fun. I'll try one:

 

Basically, the ME3 ending is like Austin Powers walking up to Mini-Me naked, unarmed and with some goon holding a gun to his head.

Mini-Me then says: "You know, I am actually controlling Dr. Evil but despite the fact that I have won, I will now allow you to either join me, have sex with me or just kill me for no reason.So what d'ya say?"

[txgoldrush]

And this is an argument to prove what? We're just comparing.

Its moronic. Just like this thread.

 

They both have different themes and stories.

 

After 3 years, they still don't get it.

[Linkenski]

Its moronic. Just like this thread.

 

They both have different themes and stories.

 

After 3 years, they still don't get it.

But we're not comparing the themes but rather the execution of them. That is to say, you take another piece of fiction and substitute its finale with something to exemplify how ME3's ending is a failure. I don't personally think the LOtR example is too spot-on, but it's a just a funny dumb meme thing nonetheless.

 

I think most fail examples are those where you take another known piece of fiction and then just plaster the "control-destroy-merge" idea onto that somehow. Is this topic moronic? You decide, of course, but I wouldn't say moronic as if we don't understand the ending or what the problem of the ending is. It may be moronic in the sense that we're still rambling on about the ending after 3 years, but this is the ME3 story discussion board, so it's all just reflections and reminiscence on a game that's been long out anyway.

 

The way I see it, there's people who claim they understand the ending and it makes perfect sense and they're smarter than anyone else, and then there's people like me who claim the ending doesn't make sense and therefore anyone who believe it does are fools for thinking so.

 

I didn't really make this thread to agree or disagree with anyone... just to make some light out of the ME3 ending fiasco.

[txgoldrush]

But we're not comparing the themes but rather the execution of them. That is to say, you take another piece of fiction and substitute its finale with something to exemplify how ME3's ending is a failure. I don't personally think the LOtR example is too spot-on, but it's a just a funny dumb meme thing nonetheless.

 

I think most fail examples are those where you take another known piece of fiction and then just plaster the "control-destroy-merge" idea onto that somehow. Is this topic moronic? You decide, of course, but I wouldn't say moronic as if we don't understand the ending or what the problem of the ending is. It may be moronic in the sense that we're still rambling on about the ending after 3 years, but this is the ME3 story discussion board, so it's all just reflections and reminiscence on a game that's been long out anyway.

 

The way I see it, there's people who claim they understand the ending and it makes perfect sense and they're smarter than anyone else, and then there's people like me who claim the ending doesn't make sense and therefore anyone who believe it does are fools for thinking so.

 

I didn't really make this thread to agree or disagree with anyone... just to make some light out of the ME3 ending fiasco.

Maybe fans should watch Snowpiercer, its ending is mightily similar to two of the ME3 choices.