180 réponses à ce sujet

[angol fear]

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

 

Glad to see that someone watched Snowpiercer which is probably the best science-fiction film made after 2000. I'll go further in their similarities. They share some themes, and these themes make them share the same structure (I won't spoil). Just like Mass Effect writing which is post podernism (writing based on intertext), snowpiercer uses different aesthetics for each part of the train (we can notice the tsui Hark influence in some moment, then we can recognize "old boy" reference, we can see comic's influence etc...). both have an open ending which is not a bad or a good ending. In the end, both lead to a high perception on a solution which is not moral. We can agree or disagree but for both of them the main character understands the situation (the theme seems to be changing in the end but for both it's still the same).

in their reception, both have the official critics who loved them. But when it comes to "popular" reading, people who want "realistic" story where everything is explained, these people disliked/hated it. the reason why people disliked Snowpiercer is close to how Mass Effect is explained to be bad.

But Snowpiercer was not seen by many, so there are more official reviews on internet. And Snowpiercer is a film so people was not as emotionally involved as people were with Mass Effect. That's why it seems, if we only take a look on internet, that there are less problems of reception.

 

 

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.

 

That's a big problem. We can't separate theme from execution if it's well done. From a writing point of view or a critic point of view, it doesn't make sense.

Imagine you are writing a story, you will not start with thinking of the execution. You first have to find something to tell. from this story you'll understand the theme that you will implicitly or explicitly develop. The form will be shaped by how you will think about these themes.

Mass Effect and Snowpiercer are both stories about determinism and cycles. To break the cycle you have to get out of it. You have to see the big picture, to get to a higher level. That's what both did because it's logical, that's how the form is shaped by the theme. To break the cycle is to get free, so the ending is an open ending for both because it's shaped by the themes (break determinism and get free, free from the narration). The execution is explained by the themes. 

Now we imagine that you start with the execution and don't care about the themes you're using. You doing an empty form. That's what happens with the "clichés", it's just empty form, which mean you use a structure but there's no idea in it. So any idea can be put in the form. Every story told the same way, as if there was no story told. There is no great writer who started with a form and then was thinking about the themes. 

 

 

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.

 

Actually it's not a problem of being smarter or not. The problem is a problem of reception.

When the game was released people were emotionally involved and so frustrated that the forum was full of hater who were here just to insult those who liked the endings (didn't like = smarter , like = stupid). Then to justify the hate people made some video, talked about "rules of writing" (that only exist on internet) and many reason why they hated the ending. Internet is quite an anonymous space, so it's the rules of democraty : if the majority says it then it's true (when the truth doesn't work this way). So from opinions, it turned into objective reasons for hating the game. the problem is that people who made videos or explained why the ending is bad, these people didn't make an analysis (i mean a real analysis). They are, for most of them, people who don't know literature but who talk about literature.

Months ago I asked what is "art", and I had nonsense answers, so to prove them that their vision doesn't work, I asked what is a "masterpiece", so I had as answer "we don't care about what is a masterpiece". If you don't know when you can say it's a masterpiece, how can you evaluate something? You can evaluate only if you know the worst and the best point and why they are the worst and the best. So people were saying that art is totally subjective (which is wrong) but they say that they have objective reasons for Mass Effect (so there are objective reasons for saying that something is subjectivly bad).

Same thing for the notion of "genre". We know that a genre isn't elements. there is a philosophy behind the writing, that's the reason why fantasy and science-fiction are opposed. They are opposed in their history (why they were born), they are opposed in their codes etc... But once again, people who don't know that try to sound intellectual with their "it's relative/ we can mix fantasy and science-fiction etc..." (while I said that it's not about element I'm talking but, implicitly, about philosophy of writing). For someone who don't know what are genre, yes, if we put elements from science-fiction in fantasy it seems that it's science-fiction and fantasy mixed together. But for someone who analyze the writing and know how they work, it's not the same thing at all, it's a new genre with a philosophy of writing coming from one genre and elements coming from the second. That's why Star Wars is not science-fiction and Lucas himself says it.

Once again the problem isn't about being smarter or not. It turned into that because people who don't know think they know. That's not the same thing. And because they think they know, they establish their opinion as a truth. They don't see how narrow minded they are (I know that many people here will say that I'm narrow minded when actually I am the one who say that literature has no rules).

[Linkenski]

I fully agree that there's a huge creative liberty in writing, and that there are no rules beyond what may be part of common perceptions amongst viewers, TVtropes and other internet-made-up rules.

 

The way I see it there are certain rules, that writers have to go by and any teacher I've had in the past would say the same thing. I think first and foremost, no matter the ideas, the themes, philosophies or whatever, you need to have narrative consistency, coherence and line of logic that takes you from A to B in a way that makes sense and in a way that makes the intended idea and message of your story clear.

 

In the case of Mass Effect 3 it's hard to clearly define THE idea when it's a game-story that spans 400.000 lines of exposition, dialogue and stuff for every single game. It means you have seveal seasons of a TV show's worth of lore, plots and subplots. So when I claim that the last 10 minutes of ME3 completely fucks up the statement or message of the trilogy's plot, we have to analyse what the line of logic to the overarching plot of all three games were, and filter out all the subplots but still account for the potential themes not included within the main plot still. My argument is that the conclusion Mass Effect's trilogy story arc arrives at, is one that doesn't subvert but simply violates the narrative coherence by discarding previous events or highlighting old themes in a new context that we haven't seen before, but we also don't have enough context from the story's previous events to make it believable or honest as a conclusion.

 

Am I being too vague? Do I really need to spell it all out?

 

When I take another story of a different genre, I'm fully aware that the key themes aren't shared and that there are different cliches and tropes for that particular genre, but the narrative inconsistency I am pointing out is no different from the one everyone (aware or unaware) experience at the tail-end of Mass Effect 3. I have read your entire post, and I don't think you really told me anything I hadn't already thought of. I just simply disagree on the notion that you can't compare two stories if they don't share genre or themes, or that we can't solely compare execution at the exclusion of theme.

 

I can't really take responsibility for the LOTR comparison, I just know that my own comparison of American Beauty is pinpointing exactly where the core problem of ME3's ending is located, by comparison. That's not to say I think American Beauty and Mass Effect are the same, it's just to say if "American Beauty was like Mass Effect, this would be how it turned out". Again, you're probably still gonna say that I cannot compare when the genre and themes are so distinct, but I disagree here. To me, they both have a narrative backbone, a line of logic that arrives at some kind of conclusion, and in American Beauty the line of logic never breaks but in Mass Effect it does, and THAT'S the only difference you need to know to understand why Mass Effect's ending doesn't work regardless of what the exact themes are.

 

Also, for the record. I don't think you sound narrow-minded angol fear. I just think we have a different mindset regarding narrative, and I am indeed quite strict in my mind.

[angol fear]

I fully agree that there's a huge creative liberty in writing, and that there are no rules beyond what may be part of common perceptions amongst viewers, TVtropes and other internet-made-up rules.

 

The way I see it there are certain rules, that writers have to go by and any teacher I've had in the past would say the same thing. I think first and foremost, no matter the ideas, the themes, philosophies or whatever, you need to have narrative consistency, coherence and line of logic that takes you from A to B in a way that makes sense and in a way that makes the intended idea and message of your story clear.

 

In the case of Mass Effect 3 it's hard to clearly define THE idea when it's a game-story that spans 400.000 lines of exposition, dialogue and stuff for every single game. It means you have seveal seasons of a TV show's worth of lore, plots and subplots. So when I claim that the last 10 minutes of ME3 completely fucks up the statement or message of the trilogy's plot, we have to analyse what the line of logic to the overarching plot of all three games were, and filter out all the subplots but still account for the potential themes not included within the main plot still. My argument is that the conclusion Mass Effect's trilogy story arc arrives at, is one that doesn't subvert but simply violates the narrative coherence by discarding previous events or highlighting old themes in a new context that we haven't seen before, but we also don't have enough context from the story's previous events to make it believable or honest as a conclusion.

 

Am I being too vague? Do I really need to spell it all out?

 

I won't answer every point of your post today. I'll focuse on few point.

 

Don't worry I understand your post, you are not too vague.

When I say that there is no rules, that's what I defend. There's no rules, there's only codes and principles. It's very, very different! Not the same thing at all actually. Rules impose things when codes are just forms that can be used, changed etc... It seems to be just words, it's not just words, it's how you see writing.

I agree with you on coherence, that's a principle of writing, the most important.

But here we have to define "coherence" and "message" because we will probably not talk about the same thing.

[Iakus]

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

Seen it.  Didn't like it either.

[Linkenski]

I won't answer every point of your post today. I'll focuse on few point.

 

Don't worry I understand your post, you are not too vague.

When I say that there is no rules, that's what I defend. There's no rules, there's only codes and principles. It's very, very different! Not the same thing at all actually. Rules impose things when codes are just forms that can be used, changed etc... It seems to be just words, it's not just words, it's how you see writing.

I agree with you on coherence, that's a principle of writing, the most important.

But here we have to define "coherence" and "message" because we will probably not talk about the same thing.

Definition of Narrative Coherence:

Coherence = 

 

From thefreedictionary.com:

n.

1. The quality or state of cohering, especially a logical, orderly, and aesthetically consistent relationship of parts.

2. Physics The property of being coherent, as of waves.

 

 

(Trivial NB: Not to be confused with Cohesion which is sort of the same but coherence adheres to the relationship of the content itself whereas cohesion is more about overlaying composition. An incohesive story is a story that might make sense but its order of events are jumbled (maybe intentionally so) while an incoherent plot is a plot where story doesn't make sense (but structurally it may seem sound). Cohesion is how it's glued together, coherence is how it makes sense the way it's glued together. Catch my drift? Good.)

 

So by that definition I'd say Mass Effect 3's ending is not coherent to the rest of the story. It's hard to judge when there're so many combined parts, the writing, dialogue, visual usage, tone of writing and stuff. The tone isn't too coherent, because it's all in this 2001 space oddysey vibe as soon as you enter the beam (not one of my biggest personal criticisms though), the writing switches to this rather mysterious puzzly half-answers type dialogue, even starting when Anderson talks about it looking like the collector base about warping up in another room and somehow getting ahead of you. The visuals here also present a tone that's both darker and sort of uncaracteristic for the rest of the game. Personally, I like it. We're in the center of Reaper-tech. It's complete unknown, so I feel the visuals get the job done. So it's still sort of coherent but already kind of weird. Once we enter the startchild dialogue though, it just goes haywire, and that's when it loses coherence and once the coherence is lost but the writing keeps following this now broken part of the narrative it becomes a gift that keeps on giving, and the further it moves along the more the story falls apart. That's a reason why Extended Cut wasn't only fixes, though I do admit I felt it changed the Catalyst dialogue for the better.

[angol fear]

Seen it.  Didn't like it either.

 

That's the reason why I have been comparing these two since Snowpiercer release. It is written the same way, those who didn't like Mass Effect's writing won't like Snowpiercer for the same reasons. Do you know that we consider Snowpiercer to be a masterpiece?

 

 

Catch my drift? Good.

 

Well I don't know how to should understand it. Are you serious? Is it irony? I mean you know that you are explaining things that I already know (coherence and cohesion)?

Anyway, you don't explain why, for you, the catalyst scene is not coherent with the rest of the game. you say that it's broken, it's falling apart but you never explain how it's not coherent :

 

 

Once we enter the startchild dialogue though, it just goes haywire, and that's when it loses coherence and once the coherence is lost but the writing keeps following this now broken part of the narrative it becomes a gift that keeps on giving, and the further it moves along the more the story falls apart. 

 

If you want to explain why it is not coherent you have to show the coherence of the game before the catalyst scene, you have to analyze the catalyst scene and show how it breaks with the internal logic ("logical, orderly, and aesthetically consistent relationship of parts").

[Tim van Beek]

That's the reason why I have been comparing these two since Snowpiercer release. It is written the same way, those who didn't like Mass Effect's writing won't like Snowpiercer for the same reasons. Do you know that we consider Snowpiercer to be a masterpiece?

Hey, I like Snowpiercer and strongly dislike the ME:3 ending (not the ME writing in general). Does this prove anything? 

 

Snowpiercer is a parable, ME is action sci-fi. When Commander Shepard says "We fight or we die!", then this is supposed to be accepted at face value. When a character in Snowpiercer says "Everybody has his place!", then he means the position in the train, while the audience is supposed to understand "in society". Snowpiercer has several semantic levels. Somehow I get the impression that you think that ME has those, too. I don't see them.

 

Unless Timmy reveals himself to be an omnipotent AI, and that Snowball Earth is his solution to human chaos, and that the occupants of the train have hope, and that this hope somehow comes with being processed into a protein bar etc. etc. I don't see any analogy . 

[Tim van Beek]

Back to the topic of this thread...

Okay, let's give Snowpiercer an ME:3 ending, shall we?

 

Curtis reaches the engine door. He is hit in the left shoulder and promptly starts bleeding profusely 

from his left hip. He fumbles at the door, "I don't, I can't..." and faints.

The door of the engine opens, the metal platter that Curtis lies on is lifted magically and floats through the door.

Inside, Yona wakes Curtis: 

"Why are you here?!" Curtis stands up: "What, Yona? I thought you were outside?"

"Dammit, I thought she was already dead!" Yona shapeshifts into Edgar. "Edgar is dead, right?"

"Ugh, yes...". 

"You know, reading minds is really hard if you can't, you know? Did you already have a nightmare about chasing Edgar?"

"Ugh...no..." 

"No matter, this will do."

"Where am I?"

"In the engine."

"Who are you?"

"I am the engine."

"I thought the engine was the engine?"

"No, the engine is my home, I am something more."

"I need to stop the class warfare on this train, can you help me do that?"

"Yes. I control the class warfare. It is my solution."

"Solution to what?"

"To chaos. Men and women will always fight over steaks, it is inevitable."

"Steaks? Oh, can you stop the fighting outside? My people get killed there." 

"No, there is no time."

"No time? This train has been going for 17 years and now there is no time to..."

"We are this close to need to charge for overlength. Your coming here has changed the parameters, I cannot go on."

"Why not? What parameters? Why did you bring me here? What was this about steaks?"

"Women and men will fight over steaks until all is destroyed and there are no more cows. My class warfare turns excess population into protein bars, to make place for others."

"But if we are turned into protein bars, we don't have any hope. We could as well be dead - ugh - I mean, is this supposed to go on until the train breaks or something? What happens then?"

"You have hope. More than you think."

"What? How? Oh, I see: Our DNA is preserved in the protein bars, our love in our children, right? What was that about the changed parameters?"

"We need a new solution. You can press a button to turn everybody into hermaphrodites. This will solve the man-woman conflict."

"Hermaphrodites? This is about class warfare! Poor against rich! Freedom against fate! There are men and women fighting on both sides! We can stop all that if we share...Ugh, forget that. How does that work?"

"Hermaphrodites have both female and male..."

"Stop! Forget that I asked...how do I do that?"

"You need to press a button at the other end of the train."

"Oh boy, we don't have time for a proper exposition - or at least stop the fighting outside - but let everybody watch for minutes while I walk across the whole train?"

"Yes, but you will die when you press the button."

"Why do I die when I do that? Can someone else press the button? What if I use a broomstick? Why can't you press it? Oh forget it. Do you also have a button that makes steaks? No, that would be ridiculous."

Curtis walks to the other side of the train, pushes a button, dies, green light, everybody is turned into a hermaphrodite.

We see a slide of Edgar looking sad, a slide of Yona standing around in the engine, then a slide of Timmy running through the schoolroom.

Credits roll.

 

So many interesting questions, what does it all mean, what happens to the characters, was it all a dream etc.

You start the debate, I get the popcorn.

[angol fear]

Tim, I have already given some. Your answer prove something, you really underestimate mass effect and obvious don't want it to be different from how you see it : Opposition of quotations without context, trying to make fun of Mass Effect, irrelevant opposition of genres (snowpiercer is action science fiction too, you only ignore it because you don't want it to share with Mass Effect some points of writing).
Ah ! Ok you didn't get the writing of snowpiercer too...

[Batarian Master Race]

Ah ! Ok you didn't get the writing of snowpiercer too...

 

You know, it's possible for someone to interpret something in a different way than you did and still "get it".

 

Oh, wait, I forgot, you're the Catalyst, and everyone has to go along with your opinion because of reasons.

[angol fear]

You know, it's possible for someone to interpret something in a different way than you did and still "get it".

Oh, wait, I forgot, you're the Catalyst, and everyone has to go along with your opinion because of reasons.

Ignoring what is obvious means that you don't get it.

[Batarian Master Race]

Ignoring what is obvious means that you don't get it.

 

"Hello, Billy-Bob's Record Shop? Yeah, I need a new record, this one's broken."

[rasblak]

... as if I told the Chef that my Steak was served burned but he keeps telling me that, as per his artistic vision, it's Salmon, not beef, and so, get over it.

[Linkenski]

Ignoring what is obvious means that you don't get it.

If you have something to prove him wrong, give the argument instead of playing mr. too-intelligent-to-talk-to-the-fools.

 

EDIT: I should have some kind of copy-paste Catalyst analysis because I feel like I've dissected it a couple of times across various other threads. Eventually I will take all the depressing pieces of dialogue and slab them together in a little analysis here, so I can show you exactly what I mean point for point, but not right now.

 

If you wanna see analyses that support my own viewpoint, I suggest you watch the TUN and Extended Complaining videos from MrBtongue or Smudboy's very in-depth analyses which go into every little nitpick there is to find.

 

 

One of my favorite on-point quotes from it: "The problem the Catalyst is decribing, doesn't even happen... it's false" -- my comment to this would be that realistically we can't say that synthetics will never destroy all organics but we can't say that in no matter what instance all synthetics will always destroy all organics in every case, either.

 

Another one: "Don't let us play psychiatrist to an insane AI, only to not let us play psychiatrist to an insane AI" - speaks sort of for itself. If the idea behind this ending is that the Catalyst is describing a problem that it in itself is responsible for while not knowing it because it's synthetic and doesn't have the same empathic features as organics, but wrongly thinking that organics creating synthetics are the problem, then why the hell do we still accept his argument and stil end up with these 3 choices (from a writing POV)?

 

IMO there's always the outcome of Shepard having to choose the 3 options he's given because it's the only realistic way out of it (except Synthesis breaks any sense of realism in the first place) but it's all due to writing nonsense in the first place. I just can't look past there being so much bullshit involved in everything the Catalyst creates in his existance, and there's no way anyone can convince me that the Catalyst was an idea Bioware thought of before they had the entirety of ME3 and then an empty placeholder for the ending with nothing in it.

 

I'd like to see you prove me wrong on this regard angol fear, because you can't, but I'm definitely listening if you have somethin to say to enlighten me and not just "tsk. you just can't see it like I do!" talk.

[Tim van Beek]

Tim, I have already given some. Your answer prove something, you really underestimate mass effect and obvious don't want it to be different from how you see it : Opposition of quotations without context, trying to make fun of Mass Effect, irrelevant opposition of genres (snowpiercer is action science fiction too, you only ignore it because you don't want it to share with Mass Effect some points of writing).
Ah ! Ok you didn't get the writing of snowpiercer too...

angol fear, please think of Henlon's razor (https://en.wikipedia.../Hanlon's_razor):

 

 

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Maybe it's not about that I don't want to understand, but just don't see convincing points to follow your reaoning  .

You seem to restrain yourself in this regard, there isn't much in this thread for me to work with...

 

I get that you seem to see more in ME than a pure action blockbuster formula. For me, it is just not there. Well, maybe I should have adressed one of your earlier posts earlier:

 

 

Just like Mass Effect writing which is post podernism (writing based on intertext), snowpiercer uses different aesthetics for each part of the train (we can notice the tsui Hark influence in some moment, then we can recognize "old boy" reference, we can see comic's influence etc...). both have an open ending which is not a bad or a good ending. In the end, both lead to a high perception on a solution which is not moral. We can agree or disagree but for both of them the main character understands the situation (the theme seems to be changing in the end but for both it's still the same).

Mass Effect is certainly not postmodern. Having a messed up ending does not turn anything into something that is postmodern, even if eschewing a neat tied up ending is a characteristic of postmodern literature. Being based on "intertext" (I think you refer to "Intertextuality", https://en.wikipedia...ntertextuality) is not a defining characteristic of postmodern literature, but of all literature.  Do you have another reason to come to this conclusion?

 

Snowpiercer has an open ending that is a good ending: The culture of suppression on the train is broken, by the sacrifice of the heroes. There are signs that life outside the train is possible (polar bear). 

 

Snowpiercer is a parable about class struggle and mechanisms of oppression/suppression  and the deep human desire to overcome all that (on the lower end and the stunnig lack thereof on the upper end, to be precise). It has a symbolic semantic layer. It breaks the realism throughout to a certain extend, examples:

 

1. comically overdrawn characters like Minister Mason,

2. the clairvoyance of of Yona,

3. children that act like robots and integrate into machines and seem to be unresponsive for no good reason whatsoever.

4. Willford who seems to be totally disconnected from Curtis' emotional response.

5. Namgoong somehow fighting of a lot of people, including the magically resurrected bad guy (don't remember the name).

 

Snowpiercer can do all that and does it on purpose, to point out that there is another symbolic semantic layer that should be paid attention to. Nevertheless, for the last scene, it returns to a fully realistic one: Avalanche, train derails, survivors go outside, see a polar bear. Works on both semantic layers, perfectly.

 

Both Snowpiercer and ME have something about cycles that need to be broken. I don't see how that relates anything to anything any more than saying that both are about stuff that happens and what people do about it or not.

[txgoldrush]

Hey, I like Snowpiercer and strongly dislike the ME:3 ending (not the ME writing in general). Does this prove anything? 

 

Snowpiercer is a parable, ME is action sci-fi. When Commander Shepard says "We fight or we die!", then this is supposed to be accepted at face value. When a character in Snowpiercer says "Everybody has his place!", then he means the position in the train, while the audience is supposed to understand "in society". Snowpiercer has several semantic levels. Somehow I get the impression that you think that ME has those, too. I don't see them.

 

Unless Timmy reveals himself to be an omnipotent AI, and that Snowball Earth is his solution to human chaos, and that the occupants of the train have hope, and that this hope somehow comes with being processed into a protein bar etc. etc. I don't see any analogy . 

WRONG

 

ME has a central theme that goes outside its action sci-fi shell, about the decisions that are made that affect the destinies of others and how this can create conflict. Notice how every time someones ignorantly or selfishly alters the destiny of others without thinking of the consequences always meets trouble? That's the Catalyst. Shepard has to make a decision that alters the fate of others as well, but he doesn't choose ignorantly or selfishly, and even will sacrifice himself to achieve his goal. THATS the parable of Mass Effect.

 

You are so hung up on one quote that you cannot see the big picture. the Reapers are only part of the big picture.

 

And really, the motive of the Catalyst doesn't even matter. That's why Shepard never argues it and in two of the three ending choices, its irrelevant.

 

Really, ending bashers miss what the actual conflict in the end was about. It wasn;t about organics vs synthetics.

[dorktainian]

Just watch Smudboy picking apart the car crash of an ending.  It is glorious.

[txgoldrush]

If you have something to prove him wrong, give the argument instead of playing mr. too-intelligent-to-talk-to-the-fools.

 

EDIT: I should have some kind of copy-paste Catalyst analysis because I feel like I've dissected it a couple of times across various other threads. Eventually I will take all the depressing pieces of dialogue and slab them together in a little analysis here, so I can show you exactly what I mean point for point, but not right now.

 

If you wanna see analyses that support my own viewpoint, I suggest you watch the TUN and Extended Complaining videos from MrBtongue or Smudboy's very in-depth analyses which go into every little nitpick there is to find.

 

 

One of my favorite on-point quotes from it: "The problem the Catalyst is decribing, doesn't even happen... it's false" -- my comment to this would be that realistically we can't say that synthetics will never destroy all organics but we can't say that in no matter what instance all synthetics will always destroy all organics in every case, either.

 

Another one: "Don't let us play psychiatrist to an insane AI, only to not let us play psychiatrist to an insane AI" - speaks sort of for itself. If the idea behind this ending is that the Catalyst is describing a problem that it in itself is responsible for while not knowing it because it's synthetic and doesn't have the same empathic features as organics, but wrongly thinking that organics creating synthetics are the problem, then why the hell do we still accept his argument and stil end up with these 3 choices (from a writing POV)?

 

IMO there's always the outcome of Shepard having to choose the 3 options he's given because it's the only realistic way out of it (except Synthesis breaks any sense of realism in the first place) but it's all due to writing nonsense in the first place. I just can't look past there being so much bullshit involved in everything the Catalyst creates in his existance, and there's no way anyone can convince me that the Catalyst was an idea Bioware thought of before they had the entirety of ME3 and then an empty placeholder for the ending with nothing in it.

 

I'd like to see you prove me wrong on this regard angol fear, because you can't, but I'm definitely listening if you have somethin to say to enlighten me and not just "tsk. you just can't see it like I do!" talk.

You are not getting it.

 

Smudboy and MrBtongue have a habit of trying to make the ending about how they think it should be, not how it is. They are ones to be ignored.

 

First off, the Catalyst was created because the Leviathan's client races were falling to the machines they create. So, yeah, the Catalyst does have evidence to support his claim. However, does his motive even matter?

 

It does not. because whether he is right or wrong, it doesn't matter. Shepard wants the cycle stopped and argues that the Catalyst simply put, lacks understanding of organic life. Pay attention to Shepard's dialogue. He doesn't care about organics vs synthetics, because thats simply put, not his conflict with it. The CONFLICT is about what the Catalyst is DOING, not WHY he is doing it.

[txgoldrush]

Just watch Smudboy picking apart the car crash of an ending.  It is glorious.

 

Picking apart ending detractors arguments is glorious as well.

 

You guys can't even recognize the conflict or why it is helping you.

[txgoldrush]

People really need to pay attention to what Shepard is saying to the Catalyst.

 

"I think we rather keep our own forms"

 

Dialogue wheel options to continue the conversation to the three choices: You'll never understand, We do not want to be preserved, You're solution is flawed, We will never give in to you, You're missing the point, You just don't get it, Its not your choice to make,  We are just trying to survive.

 

Clearly Bioware sets up Shepards conflict with the Catalyst with what it is doing, not why its doing it. And even on the left side of the dialogue wheel, Shepard never challenges its motives but its methods.

 

"But you are taking away our future, without future, we have no hope, without hope, we might as well be machines, programmed to do what we are told" or

"The defining characteristic of organic life is that we think for ourselves, make our own choices, take that away, we might as well be machines, just like you"

 

Shepard does not argue the flaws in the Catalyst's motives, but its solution. It does not matter whether the Catalyst's motives are right or wrong. the conflict never gets going because its solution is no longer viable.

[Tim van Beek]

ME has a central theme that goes outside its action sci-fi shell, about the decisions that are made that affect the destinies of others and how this can create conflict. 

That statement is so general that we could as well say that ME is about stuff that people do, stuff that happens and how that affects people 

 

Notice how every time someones ignorantly or selfishly alters the destiny of others without thinking of the consequences always meets trouble? 

No, I don't. 

 

That's the Catalyst. 

The Catalyst is neither ignorant nor selfish and also does not meet any trouble, except perhaps its suicide at the end after a billion years of peaceful existence  .

 

 

Shepard has to make a decision that alters the fate of others as well, but he doesn't choose ignorantly or selfishly, and even will sacrifice himself to achieve his goal. THATS the parable of Mass Effect.

How is that a parable? What is the symbolic meaning behind the literal one?

 

 

 

You are so hung up on one quote that you cannot see the big picture. the Reapers are only part of the big picture.

What quote? What makes you think that I am missing parts of the bigger picture that are not Reapers? Which parts?

 

 

And really, the motive of the Catalyst doesn't even matter. That's why Shepard never argues it and in two of the three ending choices, its irrelevant.

If it is irrelevant in only two of three ending choices, I wouldn't call it irrelevant. Which ones and how is it irrelevant or relevant? 

Credits to the ME writers to end the triology with a dialogue which is there only for the players to recognize as irrelevant  .

 

 

Really, ending bashers miss what the actual conflict in the end was about. It wasn;t about organics vs synthetics.

Yeah, on that second sentence, we can agree  . Obviously Casey Hudson would strongly disagree (and has, quite explicitly), but what do artists know about the meaning of their own work, right?

 

P.S.: Please, I don't want to earn the "basher" label, I hope I don't.

[angol fear]

@TIM, Mass Effect is post modernist, you agree or not, it doesn't matter. But the way I explained is actually a good way to see if someone know what we are talking about or not. With the "intertext" definition I gave, people who don't know what is post-modernism say that it doesn't work, they think that I'm talking about influence. Only people who know what post modernism is can understand what I'm talking about. Anyway, you're trying to discuss something you obviously don't know, that's not wise. Post modernism is an aesthetic using pre existing forms. Tarantino is post modern, Edgar Wright is post modern. In Music when Toru Takemitsu uses quotation from debussy's "La mer" he is post modernist. When you play Mass Effect you clearly see the reference, it's not hidden, it's shown. Post modernism uses and plays with the codes, and Mass Effect did it. It creates a new context where the tone can change, it can give the feeling of a deconstruction because of the structure. Mass Effect did that. When I say that the intertext is the text in post modernism, it's quite clear : it means that jsut like in Mass Effect you see where the references come from, every piece of post modernism is based on pre existing form and it shows clearly to the reader the new and the old form at the same time. That's why post modernism can be popular, but at the same time it's not really well known (it actually require a lot of knowledge, it's intellectually funny).

[angol fear]

@Likenski, let's see. You use a dictionnary definition. So this definition is : 

"The quality or state of cohering, especially a logical, orderly, and aesthetically consistent relationship of parts."   .

 

Then I'd like to know where is the "it has to make sense" you are actually defending :

"One of my favorite on-point quotes from it: "The problem the Catalyst is decribing, doesn't even happen... it's false" -- my comment to this would be that realistically we can't say that synthetics will never destroy all organics but we can't say that in no matter what instance all synthetics will always destroy all organics in every case, either."

 

Here you are not talking about coherence. You use a right definition, but honestly you never use it. The "making sense" isn't coherence. Maybe, you are talking about credibilty for you but no you're not talking about coherence.

 

"Another one: "Don't let us play psychiatrist to an insane AI, only to not let us play psychiatrist to an insane AI" - speaks sort of for itself. If the idea behind this ending is that the Catalyst is describing a problem that it in itself is responsible for while not knowing it because it's synthetic and doesn't have the same empathic features as organics, but wrongly thinking that organics creating synthetics are the problem, then why the hell do we still accept his argument and stil end up with these 3 choices (from a writing POV)?"

 

Again you're not talking about coherence. You're talking about credibility for you. That's not the same thing.

 

Seriously if you want to talk about coherence, don't forget what it is. If you want another way to understand coherence, I'd say that it's how the form and the content are glued together. It means that you have to understand through the writing how the internal logic works (intentions, aesthetic, codes used, etc...). It's not about how you want it to be. that's why I asked you to define the word "coherence" : a definition from a dictionnary and how you understand it are two different things.

 

PS : I'll use an example to show you the difference between credibility and coherence : Chris Marker's La Jetée. I the end of the film, mankind from the futur decide to save mankind from the past. If we try to be logical, then it doesn't work : how can the futur can save the past? It's always the past that save the futur because if the past doesn't exist there's no futur. But actually the film is very coherent because it was done to break with the logic, to break with the illusions created by the cinema, it was done to break with the traditionnal narration. From an internal logic point of view, from a coherence point of view it works perfectly.

[txgoldrush]

a) That statement is so general that we could as well say that ME is about stuff that people do, stuff that happens and how that affects people 

No, I don't. 

b ) The Catalyst is neither ignorant nor selfish and also does not meet any trouble, except perhaps its suicide at the end after a billion years of peaceful existence  .

 

c) How is that a parable? What is the symbolic meaning behind the literal one?

d) What quote? What makes you think that I am missing parts of the bigger picture that are not Reapers? Which parts?

e) If it is irrelevant in only two of three ending choices, I wouldn't call it irrelevant. Which ones and how is it irrelevant or relevant? 

Credits to the ME writers to end the triology with a dialogue which is there only for the players to recognize as irrelevant  .

f) Yeah, on that second sentence, we can agree  . Obviously Casey Hudson would strongly disagree (and has, quite explicitly), but what do artists know about the meaning of their own work, right?

 

P.S.: Please, I don't want to earn the "basher" label, I hope I don't.

a) Well then the theme is more general than. The series is called Mass Effect. These two words have more to it than just its science concept.

b ) The Catalyst states that "clearly, organics are more resourceful than we realized". That only comes from ignorance. Ever thought that its solution ended because he failed to grasp the organics will to fight and end the cycle? He was defeated for a reason.

c) It IS kind of is a parable or a moral lesson. Those who are ignorant about how their choices impact others face conflict or ruin. This happens all series long.

d) "We fight or we die". There are many other quotes that are fitting to the game's ending. You were hung up on that one, thinking it alone defined the game.

e) But it is irrelevant, unless you pick Synthesis, basically agreeing with the Catalyst's motives. But Bioware did not let you argue its motives because thats not where they wanted Shepards conflict with it to be. The conflict is with the cycle, which makes whether its motives are wrong or right irrelevant overall.

f) Casey Hudson actually said ME3 is about "victory through sacrifice". The ending fits that theme.

[Tim van Beek]

@TIM, Mass Effect is post modernist, you agree or not, it doesn't matter. But the way I explained is actually a good way to see if someone know what we are talking about or not. With the "intertext" definition I gave, people who don't know what is post-modernism say that it doesn't work, they think that I'm talking about influence. Only people who know what post modernism is can understand what I'm talking about. Anyway, you're trying to discuss something you obviously don't know, that's not wise. Post modernism is an aesthetic using pre existing forms. Tarantino is post modern, Edgar Wright is post modern. In Music when Toru Takemitsu uses quotation from debussy's "La mer" he is post modernist. When you play Mass Effect you clearly see the reference, it's not hidden, it's shown. Post modernism uses and plays with the codes, and Mass Effect did it. It creates a new context where the tone can change, it can give the feeling of a deconstruction because of the structure. Mass Effect did that. When I say that the intertext is the text in post modernism, it's quite clear : it means that jsut like in Mass Effect you see where the references come from, every piece of post modernism is based on pre existing form and it shows clearly to the reader the new and the old form at the same time. That's why post modernism can be popular, but at the same time it's not really well known (it actually require a lot of knowledge, it's intellectually funny).

Please user lower case letters (Tim), I'm not TIM nor would I like to be  .

Thanks for the somewhat more precise definition of postmodern, with examples. I notice that your definition is much more narrow than the usual one (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia...dern_literature ) but that is okay. You also use your own definition as a Shibboleth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth) to find out who shares your understanding, that's kinda fascinating .

 

Now that you know that I don't understand postmodernism as you do, would you like to explain it to me? And where you find it in the ME series?  I'll need more than "it is obvious to the initiated" to be able to follow you, however.