1106 réponses à ce sujet

[Natureguy85]

I've never understood why the IT believers don't play this card.

 

Because they insist that IT is the real, literal interpretation of the events on the screen and intended by the creators, as opposed to a different way to interpret events.

[Deathjester929]

What I want the end to be? Simple. 

 

A smaller story in a much larger story. Give us a threat, give us a REAL villain or villains, who is clever, manipulative, give me some plot twists along the way and give us a victory over that threat. Have companions turn on me, have some take the others side. Give me some heartbreak. 

 

Why it works? Because we can relate to that. We cannot relate to being Space Jesus and changing the nature of the universe...

 

Not every threat has to be universe shattering as far as changing everything. The most recent Bioware story I liked the most? When I played as a Sith Agent in a smaller story in a larger scope. I wish this was a standalone game and more fleshed out. I had an absolute blast playing it.

 

I have not been that engrossed in a Bioware story in a long time, and that was a story inside a MMO, which should never exceed a non MMO RPG. 

[Applepie_Svk]

Because they insist that IT is the real, literal interpretation of the events on the screen and intended by the creators, as opposed to a different way to interpret events.

 

For some reason I believe that there is much more to it, than just literal VS IT, I think that they tried to copy something from Matrix. It was pointed out little bit with geth consensus mission and Legion´s description of Reaper code. It seems to me that last 30 minutes of games are meant to be in some sort of virtual reality in which you are supposed to choose one of the new solutions of which Catalyst knew about more than he admited. The thing about ending is that choices are build on the Citadel and Crucible is not explained at all, which begs a question about its origin.  I don´t think that Crucible´s origin was actually of some random species, but either way Catalyst´s or Leviathan. And well ending slides of Control and Synthesis, how in the hell would you know if you were already uploaded into the virtual world what is and what isn´t real...

[Sartoz]

                                                                                                 <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

A Per Se viewpoint

 

1. The Lead Writer looks first at where the Starting Point should be and where the ending completes this story phase.

2. Also, the Lead knows or ought to know that changes between the Start and End will occur. Perhaps to minimize these traumatic occurences:

3. The Lead will start from the known ending and work backwards, identifying key points in the story that leads to the end or ACTS (if another trilogy).

 

Having said this, it is hoped that there will be no galaxy/cluster wise catastrophy but rather the "adventure" of a humble individual tasked to follow the path of becoming a hero and fighting/exploring/clawing to become one. Romance should be meaningful but just a side quest, non the less.

 

Personally, I believe that the game should have two or three different but mainlike branching paths that lead to different endings.... perhaps as follows:

 

1. Humanity found a firm foothold in the Cluster

2. Humanity found a perilous foothold with a weak economic status in the Cluster

3. Humanity found a foothold but their main enemy remains a powerful force.

4. Humanity + Allies defeat the main threat but survived in a very weakend state.  Other enemies are circling.

 

Endings 2-4 sets up for a ME:A II.

[straykat]

                                                                                                 <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

A Per Se viewpoint

 

1. The Lead Writer looks first at where the Starting Point should be and where the ending completes this story phase.

2. Also, the Lead knows or ought to know that changes between the Start and End will occur. Perhaps to minimize these traumatic occurences:

3. The Lead will start from the known ending and work backwards, identifying key points in the story that leads to the end or ACTS (if another trilogy).

 

Having said this, it is hoped that there will be no galaxy/cluster wise catastrophy but rather the "adventure" of a humble individual tasked to follow the path of becoming a hero and fighting/exploring/clawing to become one. Romance should be meaningful but just a side quest, non the less.

 

Personally, I believe that the game should have two or three different but mainlike branching paths that lead to different endings.... perhaps as follows:

 

1. Humanity found a firm foothold in the Cluster

2. Humanity found a perilous foothold with a weak economic status in the Cluster

3. Humanity found a foothold but their main enemy remains a powerful force.

4. Humanity + Allies defeat the main threat but survived in a very weakend state.  Other enemies are circling.

 

Endings 2-4 sets up for a ME:A II.

 

WHO is the lead anyways? That matters to me more than anything.

[ObserverStatus]

I think that if ME6's ending gets leaked, BioWare should just stick with it and let the people who sought it out suffer for doing so, rather than contrive a worse one.

[Sartoz]

WHO is the lead anyways? That matters to me more than anything.

                                                                                                    <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

Good question.

[AlanC9]

I think that if ME6's ending gets leaked, BioWare should just stick with it and let the people who sought it out suffer for doing so, rather than contrive a worse one.

Wait... people still think that the leak caused Bio to change the ending?

[AlanC9]

And well ending slides of Control and Synthesis, how in the hell would you know if you were already uploaded into the virtual world what is and what isn´t real...

Shepard doesn't exist anymore in Synthesis, so she isn't watching those slides. I suppose Control could be a deluded Sheplyst. But Destroy could be a deluded Shepard too.

[prosthetic soul]

This comment is from awhile ago, but I recently had cause to go back to this article and found it appropriate. It discusses how an interpretation isn't invalid just because the author didn't intend it.  Don't let the IT people know!

 

http://awtr.ca/long:this-is-not-a-pipe

Mother of God.  That link is.....beautiful.  I am officially posting that in response to every mouth breather who thinks the ME 3 endings are "Good"

[AlanC9]

Well, it's interesting, anyway. I wish the author had sourced "The creators have stated that Mass Effect is about synthetics vs. organics." All I've ever seen from them is that the Reapers were motivated by that conflict. One might as well say that WW2 was about the Jewish/Bolshevik conspiracy to hold down the Aryans.

I can see how it'd be sad to end up in the author's group 4, but I don't see how you get yourself there without being just a little dumb. The time to decide what you think the theme of a work was is after you've actually finished it. Anyway, I'm not actually certain that Bio ever intends an overall "theme" for their works in the first place; we've had leaked scripts and outlines from them where individual scenes have themes but the overall gamse do not, or if they do nobody wrote the themes down in the outline.

The "Downer" discussion is a bit incoherent, too, even if we grant the premise that Shepard can't survive the ending. For exactly which Shepards is the "Shepard dying" outcome appropriate? (Edit: I mean, in his thinking; I don't think it's a sensible question in the first place.) Talking about how the "idea that the players would want to defeat the Reapers, reunite with their love interest and live happily-ever-after was not foreign to the writers: Commander Shepard has several dialogue options where the player can say that they want to do just that" is just silly -- what percentage of Shepards wouldn't want that? This can't have anything to do with when such an outcome would be "appropriate."

He's on his strongest ground with the "Structurally wrong" section, although it relies too much on equating values and methods. His mother's right about Batman -- as Batman finally comes to realize in The Dark Knight Returns.

Then again, this is someone who found the Epic Fail ending to be uplifting.

[wolfhowwl]

Well, it's interesting, anyway. I wish the author had sourced "The creators have stated that Mass Effect is about synthetics vs. organics." All I've ever seen from them is that the Reapers were motivated by that conflict. One might as well say that WW2 was about the Jewish/Bolshevik conspiracy to hold down the Aryans.

 

In the 2007 ME1 artbook there is a caption on the Geth page that says as Mass Effect's underlying theme of organics vs. machines emerged the Geth were rewritten as a "synthetic lifeform."

[angol fear]

This comment is from awhile ago, but I recently had cause to go back to this article and found it appropriate. It discusses how an interpretation isn't invalid just because the author didn't intend it.  Don't let the IT people know!

 

http://awtr.ca/long:this-is-not-a-pipe

 

Just the beginning of this article : can we apply what he says about art on music, danse, architecture etc...? "The subject is the real thing", so how can we apply it on these arts? So now that you have used that article, you have to explain that point of view. I think you will quickly see the problem, and it's just the beginning of the article.  

[Dean_the_Young]

Mother of God.  That link is.....beautiful.  I am officially posting that in response to every mouth breather who thinks the ME 3 endings are "Good"

 

People who exercise?

 

Well, I suppose there's something to be said for a healthy body, a healthy mind...

[AlanC9]

In the 2007 ME1 artbook there is a caption on the Geth page that says as Mass Effect's underlying theme of organics vs. machines emerged the Geth were rewritten as a "synthetic lifeform."

Thanks. I was only thinking about ME3-specific stuff.

Of course, if that really was the theme of the series all along, then we should hardly be surprised that it comes back in ME3.

[Iakus]

In the 2007 ME1 artbook there is a caption on the Geth page that says as Mass Effect's underlying theme of organics vs. machines emerged the Geth were rewritten as a "synthetic lifeform."

Where the hell was this "theme" for the bulk of the trilogy?

[Eryri]

The time to decide what you think the theme of a work was is after you've actually finished it.

Can one realistically do that? Is it possible to experience a work and faithfully refrain from trying to analyse it until it's completely finished? Especially in a three part series of long games, each further broken up into a series of smaller arcs and missions, with a year or two in between each release?

Organics vs synthetics may have been a straightforward reading of ME1, but having Legion join up to help us in ME2 very much subverted that. This was progressed even more with EDI's character growth and the optimal conclusion of the Rannoch Arc. I can't really blame the author for thinking that there was supposed to be more to this franchise than "A.I. is a problem."

[Natureguy85]

For some reason I believe that there is much more to it, than just literal VS IT, I think that they tried to copy something from Matrix. It was pointed out little bit with geth consensus mission and Legion´s description of Reaper code. It seems to me that last 30 minutes of games are meant to be in some sort of virtual reality in which you are supposed to choose one of the new solutions of which Catalyst knew about more than he admited. The thing about ending is that choices are build on the Citadel and Crucible is not explained at all, which begs a question about its origin.  I don´t think that Crucible´s origin was actually of some random species, but either way Catalyst´s or Leviathan. And well ending slides of Control and Synthesis, how in the hell would you know if you were already uploaded into the virtual world what is and what isn´t real...

 
They borrowed many ideas from the Matrix. You mention some good ideas that would have worked in the story, but the author's didn't do that.
 
 

Shepard doesn't exist anymore in Synthesis, so she isn't watching those slides. I suppose Control could be a deluded Sheplyst. But Destroy could be a deluded Shepard too.

 
Shepard isn't watching any of the slides. They are there for you, the player.
 
 

Mother of God.  That link is.....beautiful.  I am officially posting that in response to every mouth breather who thinks the ME 3 endings are "Good"

 
Yeah, the author did a good job. If you like that one, check out the others in my signature.
 
 

Well, it's interesting, anyway. I wish the author had sourced "The creators have stated that Mass Effect is about synthetics vs. organics." All I've ever seen from them is that the Reapers were motivated by that conflict. One might as well say that WW2 was about the Jewish/Bolshevik conspiracy to hold down the Aryans.

I can see how it'd be sad to end up in the author's group 4, but I don't see how you get yourself there without being just a little dumb. The time to decide what you think the theme of a work was is after you've actually finished it. Anyway, I'm not actually certain that Bio ever intends an overall "theme" for their works in the first place; we've had leaked scripts and outlines from them where individual scenes have themes but the overall gamse do not, or if they do nobody wrote the themes down in the outline.

The "Downer" discussion is a bit incoherent, too, even if we grant the premise that Shepard can't survive the ending. For exactly which Shepards is the "Shepard dying" outcome appropriate? (Edit: I mean, in his thinking; I don't think it's a sensible question in the first place.) Talking about how the "idea that the players would want to defeat the Reapers, reunite with their love interest and live happily-ever-after was not foreign to the writers: Commander Shepard has several dialogue options where the player can say that they want to do just that" is just silly -- what percentage of Shepards wouldn't want that? This can't have anything to do with when such an outcome would be "appropriate."

He's on his strongest ground with the "Structurally wrong" section, although it relies too much on equating values and methods. His mother's right about Batman -- as Batman finally comes to realize in The Dark Knight Returns.

Then again, this is someone who found the Epic Fail ending to be uplifting.

 
Your first paragraph makes no sense so I'll skip it.
 
It is incorrect to say that you shouldn't try to determine the themes of a work until the end. In fact, it's somewhat critical to do so in order to see if the ending fits. You have to consider if the events of the story point to that ending. Mass Effect 3 fails that test. Bioware may not intend for there to be a greater message for you to take away into your life after you finish the game, but that doesn't mean the story itself didn't have a theme.
 
We are going to grant that premise because that "breath scene" is so empty and meaningless that it may as well not exist. I see what you're saying that every Shepard would want those things, but it could depend on what type of actions Shepard took throughout the series. You could look at it in a Karma sense: A Shepard that built bridges and solved long standing problems would get the uplifting ending, while a Shepard that left a trail of destruction to do what needed to be done would get the more tragic ending. The one problem with that is that it risks P/R breaking down into good/evil, which it was never meant to be.
 
I may not be explaining it well, but I'll point to Metro Last Light.
 
 

Spoiler

Late in the game, the main character, Artyom, is joined by a survivor of a group of creatures that Artyom wiped out. If Artyom is vengeful against his enemies, the creature will leave eventually and Artyom will have to sacrifice his life to stop the villains from taking over a military outpost, spreading a virus, and taking control of the Metro lines.

However, if Artyom shows forgiveness and compassion, the creature will forgive him and bring help to save Artyom and his fellow Rangers.

 
 
 
 

Just the beginning of this article : can we apply what he says about art on music, danse, architecture etc...? "The subject is the real thing", so how can we apply it on these arts? So now that you have used that article, you have to explain that point of view. I think you will quickly see the problem, and it's just the beginning of the article.  

 
Yes, you can. However, I have to start by saying that if you find an exception, it doesn't automatically undercut the central point. You'd have to find either that it was generally not true or show that it wasn't true within the context of Mass Effect.

 

Music and Dance have interesting questions that need to be considered, even if we don't have a solid answer. In the case of music, is Music a Thing*? At what point is a series of tones considered "music" and at what point is a string of movements a "dance"? Are they art because they evoke emotions? Are they art because they have a message behind them or seek to represent something? Obviously, the "what is art?" question is old and will probably go on forever. These are just things to think about.

 

Anyway, music and dance can both be used to represent certain actions, events, or emotions. Other types can do this as well, but symphonic music is often supposed to represent something. A piece may want to evoke, say, a thunderstorm, but it isn't a thunderstorm. We'd hear certain sounds and say "hey, that's lightning" or "that's rain", but those notes are not the things they represent. Additionally, like the picture of the pipe, the notes on the page are not the music itself.

 

As for architecture, it can be designed to look like something too. Even in Mass Effect we see this. It has often been pointed out that the layout of the Council Chamber looks like a Reaper, but it obviously is not a Reaper. Right there, the art is not the thing.

 

I don't see why you think you had some "gotcha" point. The music, the dance, and the building are analogous to the picture, not the pipe.

 

* This is an interesting piece on the Philosophy of Music. I haven't finished it yet because it's long, but I'd recommend reading the intro at least.

 

Where the hell was this "theme" for the bulk of the trilogy?

 

 

It's in the Quarian/Geth arc and some side quests where Shepard, an organic and later cyborg, keeps beating the synthetics.

[Natureguy85]

Can one realistically do that? Is it possible to experience a work and faithfully refrain from trying to analyse it until it's completely finished? Especially in a three part series of long games, each further broken up into a series of smaller arcs and missions, with a year or two in between each release?

Organics vs synthetics may have been a straightforward reading of ME1, but having Legion join up to help us in ME2 very much subverted that. This was progressed even more with EDI's character growth and the optimal conclusion of the Rannoch Arc. I can't really blame the author for thinking that there was supposed to be more to this franchise than "A.I. is a problem."

 

That theme was obliterated when Reapers became cyborgs.

[Lebanese Dude]

I admit I hope BioWare listens to some of your complaints.

 

I can live with whatever they make, cause everything they have made has been golden. *cough* at the end of their patch cycles *cough*

[straykat]

I was just reminded of Frank Herbert in another thread, and he kind of nailed my own problem with things like the Catalyst and Legion.

 

 

 

I think science fiction does help, and it points in very interesting directions. It points in relativistic directions. It says that we have the imagination for these other opportunities, these other choices. We tend to tie ourselves down to limited choices. We say, "Well, the only answer is ..." or, "If you would just ...". Whatever follows these two statements narrows the choices right there. It gets the vision right down close to the ground so that you don't see anything happening outside. Humans tend not to see over a long range. Now we are required, in these generations, to have a longer range view of what we inflict on the world around us. This is where, I think, science fiction is helping.

 

Sci-fi is more often about possibilities and potential (and human potential specifically). But Mass Effect tries to suppress that a bit and closes in on you with one "Answer". BSG and the Matrix did this too....even moreso. They're very preachy.

 

I don't know if it was intentional though. It just comes off that way. To be fair, I remember Casey Hudson said in an interview that he just wanted people to explore these questions (and not answers).

[Lebanese Dude]

I was just reminded of Frank Herbert in another thread, and he kind of nailed my own problem with things like the Catalyst and Legion.

 

 

 

 

Sci-fi is more often about possibilities and potential (and human potential specifically). But Mass Effect tries to suppress that a bit and closes in on you with one "Answer". BSG and the Matrix did this too....even moreso. They're very preachy.

 

I don't know if it was intentional though. It just comes off that way. To be fair, I remember Casey Hudson said in an interview that he just wanted people to explore these questions (and not answers).

 

Nice quote.

 

Well I think that there have to be SOME answers. I don't think it would be fair to expect everything to remain unresolved.

In any case, many things are intentionally left unanswered, much to the chagrin of some people around here. I personally think the mystery adds to the beauty of the piece, but that's just me.

[straykat]

Nice quote.

 

Well I think that there have to be SOME answers. I don't think it would be fair to expect everything to remain unresolved.

In any case, many things are intentionally left unanswered, much to the chagrin of some people around here. I personally think the mystery adds to the beauty of the piece, but that's just me.

 

That's true too. I don't totally believe that either. I just think as far as the "spirit" of sci-fi goes, it's missing the mark. It's easy to have the Catalyst convince people that humans have an "end point" and that they need Reapers to move forward. It shuts down the whole idea of what evolution and imagination are all about.

 

And it was sad for me to see Legion cave into it especially. Because you recruit him in ME2 for the very opposite. He wanted the Geth to build "their own future". The Reapers shut Legion from that.. so his choice becomes Join Reapers or Die. He chose the former. I don't want to do the same with Shepard. That's nothing but tragic, as far as the spirit of science fiction goes.

 

Herbert though is in the extreme and truly doesn't like Answers. Dune the series ended on a completely chaotic note. Which is kind of cool, but more about how he personally thinks about everything... about all leaders, all beliefs.

[Lebanese Dude]

That's true too. I don't totally believe that either. I just think as far as the "spirit" of sci-fi goes, it's missing the mark. It's easy to have the Catalyst convince people that humans have an "end point" and that they need Reapers to move forward. It shuts down the whole idea of what evolution and imagination are all about.

 

And it was sad for me to see Legion cave into it especially. Because you recruit him in ME2 for the very opposite. He wanted the Geth to build "their own future". The Reapers shut Legion from that.. so his choice becomes Join Reapers or Die. He chose the former. I don't want to do the same with Shepard. That's nothing but tragic, as far as the spirit of science fiction goes.

 

Herbert though is in the extreme and truly doesn't like Answers. Dune the series ended on a completely chaotic note.

 

I don't think the Catalyst necessarily convinced anybody.

 

What was provided was a framework on which the player could operate.

 

The very nature of the endings was that they were open ended enough to justify a plethora of potential outcomes, all left to the player.

 

I honestly don't think the game could have ended in any better way than it did, at least on the macroscopic scale.

 

Regarding Legion, I think that particular scenario was meant to pose a question on whether synthetics deserved to live just like the rest of us and whether they are exonerated from "horrible" choices that would normally be deemed acceptable by humanity if it came to their own survival.

 

Would humans let themselves die out for some moral high ground? In fact, that's exactly the same question that the Catalyst imposes upon Shepard.

[Arcian]

Where the hell was this "theme" for the bulk of the trilogy?

On a post-it note, forgotten in a drawer until Casey found it sometime in late 2011.