3587 réponses à ce sujet

[Natureguy85]

Just have it the same as when Shepard is talking with Leviathan. Shepard did call Ann by name when Leviathan stood in front of him/her

 

Exactly. Maybe Bioware actually learned something between the two releases.

[MrFob]

I can't imagine it was that arbitrary. In the artbook, the devs explain that the kid was specifically designed to be the embodiment if Shepard's despair, due to the atrocities, committed by the reapers that s/he can do nothing about for a long time. That's why he shows up in the dreams as well. Let's put aside for a minute that using a character you just introduced and who has about 2 and a half lines of dialogue is completely inappropriate to represent such a huge and apparently important concept (especially when you have better choices that were built up from as far back as ME1).

Given this background, it is clear that the writers had a concept in mind when they gave the AI the form of the kid. Whether that was to say something about Shepard (i.e. to emphasize that he needs to find a solution here and now) or about the reapers (as they want to manipulate/indoctrinate Shep), who knows. The problem is that they completely failed to communicate their intentions with this imagery to the audience. Even if it were an impersonation of someone that Shep/the player would actually care about and even if Shepard would acknowladge the weirdness of this form, it would not make the reason behind this appearance any more clear. There is no context to it and there are too many possible interpretations of the idea that the AI appears in a form that is known to Shep, that this cannot be anything else than just vague.

 

Like with a,lot of the different aspects of the ending, you get the impression that the author(s) had some high level intentions and ideas (that were probably even not that bad) but couldn't be bothered to properly implement them into the medium they were using.

 

It's a shame video games are not like movies, which usually get novelizations that are released with the movie. It would have been super interesting to read a novelized version of the ending, written by the same writers. It would have been great to read what they thought was going on in Shepard's mind during that dialogue or even better to have a 3rd person omniscient narrative perspective.

 

EDIT: forgot a "not" there, which rendered the first sentence of the last paragraph nonsensical. When will I ever learn to proof read my posts?

[fraggle]

That might work if it took the form of your LI or maybe Ashley/Kaidan who died on Virmire. If not them, someone else who died that may have been close to Shepard. The kid is only seen for a few moments at the beginning of the game. I had no attachment to him.

 

Me neither and I certainly don't like most kids in video games, however I think that sometimes things just happen. We cannot control what affects us, so if that kid affected Shepard, so be it. I don't have a problem with that to be honest. I as the player didn't feel anything for that kid, but Shepard did because the devs wanted it to be the trigger.

 

It's a shame video games are like movies, which usually get a novelization that is released with the movie. It would have been super interesting to read a novelized version of the ending, written by the same writers. It would have been great to read what they thought was going on in Shepard's mind during that dialogue or even better to have a 3rd person omniscient narrative perspective.

 

Such a great idea, I'd also love to read that. Shepard must have some thoughts on the Catalyst's form.

 

And about the rest of your post, I agree. Well, I think you know I'm all for interpretation, and for me I feel like the Catalyst wants to play around with Shepard's emotional state about the kid, but seeing it seems to be no big deal for Shepard that the kid is right in front of him/her, I wish they would've brought up at least some acknowledgement about the Catalyst's appearance.

 

I'm curious if there was also some dialogue cut there. Didn't Casey want to keep dialogue a bit shorter during the end, or was that just the Anderson conversation?

[MrFob]

I'm curious if there was also some dialogue cut there. Didn't Casey want to keep dialogue a bit shorter during the end, or was that just the Anderson conversation?

 

Yes but in his "final hours" interview, Mac only mentions cuts about stuff that concerned the origin of the reapers and such (a lot of which was added later with the EC and Leviathan). AFAIK, we never heard anything about the kid-issue. That said, of course there might have been dialogue cut that no one ever talked about.

[ImaginaryMatter]

You could be right but that would be the epitome of laziness. We notice and poke fun at the reuse of character models for generic NPCs but it's really not a big deal because they don't really matter. Here, however, the entire ending scene is centered on the Catalyst and he looks like a person we've seen several times. It wasn't obviously different people using a shared model, it has been the same person in the intro and all the dreams. Due to this repetition, we're waiting for some sort of payoff relating to this kid. You can't just reuse that model in an obvious way.

 

Oh, I agree it's lazy. I just think that's the reason why it's wearing a space hoodie; because the development was rushed at the end, versus any kind of plot reason. The thing about the precedent was just to say that this kind of thing isn't rare. It never even occurred to me that the Catalyst could be taking on the kids form until I started reading about IT.

 

What about the Catalyst taking on this form to build up trust? Maybe it wants Shepard to believe it so badly that it takes on this "innocent" shape. This could be especially relevant if Synthesis is available, as it wants to talk Shepard into choosing this option.

 

I agree though that it's weird Shepard doesn't react at all to it. They really should've done something there. Maybe the blast made him/her forget about that damn kid

 

I think that the problem with that, is if the Catalyst spent the time scanning Shepard's to find a trustworthy figure why would it bother with the shimmery affect and voice distortion? Does the Catalyst have super advanced mind reading technology but not up-to-date hologram projectors? Was it trying to be sublte about? Maybe. But it would be another layer of unexplained weirdness.

[fraggle]

I think that the problem with that, is if the Catalyst spent the time scanning Shepard's to find a trustworthy figure why would it bother with the shimmery affect and voice distortion? Does the Catalyst have super advanced mind reading technology but not up-to-date hologram projectors? Was it trying to be sublte about? Maybe. But it would be another layer of unexplained weirdness.

 

Maybe some sort of different design choice to make it stand out more? To make it more mysterious? I don't know obviously. But the devs must've had something in mind with this representation choice. Or well, maybe they just thought it was a cool idea to use multiple voices

[Dantriges]

So the players know the character is a different one than the dead kid or dream kid? And the hologram is because every AI had one. Quite neat but the problem is, how does the Catalyst know. Symbolism is nice and dandy but unles the game is set up that way, players are rather in a problem solving mode. the devs wanted to introduce Shep´s despair, the gplayers thought it could be a clue. Oh the AI has mindreadingpowers?

[dorktainian]

Smudboys analysis of the ending as a literal ending is pretty acurate.

[MrFob]

Oh, I agree it's lazy. I just think that's the reason why it's wearing a space hoodie; because the development was rushed at the end, versus any kind of plot reason. The thing about the precedent was just to say that this kind of thing isn't rare. It never even occurred to me that the Catalyst could be taking on the kids form until I started reading about IT.

 

I actually wonder why people always say that the ending was rushed. AFAIK, there is no indication that it was rushed. The original leaked script, which is not that different from the actual ending was in our hands almost half a year before the game was released. They may have had to change some dialogue but all the general assets (including the AI) were  nailed down at that point, giving the design team months to come up with something. The game itself was pushed back by 3 months, giving the devs more time. The final hours documentary doesn't mention anything beyond the usual crunch time either, on the contrary, I rather get the impression that there was lot's of conceptualizing and background discussion going on (unfortunately apparently mainly between Casey and Mac and no one else).

 

After the backlash, they defended their ending with tooth and nail. It looks like they were really convinced by what they released. If it were just a rushed piece of crap that they had to push out the door, you'd think somebody would have used that excuse (which would have probably found a lot of acceptance with the disgruntled fans, after all it wouldn't be the first time something like this happened). They would also have had enough time later in the EC but they chose not to change too much about the catalyst dialogue there either.

 

Also, the decision chamber - just from a design and visual perspective - is one of the most intricate environments in the game (if you look at the files and look how much scripting is required to just make those reapers and destroyers in the background work properly, you'd be amazed). It doesn't look like something that someone just half-arsed into the game at the last minute.

 

There are some small aspects to the original cut where I'd say, yes, maybe they had to make some compromises and cut something but that's no more obvious to me in the ending than in the rest of the game and  it certainly doesn't involve the concept of it at all. Yes, they also cut dialogue from the catalyst conversation but according to Mac, that was also more of a deliberate decision to "improve the scene" rather than a time issue (apparently him and Casey even argued about it in several meetings for a while).

 

Because of all these indications, I'd say it's much more likely that the ending was deliberately crafted the way we saw it (which, if you will, makes it's failures even worse). This would also include the kid, for which - as I said earlier - they did have a very specific intention set up throughout the game. Whatever they tried to do, it just didn't work but I don't think it was due to a lack of time or due to laziness on their part.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I actually wonder why people always say that the ending was rushed. AFAIK, there is no indication that it was rushed. The original leaked script, which is not that different from the actual ending was in our hands almost half a year before the game was released. They may have had to change some dialogue but all the general assets (including the AI) were  nailed down at that point, giving the design team months to come up with something. The game itself was pushed back by 3 months, giving the devs more time. The final hours documentary doesn't mention anything beyond the usual crunch time either, on the contrary, I rather get the impression that there was lot's of conceptualizing and background discussion going on (unfortunately apparently mainly between Casey and Mac and no one else).

 

After the backlash, they defended their ending with tooth and nail. It looks like they were really convinced by what they released. If it were just a rushed piece of crap that they had to push out the door, you'd think somebody would have used that excuse (which would have probably found a lot of acceptance with the disgruntled fans, after all it wouldn't be the first time something like this happened). They would also have had enough time later in the EC but they chose not to change too much about the catalyst dialogue there either.

 

Also, the decision chamber - just from a design and visual perspective - is one of the most intricate environments in the game (if you look at the files and look how much scripting is required to just make those reapers and destroyers in the background work properly, you'd be amazed). It doesn't look like something that someone just half-arsed into the game at the last minute.

 

There are some small aspects to the original cut where I'd say, yes, maybe they had to make some compromises and cut something but that's no more obvious to me in the ending than in the rest of the game and  it certainly doesn't involve the concept of it all. Yes, they also cut dialogue from the catalyst conversation but according to Mac, that was also more of a deliberate decision to "improve the scene" rather than a time issue (apparently him and Casey even argued about it in several meetings for a while).

 

Because of all these indications, I'd say it's much more likely that the ending was deliberately crafted the way we saw it (which, if you will, makes it's failures even worse). This would also include the kid, for which -as I said earlier - they did have a very specific intention set up throughout the game. Whatever they tried to do, it just didn't work but I don't think it was due to a lack of time or due to laziness on their part.

 

It's not so much the ending ending, but rather the rest of Priority: Earth. Things are floating off the ground, animations are a little wonky (then again we see this in the beginning too, so who knows), inclusions like the turret portion seem like they were never play tested, line readings like Steve's death/not-death (everyone's "ARRRRRGGGHHHHHSSSS"), etc. They all seem like really rough corners that would be the first things to be removed. The rest of the mission is just so pedestrian. It plays out like every other mission, just with more enemy dudes.

 

I guess I never really noticed the Reapers in the background, what usually caught my attention was Shepard's facial reaction.

[StarcloudSWG]

What they *tried* to do was stuff at least a year's worth of philosophical discussions and rationales on 'what is the nature of life? What is life? How do you preserve it? What's the nature of personality, does the body matter to the nature of a sapient being?' etc etc etc into one five-ten minute conversation all the way at the end of the game.

 

Instead of doing it throughout the games, like Deus Ex series did, they shoved the entire thing into an emotionally disruptive, unsatisfying, and manipulative piece at the very end of the game, *after* the natural end occurred. (The conversation between Shepard and Anderson.)

 

That's why it fails so badly. It doesn't belong where it is.

[angol fear]

All that question are supposed to be the ones the player asked to himself when he was making choices about the genophage, when he decided in the Normandy which side was right about when do we call something living, etc... All those questions were here during the trilogy,while they were not asked directly, and mass effect 3 obliged the player to take side. The ending only revealed how deep the player was thinking during the trilogy.

[Natureguy85]

The problem is that those questions were side stories to the main Reaper plot. The Reapers had nothing to do with any of that until they suddenly did at the end. Thus, it felt completely tacked on.

[KrrKs]

Imo, the ending choices were not even presented as philosophy/ moral questions. Especially pre EC, it basically was "You have options a, b, and c -now choose" without any further context. Pre EC Shepard couldn't even ask questions or point out some of the obvious ethical problems with each of these choices (-not to mention the technical ones).

 

I also don't see that the ending choices somehow reflect prior choices in a meaningful/ fitting way. In contrary (apart from 'kill everything -> destroy') they are basically the counter-points to the prior choices and statements, leaving no viable option for more 'paragon' Shepards.

Most ME trilogy choices come down to 'take chances, let something live'¹, often with a strong subtext of 'don't interfere with the natural order of things²' vs. 'don't take chances, kill it with fire!' (coloured in their usual paragon, renegade colours). We were also always told that 'control is bad!'³

 

If you try to play a consistent Shepard (Or even be consistent to your own decisions) and don't want to use the destroy options, the other 2 ones seem not to contradict the 'live and let live' statement. But they do violate the other two stances that almost always come with them!

Synthesis option also goes completely against the series usual ethic that diversity is actually a good thing.

 

[1]

Spoiler

ME1: Shiala

ME1+3: Rachni

ME1: BDTS Balak

ME1: Council

ME2: Mordins recruitment mission -Batarians

ME2: Zaeed's LM

ME2: Jack's LM, w.r.t. that other Facility survivor

ME2: Grunt + Legion waking choices.

ME2: Mordin genophage dialogue

ME2: Legion's LM

ME3: Krogan

ME3: Citadel sidequest with Officer Noles and the Batarian Codes.

ME3: Geth& Quarian arc.

+Whatever I forgot

 

[2]

Spoiler

ME1: Rachni - rewind the 'unnatural' extinction of that species

ME1: Council - leave the original galactic order intact

ME2: Mordin's genophage dialogue

ME3: Genophage arc again, undo the artificial modification

ME3: Geth/Quarian (-sort of) don't interfere with the (unnatural) progression of the Geth.

I'm sure I forgot several instances here

 

[3]

Spoiler

ME1: Basically each and every Cerberus Mission, maybe apart from "Hades' Dogs" and the Corporal Toombs one.

ME1: Rachni and Thorian creepers. -> 'You can't control those'

ME1: Letting the Council die -> 'Taking control is evil!' sortof statement at the end.

ME2: Miranda('s dad). 'Control is evil'

ME2: Legions LM -> Here control is actually the 'good' paragon alternative to destroy! Anomaly

ME2: Overlord DLC

ME2: Collector Base decision.

ME3: Udina trying to take over and control the council/Citadel

ME3: TIM trying to control husks, his Troops, all Reapers

Again, those are only the instances I remember right now.

[angol fear]

Some will understand and some won't understand or will refuse to understand why I post this :

 

1. a letter from Roland Barthes to Philippe Sollers :

 

http://www.pileface....php?article1658

 

"vous avez un don extraordinaire d’exploita­tion et de radicalisation symbolique, une façon de reprendre en allant plus loin qui même dans l’ancien système (genre Quinzaine) devrait être la définition rare du critique."

 

which can be (awkwardly) translated :

 

You are extraordinary gifted for exploitation and symbolic radicalisation, a way to take (the text) but to go further which, even in the old system (like Quinzaine), should be the rare definition of the critic.

 

 

2. An article about contemporary literature :

 

http://www.fabula.or...estion_critique

 

Il ne s'agit pas seulement de signaler ni d'évaluer une oeuvre, mais de montrer comment elle s'insère dans un ensemble de questions qui lui sont - ou non - contemporaines, comment elle est conçue, par quel travail d'écriture sont obtenus les effets auxquels elle prétend, etc.

 

Awkward translation :

 

(The criticism) isn't only about evaluation of a piece, it's about showing how it's part of question that are - or not - contemporary, how they are made, how the writing creates the effects/impact wanted

 

la recherche elle-même se confronte aux interrogations qui guident les écrivains dans leur entreprise.

 

The research itself is confronted with the questions that guide the writers in their process.

[oddball_bg]

What they *tried* to do was stuff at least a year's worth of philosophical discussions and rationales on 'what is the nature of life? What is life? How do you preserve it? What's the nature of personality, does the body matter to the nature of a sapient being?' etc etc etc into one five-ten minute conversation all the way at the end of the game.

 

Instead of doing it throughout the games, like Deus Ex series did, they shoved the entire thing into an emotionally disruptive, unsatisfying, and manipulative piece at the very end of the game, *after* the natural end occurred. (The conversation between Shepard and Anderson.)

 

That's why it fails so badly. It doesn't belong where it is.

"*after* the natural end occurred. (The conversation between Shepard and Anderson.)"

 

What makes this the "natural end"???!!!I guess because they are sitting bruised and are looking tired at the falling earth or something?I guess if you only watch Hollywood movies this can pass for a "natural end"!

[StarcloudSWG]

What makes this the 'natural end' is that this is the epilogue to the climax of the game, that is, the rush to the beam and the final confrontation with the Illusive Man.

 

The story has entered the final phase of falling action and resolution.

 

The sudden intrusion of Hackett directing Shepard to do 'one more thing' and the confrontation with the Catalyst does not belong *after* the Anderson conversation. It belongs *before* the Anderson conversation.

 

Do some research into successful story structures. Focus on the concepts of catharsis.

[themikefest]

How does that "natural" ending work if the player lets TIM shoot Anderson?

[rossler]

The conversation between Shepard and Anderson isn't the resolution. The resolution is about 10 minutes later when you destroy, control, or merge with the Reapers

[ImaginaryMatter]

"*after* the natural end occurred. (The conversation between Shepard and Anderson.)"

 

What makes this the "natural end"???!!!I guess because they are sitting bruised and are looking tired at the falling earth or something?I guess if you only watch Hollywood movies this can pass for a "natural end"!

 

The Hollywood cliche thing is a little... well, cliche, isn't it? It's not even relevant here. He makes some points and instead of arguing them or asking for clarifications you go straight for an insult(?).

 

Besides haven't you seen the trailer for this game? ME has been "Hollywood" for a while.

[Natureguy85]

"*after* the natural end occurred. (The conversation between Shepard and Anderson.)"

 

What makes this the "natural end"???!!!I guess because they are sitting bruised and are looking tired at the falling earth or something?I guess if you only watch Hollywood movies this can pass for a "natural end"!

 

As opposed to homemade movies? What is your point? That scene worked as the end because of the emotional release. All they had to do was have the Crucible fire up and destroy the Reapers. That would have been rather abrupt, but the Crucible was a Deus ex Machina thing anyway.

[dorktainian]

The conversation between Shepard and Anderson isn't the resolution. The resolution is about 10 minutes later when you destroy, control, or merge with the Reapers

I disagree.  Shep never gets to the Citadel because... Harbies beam and stuff.  Nobody makes it to the beam alive, and the game goes to great lengths to show you as much. The payoff is when Shep takes his breath.  Everything inbetween can only be in his mind.  

 

Shep never made it to the Citadel, neither did Anderson, and neither did TIM (well certainly not in the way shown).

[Natureguy85]

I disagree.  Shep never gets to the Citadel because... Harbies beam and stuff.  Nobody makes it to the beam alive, and the game goes to great lengths to show you as much. The payoff is when Shep takes his breath.  Everything inbetween can only be in his mind.  

 

Shep never made it to the Citadel, neither did Anderson, and neither did TIM (well certainly not in the way shown).

 

No. Everything indicates that it all does happen. The only reason to believe it doesn't is that it doesn't make a lot of sense, but that's because of bad writing, not because it means something else. If Shepard never makes it to the Citadel the story not over because Shepard is laying on the ground and the war is still ongoing. Also, why would we only see Shepard breath in high EMS? (Not that the last question can't be asked of a literal view, but I do have an answer.)

[angol fear]

Trailer and game are not the same thing ! They are not made by the same people and don't have the same purpose.
Mass effect has been using the hollywood codes since the first game and since the first game it started to create a distance in the subtext with these codes. Mass effect has always been a post modernist piece which means that it never followed blindly the Hollywood codes. So saying that Mass Effect has been "hollywood" for a while is just a way to reduce the game to a very basic reading which has never been the authors intentions.

[Natureguy85]

Mass effect has been using the hollywood codes since the first game and since the first game it started to create a distance in the subtext with these codes. Mass effect has always been a post modernist piece which means that it never followed blindly the Hollywood codes. So saying that Mass Effect has been "hollywood" for a while is just a way to reduce the game to a very basic reading which has never been the authors intentions.

 

I think the intro to ME2, and the entire game really, suggest otherwise.They killed Shepard "because drama" and then did not even attempt to address any deep or philosophical implications. They just gave you a new ship and crew and told you to go forth and shoot things. The deepest things got was Mordin's loyalty mission, and that was awesome other than the silly "humans most diverse" thing.