3573 réponses à ce sujet

[Natureguy85]

Partly. There are simularities, like the jesus, messi kind of guy who sees that force creates counterforce. In real life i heared something about a law enforcer and an anachrist who realized they deny in them selve, everything that is in the other. Like looking in each others mirror. They give purpose to each other.

 

However there are also differences to the Matrix ending. I do know it was disliked a lot too.

 

In real life i listend to an anthroplogicist and mytholigy historian... they claim that 5 to 10.000 years ago a myth (smitherin) was created that was woven in in all the major religion and is something you still see in almost every book and movie. the good guy killing of the "bad". the idea of punishing evil to create good. We where all raised with it. Breaking this pattern, is like questening an subconcious "religion". It gets hated, just like any human is punished for uncovering the projections of others.

 

Lets add some other examples:

- Grand Torino

- Revolver

- anything where "good" and "bad" guys/girls, like each other again without any 3rd party enemy to be destroyed. (very rare, i do not even know one right now. do you have one?)

 

I also like to mention: "The way of the peacfull warrior". A little spoiler: Here instead of undoing an enemy image, there simply is no outside enemy.

the cathasis is done overcoming inner battles, instead of destroying opponents.

 

I do not say that Matrix 3 or Mass Effects 3 Synthesis ending is doing all the things right though. I think a lot more would have been nessecary to not lose the majority of fans during the process (including mostly me). 

 

2. With a 100% clarity, that there was NO indoctrination in the sense of the last part being a FULL DREAM. i meant: Did Bioware made it clear at any point?

 

Gran Torino? That doesn't fit your pattern at all. The bad guys stayed the bad guys. Walt just had an unconventional way of dealing with them.

 

I don't know that Bioware made any explicit statement about the end not being a dream or IT, but I find it clear from the events of the ending.

[Sheridan31]

Gran Torino? That doesn't fit your pattern at all. The bad guys stayed the bad guys. Walt just had an unconventional way of dealing with them.

 

I don't know that Bioware made any explicit statement about the end not being a dream or IT, but I find it clear from the events of the ending.

 

@Torino

It does not have ALL the concepts i am refering to. Neither referenced film does, only parts.

It fits in the way of growing inside and stepping out of focusing on destroying the enemey and instead focus on protecting the child the best way possible. Its also a sacrfice and a way to overcome ego. 

 

In Revolver (little spoiler) the protagonist stops attacking the antagonist. even thought he is not able to do go out of his enemy images.

 

I do not know any movies where BOTH sides agree to forgiving each other. Kind of sad. If anyone knows one, let me know.

 

@Ending clearity

Okay, you do, i don´t. Has Bioware clearified it, does anyone know?

[Natureguy85]

 

I do not know any movies where BOTH sides agree to forgiving each other. Kind of sad. If anyone knows one, let me know.

 

@Ending clearity

Okay, you do, i don´t. Has Bioware clearified it, does anyone know?

 

Well, it's a bad movie but there is the Sandman in Spiderman 3.

 

I just read a post on Shamus Young's Mass Effect Retrospective where someone claims they did clarify it, so I asked for a link.

[Dantriges]

Most importantly, you say Babylon 5 made these ideas a regular part of the show. They weren't tacked on.

 

Yep, it was an important part of a major arc, showed up in season 1 etc. They did the big reveal, "both elder species are big jerks" a lot better and earlier (let´s not talk about the mess with season 5, which turned out mediocre because they had to cram in everything into season 4).

 

A bit different from dropping "essence" into the game and never going any further. It seems to me that different writers had different visions like how indoctrination works. The codex entry reads more like an actively managed process, but often it´s treated as some kind of magic Reaper radiation, emanating from everything vaguely reapery.

[ImaginaryMatter]

A bit different from dropping "essence" into the game and never going any further. It seems to me that different writers had different visions like how indoctrination works. The codex entry reads more like an actively managed process, but often it´s treated as some kind of magic Reaper radiation, emanating from everything vaguely reapery.

 

I think that's a trap people walk in to; using loaded words like 'essence' evokes the sense that something is deep and meaningful. But meaning isn't gained by citing big words, it's by basic busy work of using a story to establish those ideas. ME2 doesn't have that. The closest the game gets is Harbinger's combat taunts. What makes it worse is that whatever mileage the writers get out of the word is immediately undercut by how silly the Human Reaper appearance/fight goes down.

[Iakus]

You people seem to really want Shepard to just destroy the reapers and everything to be ok and just jump on the next game where good conquers evil and everyone is happy!How old are you guys?!

 

Yeah!  Don;t you all know that True Art is Angsty!

 

/sarcasm

[oddball_bg]

I cant speak for everyone it might be that some or many think that (good should destroy evil).

 

I desperatly want an ending that is not good destroys evil but an fairly cooperativly, negotiated peace, where enemy images fall apart. Is that what you wan too?

 

The problems i have with the ending:

- to me its uncrear due to the indoctrinations sightns a) wheather the ending is meant to real (or just a dream or a forced indoctrination).

- while i like the syntheis ending for the reseason of droping enemy images). I do have problem . its not narrativly lead to this. i cannot see (much) decisions where i start to understand the reaper, or where any of my crew empathies and sympathies with them. even edi wants them dead. Then *suddenly* while everyone exspects my shepard to end the reaper i can in the last 5 minutes choose otherwise. id wish to have this "cartharis" happens more often and with choice on my part.

 

To your request to check what carthasis means: To me its clearing inner conflicts, resolving projections, such as viewing the reaper as an enemy. Solving problems by growing yourselve.

 

Does this fit your definition?

Catharsis-entering a new state of mind,consciousness,often after an extremely traumatic(inner or outer,or both) event.Shifting of life philosophy,life goals,dreams.A point beyond which you are literally not the same person anymore(inner and even outer appearance).Purging,cleansing the soul.

 

"I desperatly want an ending that is not good destroys evil but an fairly cooperativly, negotiated peace, where enemy images fall apart. Is that what you wan too?"

Ok,but who is the enemy?Reapers are doing it to preserve,organics are fighting because they don't know reapers reasons,so which is the enemy?It's much more complicated than peace and enemies down,don't you think?And that's what's fascinating for me!

[StarcloudSWG]

Being turned into an organic slurry and then that is used as a template to form metal on, is not 'preserving' a species.

 

No more than killing an eel or a bird or other animal is and then sticking it in a jar of formaldehyde is 'preserving' that species.

 

It's very clear. Reaper's goals are to commit galactic genocide of any species that has spaceflight. At best, they preserve data in archival format while building a giant robotic form to house it in, driven by multiple AI processes based on a bizarre combination of the Catalyst and the Harbinger AI.

[oddball_bg]

Yes and it's the latter but there are many who will imagine it to be the former. The events of the ending are strange and I can't explain every bit of it, but it is not in keeping with the descriptions of Indoctrination.

 

 

 

Nothing has to be revealed necessarily. The conflict just has to be resolved. The goal was to beat the Reapers. We want to beat the Reapers. What's the problem with that? We don't want a brand new antagonist to vomit moronic exposition and philosophy on us at the last minute.

 

How is catharsis being used incorrectly?

 

 

 

Correct, we don't know what the Crucible does until the end, but it doesn't have to be anything fancy.

 

Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 had revelations like that because the story had to grow and expand heading into the next title. Mass Effect's was cool while Mass Effect 2's was stupid. The end of Mass Effect 3 should be wrapping things up. That's not to say there couldn't be some sort of reveal, but the Catalyst scene is too close to the end for that massive a shift in tone and conflict.

 

My idea was based on Mass Effect. It fits with their behavior. Sovereign doesn't say anything that goes against it. Klencory's description is irrelevant. It's a minor thing that isn't part of the main story. It adds to world building but not the plot. As of Mass Effect 1, it sounds like something worth exploring in ME2 because we'd see the Reapers as the "machine devils." As of ME3, apparently the Reapers are actually the "angels."

 

You're right that ME2's plot starts to take things in a different direction. However, the Rannoch Reaper can be proven wrong if peace is achieved. Also, the Catalyst's supposed problem isn't that Organics and Synthetics fight, it's that Synthetics will win and wipe out all organic life which is not true of the Geth.

"We want to beat the Reapers. What's the problem with that? We don't want a brand new antagonist to vomit moronic exposition and philosophy on us at the last minute."

 

You should really speak for yourself.

 

"How is catharsis being used incorrectly?"

 

You still haven't seen what catharsis means,have you?

[Sheridan31]

Well, it's a bad movie but there is the Sandman in Spiderman 3.

 

I just read a post on Shamus Young's Mass Effect Retrospective where someone claims they did clarify it, so I asked for a link.

 

thx. I took a quick look into Spiderman 3 on youtube. its kind of the direction i mean. forgiving, compassion, cooperation. Again thats very rare... itsn´t that sad that we have tons of violent movies (physical and by using intrigue etc.) and have so little compassionatly ending films or even books? Is "action & violance" really better then settling a dispute, having a heart warming ending?

 

 

Catharsis-entering a new state of mind,consciousness,often after an extremely traumatic(inner or outer,or both) event.Shifting of life philosophy,life goals,dreams.A point beyond which you are literally not the same person anymore(inner and even outer appearance).Purging,cleansing the soul.

 

"I desperatly want an ending that is not good destroys evil but an fairly cooperativly, negotiated peace, where enemy images fall apart. Is that what you wan too?"

Ok,but who is the enemy?Reapers are doing it to preserve,organics are fighting because they don't know reapers reasons,so which is the enemy?It's much more complicated than peace and enemies down,don't you think?And that's what's fascinating for me!

you are saying, that is not just about setting a cease fire, but also it plurs the line between good and evil so well, that there is no evil? going beyond right and wrong? If you mean that: that fascinats me too.

 

what irriated me becaues i want clearity was the indoctrination stuff, so i wonder if it was meant for real, or if i did made a bad trade with snythesis (being betrayed in the end). again i wished more steps and decision leading towards synthesis and the clearity that its the real ending. (the last think seems likely due to the answers to me above).

 

Having more confrontation between shepard and starchild, where shepard expressed his pain for all the loses, getting empathy. so that both sides could mourn that their solution didn´t work and settle for a new one. (which for me is mainly snthesis).

[rossler]

It should have been there in the first place.

 

When I watched LOTR: ROTK in the theaters, it didn't include the Extended Edition. Same thing here. They didn't plan on the Extended Cut, but released it afterwards.

 

2. With a 100% clarity, that there was NO indoctrination in the sense of the last part being a FULL DREAM. i meant: Did Bioware made it clear at any point?

 

No they didn't. They told people it's a valid interpretation, like any other ending interpretation, but that's it.

 

It was stated in the first game, indoctrination is subtle. It's not clear and obvious.

[Ithurael]

When I watched LOTR: ROTK in the theaters, it didn't include the Extended Edition. Same thing here. They didn't plan on the Extended Cut, but released it afterwards.

 

So Return of the King ended in complete contrivance, retcon, and utter non-sense for the sake of transmitting its message? The Extended Versions of ROTK don't really add more context they just add scenes. thay resoves some character archs (though the Saruman scene should have been in the orignal release) and just more content. Comparing LOTR movies to ME3 (and it's botched finale) is a bit of a poor comparison. ME3 needed the EC since the EC was created to fill in the plotholes and retain the illusion of choice. Without it, the finale was just a pretentious bit of sillyness. ROTK did not need the Extended Versions since it held up (minus maybe the eagels and the army of the dead - though the latter were a rewrite from the book).

 

 

No they didn't. They told people it's a valid interpretation, like any other ending interpretation, but that's it.

 

It was stated in the first game, indoctrination is subtle. It's not clear and obvious.

 

Just like the Dinasaur Theory, or the Brown Explosion Theory, or the Marmalade Theory. How you want to view the material is one thing, what the material actually says is another. I do think you already went on a bit of a sanctimonious tirade about this - in this very thread - stating that your headcanon IS just as equivelant to the actual material. Personally I think anyones headcanon is actually just as official as the presented material, however, i do NOT think that someones headacanon dismisses criticisms, especially if those criticisms are well cited.

 

If you want indoctrination to do what you want it to do, and you know that is just in your imagination - great

If you think that is what the material ACUTALLY says...no child, no. This is like me playing on Easy and saying Shepard was acutally an incarnation of Zeus since he couldn't die. I just make up whatever I want and anything that contradicts me isn't true.

 

   

[rossler]

I knew you'd show up.

 

Their intention was for you to decide for yourself what the ending means without them doing it for you.

 

See, I like this human. He understands the point of the ending.

[Ithurael]

Intention and execution are very VERY different. We really should never grade anything based on intention. Giving something a "Brilliant" rating based soely on intetion or on subjective information is downright silly.

 

From my knowledge, Casey just wanted the ending to be "Talked about" or be "Unforgettable". To this day I would say they succeded, ME3's ending is truly remembered - as a narrative (and mechanical - for vanilla release) failure.

 

And what better way for people to learn than from a failure. We all learn more from failure anyway.

[rossler]

Not everyone believes the ending is a narrative and/or mechanical failure. That's just your opinion that the ending is that way.

[Ithurael]

Not everyone believes the ending is a narrative and/or mechanical failure. That's just your opinion that the ending is that way.

 

You can believe whatever you want rossler. That is YOUR opinion.

 

Looking at narrative conventions and standards as well as game mechanic conventions as they are defined, yes, the vanilla ending is a failure in the narrative sense and mechanical sense. The EC is just a failure in a narrative sense (less so than the vanilla as they try to patch some plotholes).

[rossler]

So your opinion is the facts, or something now?

 

I think the real problem is people are still trying to twist Bioware's arm to give them a new ending. Only then will this issue go away.

 

You can sit and point out issues, that's your right. It won't change anything though.

[ImaginaryMatter]

So your opinion is the facts, or something now?

 

I think the real problem is people are still trying to twist Bioware's arm to give them a new ending. Only then will this issue go away.

 

You can sit and point out issues, that's your right. It won't change anything though.

 

Most conversation about stories are inherently opinions. In arguments the "i.m.o." is implied. Notice how many reviews, debates, essays, etc for things don't have the phrase "I think" (in fact that's usually considered a big no-no).

[Ithurael]

So your opinion is the facts, or something now?

 

No, I have cited many MANY conventions that apply to narrative conventions and standards. For more information, see here and here. There are many analysis that show how and why ME3's ending is both incoherent and factually bad writing. You can counter these with headcanon, but that is headcanon. If you really want to make ME3's ending coherent and brillliant, you would need to redefine the standards of Narrative coherence relative to how humans understand and relate to narrative coherence and possibly coherence itself regarding a cognitive speciesl

 

 

I think the real problem is people are still trying to twist Bioware's arm to give them a new ending. Only then will this issue go away.

 

You can sit and point out issues, that's your right. It won't change anything though.

 

Who in their right mind has ever asked for a new ending after the Citadel DLC? We know this wont happen. I KNOW this wont happen. I can only hope Bioware learns from their mistakes and makes a quality product for ME;A. I honestly REALLY hope bioware knocks it out of the park for their next release. DA:I seemed ok in both gameplay and story to a point.

 

No one in their right mind would ever argue - or has even argued - to have Bioware change the ending of a game that is now 3 yrs old. That is as silly as saying the ending is brilliant and people "didn't get it".

[rossler]

No, I have cited many MANY conventions that apply to narrative conventions and standards. For more information, see here and here. There are many analysis that show how and why ME3's ending is both incoherent and factually bad writing. You can counter these with headcanon, but that is headcanon. If you really want to make ME3's ending coherent and brillliant, you would need to redefine the standards of Narrative coherence relative to how humans understand and relate to narrative coherence and possibly coherence itself regarding a cognitive speciesl

 

Who in their right mind has ever asked for a new ending after the Citadel DLC? We know this wont happen. I KNOW this wont happen. I can only hope Bioware learns from their mistakes and makes a quality product for ME;A. I honestly REALLY hope bioware knocks it out of the park for their next release. DA:I seemed ok in both gameplay and story to a point.

 

No one in their right mind would ever argue - or has even argued - to have Bioware change the ending of a game that is now 3 yrs old. That is as silly as saying the ending is brilliant and people "didn't get it".

 

Those are good arguments, but it seems the writers at Bioware disagreed with you on that.

 

Why does Bioware have to learn from their mistakes? That kind of sounds like finger pointing to me. It's almost as if people are essentially putting all this mess on them. Which isn't fair, the way I see it.

[Ithurael]

Those are good arguments, but it seems the writers at Bioware disagreed with you on that.

 

Why does Bioware have to learn from their mistakes? That kind of sounds like finger pointing to me. It's almost as if people are essentially putting all this mess on them. Which isn't fair, the way I see it.

 

First and foremost, life isn't fair. If you expect it to be far...you are in for a bad time.

 

Second, I do like how you cite Stanly Woo from 2012. If only others could cite the great Stanly Woo, especially in regards to the indoctrination theory.

 

Now, in the regards to "learning from mistakes" we can classify a mistake by looking at the current understanding of right/wrong or good vs bad design regarding story/narrative or game mechanic development. In those cases, yes ME3's ending is poorliy designed (remedied with the EC) and the mechanical delivery was botched (mostly removed in the EC). Anyone asking for or demanding a stupid Happy Ending or another ending after the EC is just silly, it is impossible to deliver. I don't say cater to every weeping whim of the fanbase - that is the citadel DLC. Rather, create a solid well made product that holds up to scrutiny. If you cannot do that and at the same time demand people to call it brilliant and reject criticism, then you deserve to go the way of the dinosaur. Also, how do the writers disagreeing with me make me incorrect? An arguement to authority is not really the best way to make a rational point.

 

And on the topic of PR/advertising vs what was delivered. You tell me if this adverstised segment of the game ACTUALLY happened or was spliced together to make it seem like the game was more dynamic. Don't get me wrong, I don't buy into hype too much. But showing something different that happens the same way in the product is a bit low brow.

 

Also, when it comes to criticism, yeah there were a number of people spitting vitrol in the early days fo the ME3 crapstorm. Vitrol is not he best way to express logical criticism - ever. However, when someone does (or many do) express criticism in a rational, logical way bioware really should pay attention as to what they say and look into refining their products for the future. This is, essentially, how the scientific method works and how we - as a species- have come so far. Someone creates something, feedback from use is obtained, and changes are made for future releases are made - if any.

[LineHolder]

Also, when it comes to criticism, yeah there were a number of people spitting vitrol in the early days fo the ME3 crapstorm. Vitrol is not he best way to express logical criticism - ever. However, when someone does (or many do) express criticism in a rational, logical way bioware really should pay attention as to what they say and look into refining their products for the future. This is, essentially, how the scientific method works and how we - as a species- have come so far. Someone creates something, feedback from use is obtained, and changes are made for future releases are made - if any.

 

Gotta agree with this part, especially. If you like praise, have the stomach to take criticism gracefully as well.

[angol fear]

Not everyone believes the ending is a narrative and/or mechanical failure. That's just your opinion that the ending is that way.

 

Agree, from Aritotle's point of view Shakespeare is a bad writer.

[Natureguy85]

I think that's a trap people walk in to; using loaded words like 'essence' evokes the sense that something is deep and meaningful. But meaning isn't gained by citing big words, it's by basic busy work of using a story to establish those ideas. ME2 doesn't have that. The closest the game gets is Harbinger's combat taunts. What makes it worse is that whatever mileage the writers get out of the word is immediately undercut by how silly the Human Reaper appearance/fight goes down.

 

That's what the ending to ME3 was. Well said.

 

 

Catharsis-entering a new state of mind,consciousness,often after an extremely traumatic(inner or outer,or both) event.Shifting of life philosophy,life goals,dreams.A point beyond which you are literally not the same person anymore(inner and even outer appearance).Purging,cleansing the soul.

 

"I desperatly want an ending that is not good destroys evil but an fairly cooperativly, negotiated peace, where enemy images fall apart. Is that what you wan too?"

Ok,but who is the enemy?Reapers are doing it to preserve,organics are fighting because they don't know reapers reasons,so which is the enemy?It's much more complicated than peace and enemies down,don't you think?And that's what's fascinating for me!

 

That's not the definition of "catharsis." Where did you get that and how are you criticizing other people's use of the word?

 

From Webster:

1. 1 :  purgation

2. 2 a :  purification or purgation of the emotions (as pity and fear) primarily through art b :  a purification or purgation that brings about spiritual renewal or release from tension

3. 3 :  elimination of a complex by bringing it to consciousness and affording it expression

 

 

For your second point, the Reapers are the enemy. I don't care about their motivations. Their actions are worth opposing. They are wrong and bad and need to go away.

 

 

"We want to beat the Reapers. What's the problem with that? We don't want a brand new antagonist to vomit moronic exposition and philosophy on us at the last minute."

 

You should really speak for yourself.

 

"How is catharsis being used incorrectly?"

 

You still haven't seen what catharsis means,have you?

 

Why would you want the end to muddle the story rather than resolve the conflict? You wanted a new character to vomit moronic exposition on you at the last minute?

 

Actually I do know what it means and posted the definition above. You still haven't explained it, but rather just criticize people for using it wrong. So tell me about it, smart guy.

 

 

thx. I took a quick look into Spiderman 3 on youtube. its kind of the direction i mean. forgiving, compassion, cooperation. Again thats very rare... itsn´t that sad that we have tons of violent movies (physical and by using intrigue etc.) and have so little compassionatly ending films or even books? Is "action & violance" really better then settling a dispute, having a heart warming ending?

 

 

you are saying, that is not just about setting a cease fire, but also it plurs the line between good and evil so well, that there is no evil? going beyond right and wrong? If you mean that: that fascinats me too.

 

what irriated me becaues i want clearity was the indoctrination stuff, so i wonder if it was meant for real, or if i did made a bad trade with snythesis (being betrayed in the end). again i wished more steps and decision leading towards synthesis and the clearity that its the real ending. (the last think seems likely due to the answers to me above).

 

Having more confrontation between shepard and starchild, where shepard expressed his pain for all the loses, getting empathy. so that both sides could mourn that their solution didn´t work and settle for a new one. (which for me is mainly snthesis).

 

Such an idea can work but it depends on the story. It can work in Spiderman 3 because Flint Marko isn't driven by greed or hate, but is a desperate man in hard circumstances. While we don't excuse his actions, we sympathize with his motivations. The Reapers don't have this going for them. They are murder machines with a stupid motivation.

 

 

 

When I watched LOTR: ROTK in the theaters, it didn't include the Extended Edition. Same thing here. They didn't plan on the Extended Cut, but released it afterwards.

 

Are you kidding me? Firstly, the extended editions were cut content being reinserted. They weren't new stuff shoved in to fix mistakes. Secondly they added some flavor, but didn't change the story. They are cool, but the theatrical releases still work. This can not be said of Mass Effect 3. The EC was an attempt to fix horrible mistakes in the original ending.

 

 

Not everyone believes the ending is a narrative and/or mechanical failure.

 

True, but they are wrong.

 

 

 

 

Why does Bioware have to learn from their mistakes?

 

Because everyone should learn from their mistakes. That's how we get better.

[Natureguy85]

Agree, from Aritotle's point of view Shakespeare is a bad writer.

 

Based on what?