| JWeinCom said: "I'll go with the simple one. "But the peace will not last" This quote clearly sums up the endings and states that the peace between synthetics and organics will only be a temporary one." Says who..? The anonymous star child that shows up at the end of the game? The one that readily admits that he had been manipulating the illusive man? Who represents the reapers who are known to manipulate organics, and tried to manipulate the villain of the first game to do the same thing he's telling you to do? Who represents a race who literally has armies of deceived organics working for him? What reason do we have to believe this character? You are aware that characters in books are not always truthful and not always right, aren't you? What reason do we have to believe this character? Like, do you instantly believe every weird hologram you see? The star child could be lying to get you to choose the ending he wants. Or he could simply be wrong on the point. Every other piece of evidence in the game shows that synthetics and organics can coexist peacefully. So, we have no reason to trust the random star child who works for a manipulative race of machines whose chief tactic is bending organics to their will. "I would love to admit that I was wrong. But I am afraid that it is you that is wrong in this matter. You may have an English degree, but I can claim that I do my own writing anomalously, which I do, and that I have a strong understanding of philosophy, which I also do. I studied what a lot of philosophy and A.I. as a form of intelligent life and becoming self-aware is one of the studies in university. I had to write one hell of an essay on that." You do your writing anomalously? So your work is marked by incongruity and inconsistency? Actually, judging by some of the other things you've said, anomalously might be a bang on description of your writing, butwhy should that make me want to believe you O_o? I'm legitimately confused. Maybe English is not your first language, but that made no sense. On the contrary, my English degree is relevant because we are dealing with literary criticism, which is a big part of what earning an English degree entails. But, I didn't just say "hey I have an English degree", I went on afterwards to explain the reasoning behind my argument. "You also seem to assume that it was one person that I talked to that works at Bioware. That would be incorrect. I talked to 7 to be precise. Two of them being founding fathers. So no. I actually will call you out on this. Secondly, no I probably shouldn't give names nor should I say anything else other than what I stated in my earlier post. As such is information that is "fine" to spew around. You are not inclined to believe what I say if you do not wish, that doesn't change anything." Why do I think that you only talked to one person at Bioware? Because that's what you said. To quote you. "Again, I directly asked someone who worked on the game on this matter. I can't name them but they did confirm this to me. " So yeah, I am absolutely not going to believe you on this, because a changing story and anonymous sources that can't be named are hallmarks of liars. I'm not saying that you are a liar... just that you really really sound like one. Partially because what you're saying makes no sense. Why exactly would you be unable to name who told you this? Would someone really get fired for telling you the MAIN THEME of the game? I mean, is the MAIN THEME supposed to be a secret? If it's the MAIN THEME shouldn't it be evident? Is the theme a special secret that only you can know about? JOHNSON! How dare you tell someone what this game is about! You're fired! Pure nonsense. But hey, let's roll with this for a bit. Suppose you talked to someone who would get in trouble for telling what the main theme is. The only way they could be in trouble for telling you the main theme is if the theme is some kind of secret. If the theme is a secret, that means it is NOT clear in the game itself. And if the theme is not clear in the game, then how can you say that's the main theme? So, whether you're lying or telling the truth, it makes no sense. Edit: Actually, I was somewhat wrong. In your reply to me you said you spoke to someone. Before that in your original post, you said you spoke to two people. As far as Luca's goes. He did re-edit the story and it is Greedo that shot first. Lucas said originally that Greedo always shot first, even in the original, and he changed the film to show that clearly. Then, he changed his claim. So, when watching the original version, if we go by what Lucas said, than Han both shot first and didn't shoot first. I'm not going to go any more into this. "Whole Casey Hudson stating that Mass Effect 3 is about masturbation is just straight up stupid and irrelavent. Casey Hudson is the director of the series and was not the main writer. He did have a lot of control over the story and major key points. Everything went through him and he had major control over the series. He did have a lot of control over the story and major key points. Everything went through him and he had major control over the series. The writers were Drew Karpyshyn for Mass Effect and Mass effect 2. And Mac Walters for Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3. If you can't even get this right.... then why are you arguing?" I used Casey Hudson because you said you spoke to "someone" at Bioware. This of course was before I knew that someone was actually seven people, and may be 100 people by now. So I chose "someone" from Bioware, and his name was the first that came to mind. So, chill on the snark. And who it is doesn't matter at all, which I'll explain why later. Regardless of that, I'm genuinely puzzled why the person who was in charge of the product and had final say over everything would not be considered a reliable source, based on your point of view. "The writer is often always right when it comes to their universe."
This literally makes no sense. Are they often right or always right? Can't be both. "The writer is often always right when it comes to their universe. Even if our minds wish to think otherwise, or perceive otherwise. Just because it's bloated with plot points, doesn't change the main theme of the game. Theme would be the proper word I should have used, rather than main plot. For that, I can accept my fault. That was an error on my part." I don't care if you call it theme or plot. What I care about is that you've given absolutely no reason for us to consider the organics vs synthetics theme as more important than the others in the game. And if it's bloated with other plot points and those plot points are focussed on more than organics vs synthetics then yes that does change the main theme of the game. Cause... that's how theme works.
Since you kind of dodged my question, I'll prove my point in a simple way..
The only way the argument that the author's statement supercedes text holds is if an author LITERALLY can never say something wrong about their work. And it is absolutely possible for an author to say something that is wrong about their work.
My last post was about how much I want a panda fur coat. If you think it was about something else, you are wrong, because I am the author. Just to be absolutely clear, my last post was DEFINITELY about how much I want a panda fur coat.
If you are going to insist that the author's extratextual claims are more important than what the writing actually says, then you have to accept that my last post was indeed about my desire for a panda fur coat. If you want to say that I'm wrong, then you have to provide proof in the post that what I said was not about panda coats. To do so you'll have to accept the premise that text can contradict extratextual claims by the author. So, what is it? Was my last post about panda coat coats, or can authors be wrong about what they wrote if the text disagrees with their statement? These are mutually exclusive possibilities so you have to choose one. If you choose neither, I will accept that your point is conceded.
That's a very simple summary of it. But if you'd like, you can read Roland Barthe's "Death of the Author" or Wimmsatt and Beardsley's "The Intentional Fallacy" which will more clearly explain it. You'd find very few people currently in the field of literature still naive enough to say that the author's word is definitive. |
On that subject I do find the whole calling someone a liar thing to be a little offensive on the base of suspicion without evidence. Arguably in your defense, I see where your suspension arises. It is true that I talked to at least 7 people from Bioware, but in a sense you are correct. I stated this in a wrongful and irrelevant matter. I have had talks with many of them regarding Mass Effect. I can say that not all of them are in the know of the over all picture. For example two of them worked on the Dragon Age project, along with another unannounced cancelled title. Much like a politician or sales and marketing person. I did dishonestly raise that number to "look good". Not a lie, but not honest. Not something I am particularly proud of as I have a very strong philosophy and belief when it comes to honesty. I can say I am ashamed. As for those I have talked to regarding the matter. They have made the themes and concepts quite clear. You are correct with fact that there are many major plots in the game. Many which are sub-themes. A lot of stories first come into mind with a single concept. In Game Design, due to the amount of staff involved. A major theme that the game resolves around must be picked. From there we have the roots of a story that we expand upon. The tendencies is to create something relatable to the audience. In an RPG game, we traditionally try to create a few major themes with lots of minor themes that are often relevant to the main idea of the game. There are cases where they can be irrelevant if they add a substance to the story or the game itself. This allows for more creativity for the team members. Level designers will often benefit from this.
Much like you. I held my own interpretations and ideas of the story of the series. My play through was MY story and MY experience. It was mine as your story was YOUR experience. That does not change the vision that Bioware had. It is what it is.
The face palm is strong with this one. Greedo did shoot first and Luca's claimed as such. He was correct then. Luca's then stated otherwise and rewrote the story to fit this claim. The times have changed like the seasons and so did the script. Luca's still remains corrected to this day. The version that Greedo shot first remains as the current canon. Get with the times.
You may have a English degree and your grammar is quite impressive, but from where I stand. I feel that you attack an author simply because you disagree with them, or misperceived the context of the story. On the other hand. To give you the benefit of the doubt. Video games are made with massive teams and as I have mentioned before. Sub-plots, side-quests, exploration, DLC, and yes, even large plots are created by other teams for the game. To increase the content, while feeling consistent with the game. This doesn't always work out as smoothly as the developers intended. In the end. There was a theme, an idea, perhaps you wish to call it a concept. That very concept in the case of Mass Effect was the contrast of "Organics and Synthetic lifefroms". I do not wish to argue with you any more on this matter, but I will also not change my mind after being told straight from the source of the material. That being said, I also keep my journey, and my interpretation of the story in my mind. Forever and always.
The fur coat story is silly, but very impressive. A psychological trick, and one I am quite familiar with. If you wish to enter the mind of psychology, then we shall. The fur coat is a simple smoke and mirror to your claim. Of course your last post was not about a fur coat and I am quite sure that you did not hold the idea of a fur coat firmly in your mind when you typed it out either. Feel free to correct me on this matter. Your point is simple. One person can make a claim, then contradict it later. This isn't an issue that is exclusive to writers. We all do it at some point, as you clearly pointed out. I have done it not once, but at least twice since we started our conversation. In the case of George Lucas, I hate it when people use him as an example because he kind of has his own little special corner. He changed the film to fit his visions. He was the heart and soul of Star Wars up to this point. I hold a lot respect for him to stay true with the visions in his head, rather than simply give people what they wanted. He created a universe and shared it with the world. He stayed as true as possible to his ideas. Continuing to improve upon (albeit in his opinion and mind) the story and change details that he wasn't happy with or felt wasn't inline with his visions. In a manner of speaking. He created it for himself and shared it with the world. He had a dominate level of control over the story and direction of the series, some might perceive that his mind was copied to the paper. That's only one perspective. Others might look at it as he was a poor writer. Yet, it was his story. In your mind, there is no right or wrong with a story. That is the art of it. A child creates a story that makes sense to him, it might not be sensible to another. With Lucas, heh, he continued to write plot scripts despite not releasing them. It really was his universe. Now if he were to turn around and say something stupid like "Leia wore a pink dress". He would need to go back and change that to be true, regardless if it is in his mind. Or he would need to write something else into the canon to change the statement to true.
One of the greatest things about writing is that there is no right or wrong for an author. The challenge is to portray that vision to your audience. I fell into this trap in a recent script I wrote. I over complicated it, and was restricted to 45 seconds. The result of the draft was revealing to me. Only 40% of the people understood the meaning behind it. That is not good. That is bad. Some people might say "Oh well the 60% are stupid." I've had people say that to me. On the other hand. I picked a subject that required more time to flesh out the explanation and emotions. For the period of time the script took place in. I did not clearly depict a characters intention. Instead I used metaphors and symbolism to do so. This lead to confusion and required me to do one of two things. Rewrite the script in a more simplistic manner for the allotted 45 seconds. Or flesh out the characters over more time. I have to go with option A. In reality I would love to do option B and make it a full, fleshed out story. I certainly learned a lesson there. In my mind, my vision was as clear as the sun. It couldn't have been any brighter. Then after getting input, I can see the flaws from other peoples points of view. That's when I begin to refine the story to make more sense, whilst staying true to myself. I would be dreaded to write something that I didn't enjoy.
All in all. I understand your perception of the matters. In the end. The theme that the game was built around remains the same. What started out as an idea, a concept. Bloomed and grew into something much more. With that understanding I was able to see why Bioware views the Synthetic ending as the real ending in "their" minds. As I stated in my first post. I explained that each ending is subjective to the player and is to be considered real to that. As the writers, they considered the synthetic ending to be correct as it touched most of the major themes of the game and the main theme they stemmed the game from. Keeping that in mind. The player creates their own story and legacy as they go through the game. So their choices may result in another ending making more sense to them. Or perhaps their ideals feel more inclined in that direction. After all, Bioware games are created with the intention of their worlds are created to let create their own story. That is the core essence of Bioware games and it will be seen again in the new IP that the talented people are Bioware are currently hard at work on.
