The Mass Effect 3/BioWare Thread

[eremita]

No, you were pretty clearly arguing that the IT was the author intent.

It is to me.

Author's intent can't be something "to you".
It has to be that to the author.

Yes it can. I can't believe that anyone can say something like this after genres of 20th century literature... There are shitloads of books that are INTENTIONALLY ambivalent and ambiguous. Relativism was often the only true author's intent...

It must be really hard to craft something that is compatible with various ideas and concepts. You can't just throw some shit out there and let the audience deal with it. As for Mass Effect 3, I really don't know if it's just a nonsensical mess, or pretty deep story with clever narrative parts. I came to conclusion that it is actually both at the same time. (This seems likely in case of author who is clever and talented but has to deal with horrible deadline.) But I played it soon after the release, so I'm gonna play through it again with more caution pretty soon just to be sure...

Also, the lead writer and "unofficial" lead writer (Casey Hudson) managed all three games. I find it hard to believe that they have no fundamental thoughts about the subject. Otherwise, they would really be incompetent dumb fools.

Oh, and I don't actually believe in IT, but have my own interpretation. Maybe it's also out there, I haven't really chcecked. But I will soon after I play through that bad boy again.

 

[DraQ]

No, you were pretty clearly arguing that the IT was the author intent.

It is to me.

Author's intent can't be something "to you".
It has to be that to the author.

Yes it can. I can't believe that anyone can say something like this after genres of 20th century literature...

I piss on PoMos' juvenile scorn.

Author's intent is *author's* intent.
Audience's interpretation is another matter, which may be valid enough to be considered independently.

 

[Necroscope]

In this very case the author's intent is quite obvious: he meant the endings to be taken literally, NOT as hallucinations or whatever. If one can't be convinced by something as evident as the author's personal notes, then I guess nothing can.

Anyway, Lhynn, at this point you're just acting fucking dumb. You were clearly arguing that the IT was intended, then backpedaled to "the intent doesn't matter", and now "the intent is to me". Next time you start loosing an argument just pull rogue's "LOLOLOL BUTTHURT U I WAS JUST TROLING" to render yourself less of an idiot. Changing your point whenever you see fit is just retarded.

 

[eremita]

In this very case the author's intent is quite obvious: he meant the endings to be taken literally, NOT as hallucinations or whatever. If one can't be convinced by something as evident as the author's personal notes, then I guess nothing can.

Anyway, Lhynn, at this point you're just acting fucking dumb. You were clearly arguing that the IT was intended, then backpedaled to "the intent doesn't matter", and now "the intent is to me". Next time you start loosing an argument just pull rogue's "LOLOLOL BUTTHURT U I WAS JUST TROLING" to render yourself less of an idiot. Changing your point whenever you see fit is just retarded.

I tend to agree with the statement that the endings are not hallucinations. Although I'm not really sure that taking them literally helps me much. The whole final part is very minimalistic and open to interpretations. And I'm fine with that as long as the authors provided me with an option to construct quite coherent conclusions based on their hints (and again, if author chooses this kind of approach, his job is to make sure that everything won't fall apart once somebody tries to make something out of it...) But that's because I don't piss on "PoMo's juvenille scorn" I guess.

 

[Necroscope]

Take the endings however you please, this whole argument is indifferent to personal theories. We're arguing whenever the author *intended* Indoctrination to be one of the possible interpretations of the epilogue or not, and all the available data point out to the conclusion it wasn't.

On a side note, I wonder what excuse will all those still deep in denial come up with if the next ME will follow one of the RGB endings.

 

[eremita]

Take the endings however you please, this whole argument is indifferent to personal theories. We're arguing whenever the author *intended* Indoctrination to be one of the possible interpretations of the epilogue or not, and all the available data point out to the conclusion it wasn't.

On a side note, I wonder what excuse will all those still deep in denial come up with if the next ME will follow one of the RGB endings.

I haven't really watched that whole ME3 controversy back then, so I don't know much about it, but was it really confirmed that those authorial intentions are not fake? Is there some proof?

 

[Oesophagus]

Take the endings however you please, this whole argument is indifferent to personal theories. We're arguing whenever the author *intended* Indoctrination to be one of the possible interpretations of the epilogue or not, and all the available data point out to the conclusion it wasn't.

On a side note, I wonder what excuse will all those still deep in denial come up with if the next ME will follow one of the RGB endings.

With respect to ME4, Bioware'll probablly say lol the reapers never happened. It's not often someone writes themselves into a corner so perfectly

 

[Akratus]

Take the endings however you please, this whole argument is indifferent to personal theories. We're arguing whenever the author *intended* Indoctrination to be one of the possible interpretations of the epilogue or not, and all the available data point out to the conclusion it wasn't.

On a side note, I wonder what excuse will all those still deep in denial come up with if the next ME will follow one of the RGB endings.

I haven't really watched that whole ME3 controversy back then, so I don't know much about it, but was it really confirmed that those authorial intentions are not fake? Is there some proof?

There's like 2 bits that are explicitly about the main character being indoctrinated. But if it was ever in bioware's plan then it's obvious that they dropped it. They've also never commented on it. It's sad that the fans care so much that they'll blindly follow a blatantly false idea.

 

[Necroscope]

I haven't really watched that whole ME3 controversy back then, so I don't know much about it, but was it really confirmed that those authorial intentions are not fake? Is there some proof?

See previous pages.

With respect to ME4, Bioware'll probablly say lol the reapers never happened. It's not often someone writes themselves into a corner so perfectly

They said explicitly they're not going make Mass Effect 4, so I guess it's going to be either a prequel, spin-off or a reboot with entirely new story.

 

[Oesophagus]

They said explicitly they're not going make Mass Effect 4, so I guess it's going to be either a prequel, spin-off or a reboot with entirely new story.

I know, but ME4 is good a name as any at this point. Thing is, if they make it a prequel, then they're fucked already. Whatever plot they come up with, it won't matter when you consider everything gets curbstomped by space squids in the end anyway. And if they throw out the reaper plot altogether then fanboy tears will flow, and we know what a bunch of emotional whiners they can be

 

[dryan]

Since the Reaper wipe-out is something cyclic, they can just set the game in the middle of the next cycle, after Shepard's.

 

[racofer]

Biowaru, being clever and innovative as they are, will make M4 a reboot where you have multiple sightings of the star brat throughout the game ala the g-man.

 

[Oesophagus]

Biowaru, being clever and innovative as they are, will make M4 a reboot where you have multiple sightings of the star brat throughout the game ala the g-man.

Rise and shine, mr Shephard

 

[Necroscope]

Whatever the game is going to be, if it's by the same writing team it will decline the franchise even further, as hard to imagine as it may be.

 

[dryan]

Whatever the game is going to be, we can be sure most resources will be used to design a character after some video game reporter.

 

[Stereotypical Villain]

Biowaru, being clever and innovative as they are, will make M4 a reboot where you have multiple sightings of the star brat throughout the game ala the g-man.

Rise and shine, mr Shephard

... wake up and smell the bumsecks.

 

[Lhynn]

In this very case the author's intent is quite obvious: he meant the endings to be taken literally, NOT as hallucinations or whatever. If one can't be convinced by something as evident as the author's personal notes, then I guess nothing can.

Anyway, Lhynn, at this point you're just acting fucking dumb. You were clearly arguing that the IT was intended, then backpedaled to "the intent doesn't matter", and now "the intent is to me". Next time you start loosing an argument just pull rogue's "LOLOLOL BUTTHURT U I WAS JUST TROLING" to render yourself less of an idiot. Changing your point whenever you see fit is just retarded.

lolwut?

I am still arguing that the IT was intended, i just said it was my personal point of view (as in, "it is to me"), and authors intent does not really matter because we have no way of knowing it for sure, 100%. We can infer that the art direction, some of the dialogue and some of the objects in the game are directly pointing at IT, that or simply incompetence on a level that bioware has never shown before which can be seen in some of bioware employess statements (even this is questionable as dream and hallucination has been thrown around in some of those statements before, so they keep contradicting themselves). But there is, in fact, no way to be sure. And i honestly cannot comprehend how you guys can even consider IT with the overwhelming amount of small things that point towards it.


Necroscope you seem entirely convinced that my position is weak in this argument, i have recognized it to be so on multiple occasions, but not weak enough to actually feel uncomfortable arguing this with you guys, and certainly not enough to backpedal.

PS: how the fuck is me saying "it was intended" and then saying "intent does not matter", and finally "it is the intent to me" mutually exclusive or contradictory in any way? im saying "this is what i think they did" then "it doesnt really matter what they are saying they meant, because they are in a position where they cant be frank and open with us" and finally "to me, personally, this is what they meant".
The only real arguments ive seen come from your beliefs as much as mine, you are convinced that bioware writing team is made of a bunch of 6 year old retards, while im willing to go deeper looking for an explanation.
PS2: spanish is my native language.

 

[Xor]

You're the one who started this argument in response to my comment that Bioware didn't intend the IT and a bunch of fans made it up. That's what we've been discussing for 7 pages now. You can't turn around and say that author intent doesn't matter because you've basically lost the debate. And you've been doing nothing but backpedaling for a few pages now. What's next, you're going to say you never said the IT was true to begin with? Or that you never even played Mass Effect?

 

[Akratus]

The indoctrination theory isn't any better than what you got, did you know that? It just nullifies the actual events with a cop out a la "it was all a dream."

Also I think you should know that you're the only one who cares about the stupid ending to this stupid game in this thread.

 

[Necroscope]

1)

IT was their obvious intent, too many things done deliberately to be lazy design, if it was they wouldnt even exist in the game to begin with.

2)

I suppose the Indoctrination Theory is a perfectly valid interpretation of Mass Effect. Perhaps even the superior interpretation, it certainly makes more sense than taking the plot at face value. The fact that bioware's writers did not intend for the plot to be understood this way doesn't matter, the game is what it is.

Yeah, thats what ive been trying to say.

1) Your point for at least few pages was that the IT was Bioware's "obvious intent" and you were rejecting any contrary evidence.
2) Suddenly it turns out that the intent doesn't matter.

 

[Lhynn]

Xor I lost the debate? how? I have been backpedaling? how?

@Arkatus i dont care for it, i just got time to kill. And even if you thought i did becaue im wasting my time here, how is it you think im the only one that does after 7 pages of people replying.

Necroscope IT is obviously the writers intent, but the intent of the writer is irrelevant at this point because it is unobtainable. We cant get his input because of the circumstances that surround this whole fiasco. Maybe you are confused because you thought id keep repeating the same thing over and over again trying to get you to accept it. but i wasnt, the argument has evolved and new issues have been brought up and been adressed. But my discourse is still p. much the same.
When i said "its what ive been trying to say" is not what ive been trying to say since the begining, just from the 2 or 3 posts after that one, and i couldnt find a way to express myself as clearly as Spectacle did.

 

[Sceptic]

I am still arguing that the IT was intended, i just said it was my personal point of view (as in, "it is to me"), and authors intent does not really matter because we have no way of knowing it for sure, 100%.

I keep rereading this sentence, and I still can't make head or tail of it.

Also, yes, we can know for sure, 100%. When authors say they considered the idea but then abandoned it early on, then yes, we can know for sure what author intent is. 100%.

 

[DraQ]

Xor I lost the debate? how? I have been backpedaling? how?

That or backflipping. While babbling nonsense due to concussion.

 

[Jick Magger]

It really does matter because it's the entire crux of your argument: either it was the author's intent and everything you say is right (and the authors have all but outright stated that it wasn't intended, "Shepard has headaches" be damned), or it wasn't and this is all just your headcanon, which means you've just taken all the bits and pieces that you've been discussing and interpreted them as Shepard being indoctrinated, which is pointless to debate since we all obviously interpret the signs differently (people see the dreams as a sign of Shepard getting indoctrinated, I just see a weak attempt at giving him depth through dead child angst. You see the finale as a final battle against indoctrination, I just see a weak, straightforward ending with a epilogue tacked on to clear up all ambiguity) and nothing either side says or does will change this.

 

[Lhynn]

It really does matter because it's the entire crux of your argument: either it was the author's intent and everything you say is right (and the authors have all but outright stated that it wasn't intended, "Shepard has headaches" be damned), or it wasn't and this is all just your headcanon, which means you've just taken all the bits and pieces that you've been discussing and interpreted them as Shepard being indoctrinated, which is pointless to debate since we all obviously interpret the signs differently (people see the dreams as a sign of Shepard getting indoctrinated, I just see a weak attempt at giving him depth through dead child angst. You see the finale as a final battle against indoctrination, I just see a weak, straightforward ending with a epilogue tacked on to clear up all ambiguity) and nothing either side says or does will change this.

Yup, but i havent been disingenuous about it, ive said its weak and flimsy at best, back then when we first started this argument, and i have not moved an inch in either direction.

I do firmly believe IT was their/his intent, i do not believe we can ask them or believe in their answer because its all fucked up now. Simple as that.

Oh, there is a line between a fair assessments and headcanon, and i have not crossed it. Other than that, yeah, i pretty much agree.

PS. weak straightforward ending does not even begin to cover it Jick, it is the most retarded thing ever written in a straight way as professional release of any kind. This is why i believe it cant be so. You have a sci fi space opera and you introduce a huge amount of new concepts, including a new storyline, a new character, the rape of physics and space magic in the space of 5 minutes before the end? man there are simply no words...