April182012

Disappointment Thy Name Is Culture

Are video games art?  It’s a subjective question.  I’d like to think so.  A good game can move me as much as a book or song or painting.  Sure, my definition of art might be a bit broad, but that’s my definition.  So, knowing that I think of video games as art, you can imagine how excited I was to hear that the Smithsonian would do an exhibit on the Art of Video Games!

Unfortunately, the exhibit itself was a terrible, terrible disappointment.  By now I’m sure you’ve seen photos of the exhibit floating around.  I know I have.  The most famous of these photos are people playing either Super Mario Bros. or Pac-Man projected onto a wall.  What’s that?  You haven’t seen it?  Well, I took a photo just for you, reader!

Only I took on of Monkey Island because I’m like totally hipster and focusing on the lesser known game.  Ha!

Anyway, that’s really all there is to the “art” of video game.  The rest of the exhibit is little else than a giant, flashy timeline.  They’ve dug out pristine Atari, Coleco, and Intellivision units, and put those alongside the SNES, Dreamcast, and whatever else.  They singled out four games to feature from each system and you can listen to a little bit about the games.

The lack of a crowd around the Dreamcast saddened me.

Don’t get me wrong, it was a wonderful history lesson.  It was nice to see my childhood all lined up so very neatly.  But that wasn’t what I wanted to see.  That’s not art.  I wanted to see the process a game went through.  I wanted its guts laid bare for everyone to appreciate the solid work that goes into each disc or cartridge.  I wanted concept art (“conventional” art), I wanted the art of the consoles themselves (“modern” art), I wanted to see how wacky some peripheries were—especially third-party ones.  I wanted wall-to-wall screens showing some of the most emotional cutscenes FMV had to offer.  I wanted informational videos detailing why it is that video games are art, like that PBS one explaining Super Mario Bros. as a piece of surrealism.

Watch Idea Channel: Super Mario Brothers as Surrealist Art? on PBS. See more from Idea Channel.

As someone who is beginning to study programming and code, I want to believe that.  More importantly, however, I wanted to SEE that.  Would it have been too difficult to take a large string of a game’s code, print it on a GIANT canvas in a variety of colors, then reflect that image with a screen of what that code represented?  Because what is art or language if not the representation of something?

So the Art of Video Games might not have been my dream exhibit.  I still see it as a step in the right direction.  Maybe this will have garnered enough interest for another one.  Do video games need validation from the artistic community?  I don’t think so, but it wouldn’t hurt.

March142012

tintedspirits asked: The war was won? The entire galaxy is stuck in the Sol system. Great win. The normandy magically appeared on a random planet with everyone that was on earth moments before on it. That's a plot hole. The ending is bad. I don't care that Shepard died. We all expected that. I care that I went through all of that. Uniting the Geth & Quarians for them never to be able to get back to their homeworld again anyway. Curing the genophage just for them all to be stuck at Earth.

The Normandy’s sudden appearance in midflight, along with everyone being on board, with no explanation is bad writing to be sure.  I’m not strictly convinced it’s a plot hole though.  From the moment Shepard’s hit with the Reaper blast, the narrative focuses only on him.  It breaks away only to show Hackett and Sword moving the Crucible into position, but it doesn’t tell us what’s going on with the crew.  For all we know, they evacuated to the Normandy to help Sword once Shepard went missing, then Joker decided to make a run for it.  Who knows?  There’s a period of time unaccounted for, but it would have broken the narrative flow to show all of this amidst the denouement.  Thus, Normandy magically appears in midflight, trying to outrun Crucible blast with crew on board.  Like I said: bad writing, but not necessarily a plot hole.

As to everyone being stranded: Would it have been nice if the mass relays worked and everyone got to go back and live happily ever after?  Of course.  I would have liked that.  I would have liked to have seen my Shep and Tali together after three games.  But a tragic ending isn’t a bad ending.  These people are alive.  They’re trapped, and they’ll struggle, but in the face of extinction, that’s much better than the alternative.  It shows in the reverence Stargazer and the child show for “The Shepard.”  We saved the galaxy from the Reapers, not just for the crew we cared for, but for every generation to come.  It’s not perfect, but they can rebuild.  It might take another cycle, but it’s possible to have another Citadel.

I’m satisfied with the ending because of the choices I made in my playthrough.  I united the Quarians and the Geth, and cured the genophage, too.  All that proved these races could set aside their differences to work together.  If the game didn’t have that, didn’t show these races uniting for a common purpose (admittedly they could have done more than just Hackett’s updates), then I’d find the ending terrible, and shallow, and stuck on.  It’s a matter of perspective: near vs far.  When my Shepard leapt into the beam to create synthesis, when I saw the distant progeny of Stargazer and child, I really felt like I saved the galaxy.  I saved civilization.

It’s not a perfect ending, but I’m satisfied with it.

1PM

On the Mass Effect 3 Ending

I’m not sure why everyone hates Mass Effect 3’s ending with such passion.  I liked it.  I like the series as a whole.  It’s not a perfect series by any means, but remains solid, well-crafted, and enjoyable.  I didn’t see any gaping plot hole in the ending, but it has been quite a while since I played ME2, and longer still since I played the original.  Perhaps I have forgotten something?

I’ve tried my best to understand why such a vocal number of people seem to despise the ending.  Is it a direct result of BioWare’s partnership with EA?  The disappointing show of Dragon Age 2?  Is it the day one DLC that they’ve already been doing for the past few games?  I certainly didn’t see any problems in Mass Effect 3’s ending, but all I hear on the web is “plot hole” this and “plot hole” that, and calls for a complete rewriting of the series.

Why?

(Possible spoilers from here on out)

At face value, the Crucible does seem to be a giant piece of deus ex machina.  It’s something never before mentioned in the series and yet promises to be the saving grace of all life in the Milky Way galaxy.  But we’re introduced to it early–-the second mission of the game, in fact–-and we have a lot of time to think on its possibilities.  Is it a superweapon like in Halo?  Is it a dud?  Is it a Reaper trap?  The biggest question, however, is in regards to “the Catalyst,” this key component necessary to activate the Crucible.

Now, maybe I play too many video games, watch too many movies and TV shows, but right there I assumed Shepard was the Catalyst, and Shepard was going to have to make a sacrifice.  It’s all right there in the name!  What has Shepard been throughout this trilogy if not the catalyst?  He’s been the one transforming the galaxy; he’s been at the eye of the storm at every Reaper incursion.  So Shepard was going to die.  I was at peace with that.  This is a war, after all.  A huge, galactic one.  It didn’t seem possible that the whole crew could escape without dying?

And to emphasize this, BioWare gives us a few sacrifices.  Mordin, for example, sacrificing himself to cure the genophage (if you went that route).  I instantly saw it as foreshadowing Shepard’s eventual sacrifice.  Then there’s Thane, someone who, like Shepard, might have deserved a quiet, dignified death after so much fighting.  Instead, he’s cut down in a fierce battle.  There’s also a general tone in the crew–Chakwas wanting to break open their annual bottle early, Garrus speaking about dying and enjoying a drink in heaven.  Yes, the paragon dialogue choices promise hope and encouragement, but that doesn’t mean it’ll happen.  Shepard is simply trying to rally and encourage his troops in a hopeful way.  Those words don’t remove the specter of death that hangs over each event.

So after our struggles, after the time-consuming quest to gather war assets (or galactic readiness, if you did multiplayer or iOS apps), we come to the climax.  We meet the Catalyst who, as it turns out, is an artificial intelligence that lives within the Citadel.  It controls the Reapers, orchestrating their harvest throughout the galaxy.  It’s not unlike meeting the Architect in the Matrix: Reloaded.  Here’s where people start to have problems.  Here’s where the deus ex machina card starts to get thrown around.

But why?

By this point, the Prothean VI has already explained to us that the Crucible was not of their design.  It’s actually been around for more cycles than we can guess.  Possibly even of Reaper design, as most advanced technology such as the mass relays and the Citadel come from them.  That should be a warning to us that the Crucible is not the convenient, conventional savior that we want it to be.  Vendetta (the VI) even goes on to speculate how the Reapers are just as trapped in the cycle as the other races are, despite their overwhelming power.  He points to some hidden master orchestrating everything.

So we shouldn’t really be surprised that the Catalyst is evil, right?  I mean, who did we think controlled the Reapers?  The Illusive Man?  Anderson?  Maybe Hackett.  The Catalyst explains the purpose behind the cycle: to ensure the survival of organics.  It became convinced that some day, synthetic life would arise to become the dominant intelligence in the galaxy, thus eradicating all other organic life.  To prevent this, the Catalyst constructed the Reapers to harvest organic life, preserving the minds of billions each cycle, adding to a collective, organic intelligence.  It was the most efficient solution, as less advanced species were then free to evolve in an endless cycle, one not so dissimilar to life and death.

Now, some people have problems with this.  That’s fine.  The Catalyst’s solution is quite problematic.  However, this is not a plot hole.  Gazing upon multiple possibilities, the Catalyst chose one that was easy to maintain and enforce.  A compromise, of sorts.  Organic life was free to flourish, to mature, and eventually be preserved among the Reapers’ collective mind.  It didn’t care whether or not people would prefer to have their own bodies, their own minds, nor did it wish to be bogged down in endless debates, cycle after cycle, with such inferior races.  So it made its choice, and for millions of years that choice proved acceptable.  This chaos it so feared was continuously avoided.

That, I repeat, is not a plot hole.  That is perfectly in-line with everything we know about the Reapers and their motivations.  At first it seems like they kill everyone, transforming people into husks, but as Sovereign says: their motivations are beyond our understanding.  And that’s true.  The Reapers are so far advanced compared to the Council races that there’d be no point in explaining their intentions.  If they marched right up to the Citadel in the first game and told the Council they were harvesting them in order to save them, collecting their minds but destroying their bodies to prevent a thing that hasn’t yet happened (as the Geth are symptomatic of the Catalyst’s fear, but not the singularity itself), the Council would have balked at such a notion!  And why not?  It sounds like a terrible idea!

But the Council, as we’ve seen through the games, is short-sighted, conceited, and less concerned with galactic issues than local ones.  The Catalyst, on the other hand, claims to look at the bigger picture.  It believes the singularity is a threat to all organic life.   It believes that no promise given would be a certainty against its creation.  After all, it only needs to look on the greed of organics, the schism of Alliance and Cerberus, to know that someone will do it for no better reason than “We can.”  So, rather than debate, it employs Reapers to cultivate highly evolved organics.  It thinks it’s so superior to all other races and acts according.  That’s a force with their own agenda that’s disagreeable to our own.  That’s exactly what a villain is!  BioWare did a great job in crafting a villainous force.  The cycle is not a plot hole, it’s a plan that follows through on the Reaper’s logic.

So what about the endings?  The pick one of three options to determine one of three endings?  Well, that’s a trite bit of gameplay formula.  There’s no denying that.  It’s a rather disappointing way of choosing the ending, rather than having it come about organically.  Still, the options did give me pause.  No, not to retch.  Whether you want to destroy or enslave the Reapers, or bring about a new synthesis of life, each choice has severe repercussions in the Mass Effect universe.  It’s a choice with a lot of weight, and, if you’ve invested enough in the world and characters, you really feel it.

Are you disappointed that Shepard doesn’t survive?  That, unlike Halo, there’s no final eulogy for him as there is for the Master Chief?  Did you want closure for all the friends you gathered along the way?  Maybe see their faces on the Memorial Wall?  I can’t fault you for that.  I wouldn’t have minded that sort of ending either.  But to get that ending after the choices provided, after the information presented, would have truly ruined the game.

Maybe you wanted some final showdown, but showdown with who?  Hackett says time and again that conventional warfare will not succeed against the Reapers.  It’s hammered into you at every stage of the game.  The Turians will lose Palaven, even with the Krogan’s help as Garrus advises the Primarch to pull out the fleet.  The Asari lose Thessia.  Earth is subjected by the Reapers.  No one fleet, even composed of the entire galaxy, could compete with the Reapers’ advanced tech.  The Protheans lost a war of attrition with the Reapers.  It won’t work.

So the Crucible’s existence is justified according to the plot.  One weapon with the power to stop the Reapers.  Conventional warfare won’t work, and the Reapers won’t discuss an armistice.  Maybe it is a deus ex machina.  Maybe it’s weak writing to put your characters and story in a corner where they need a device like that.  But it’d be just as weak and trite to make the game where killing one person stops a whole army.

To win the war, the Crucible enacts a galaxy-wide transformation by overloading and destroying the mass relays.  For all three endings, this is true.  This is not Halo where the rings will continue to float on in a dormant state after use.  The Catalyst is quite clear on this.  Whatever choice your Shepard makes, you are severing the galactic ties that you’ve struggled so hard to build.  The fleets that flew to Earth?  They won’t ever return to their homeworlds.  Wrex might never see Eve and his Krogan clutch, Jacob might be forever cut off from Brynn and his newborn girl, Samara might never see her last daughter, and Miranda might never see her sister.  Depressing, yes?  Makes you feel as though everything you’ve done to rally this fleet seem futile?

Except by fostering better interspecies relations, you’ve actually helped them.  They’ll be forced to coexist now, on whatever system they happen to inhabit.  If you hadn’t done all of that, if Shepard hadn’t done all of that, then not only would defeating the Reapers have been impossible, but so would rebuilding.  This is emphasized in almost every conversation with Hackett and Anderson, with Wrex and the Turian Primarch, even among the Quarian admiralty.  Shepard, and by extension, you, brought the universe together for a single purpose.  You showed it was possible.  You gave everyone hope.

And, if you managed to get the synthesis option, hope is what you’re left with.

Hope has been the prevalent, universal theme throughout the Mass Effect series, whether you were paragon or renegade.  Hope is what I had when I saw the Stargazer and his child.  Yes, it might have been nicer to see more of our crew over the three games, but with the Stargazer and child we still get closure.  Life goes on.  The war was won.

February242012
“People in general attach too much importance to words. They are under the illusion that talking effects great results. As a matter of fact, words are, as a rule, the shallowest portion of all the argument. They but dimly represent the great surging feelings and desires which lie behind. When the distraction of the tongue is removed, the heart listens.” Sister Carrie by Theodore Dreiser
February142012
“Even his multitudinous beard seemed to have been burnished by the fire of Asia.” The Portrait of a Lady by Henry James (regarding Lord Warburton’s epic beard)
February132012
“From the Roman past to Isabel Archer’s future was a long stride, but her imagination had taken it in a single flight…” The Portrait of a Lady by Henry James
January292012
Nyan Cat flying towards an 8-bit Death Star at the New Museum.

Nyan Cat flying towards an 8-bit Death Star at the New Museum.

December182011
Random bit of Manhattan taken by my wife.

Random bit of Manhattan taken by my wife.

December172011
American Museum of Natural History taken by my wife.

American Museum of Natural History taken by my wife.

December162011
Nutcrackers at the ready.

Nutcrackers at the ready.

← Older entries Page 1 of 7