Well I have a little more time today so perhaps I can engage what you have said with a little clearer thought.The Ubermensch said:
Typical for Japanese writing there is a sense of "what you see-IS what it is"; there is going to be a lack of a priori and a posteriori structured epistemology; often a scene is simply "implicitly" objective.
Scene:
Your character is in the desert, there is a castle in the distance; no dialog, no exposition of why the castle is there.
Western Scene:
Your character is in the desert, there is a castle in the distance; a road sign with bullet holes says "familiar castle name"; narrated exposition setting up the time line.
The Difference:
Japanese scene: this world could be anywhere, anytime, weapons, armor, characters, culture; it's all up for grabs.
Western scene: this world has rules, it is in the future, low tech weapons will be common, high tech weapons "may" exist, but will be rare; magic "may" exist, but may be limited.
The Japanese scene I am waiting for the music or some action to set the "mood", I am looking for information.
What I am getting at is a sort of "set up" that is part in parcel with Greek literary tradition. To that end I will say something like the live action Casshern Robot Hunter, as opposed to something like "Dredd". May as well call it the use of emphasis on the "establishing shot". This is the information that sets our tone.
This gives Japanese narrative a very wide range of creative liberty, because it does not commit usually till later in the narrative. While in western stuff we have a very early "bounded rationality", as to the rules of the world in which we are dealing.
Final Fantasy 13-2, the opening explains jack all, yet we are not questing "why" these characters are capable of these extreme feats, when it is alluded to it is simply explained "away" by saying the place is "divine in and of itself", these characters a "demi gods"... oh, ok. No problem.
The ACTION is the information.
This wouldn't work in something like Skyrim as an example, the rules of the world are quite strict, the emphasis is much more on the grit and 'reality' of the scene and the world. It's cold, life is hard, dragons are tough, magic exist but it is limited.
Now we could say it is the difference between "high fantasy, and low fantasy, or science fiction, and science fantasy", and I think those distinctions are useful. So much so that I will infer that "a lot" of Japanese work is "fantasy, rather than fiction".
Color and color saturation are at work here as well, bright and vibrant "clean" and washed grey, "used". I suppose the key here is in how the artist wished to "ground" the work.
Japanese "stuff" is very different in this regard, it has it's own rules which mirror the cultural thinking; perhaps a difference between the rational or even enlightenment thinking leveraged with the romantic literary tradition; juxtaposed to a very Shinto-Mystical-Mikkyo influenced art/literature tradition.
A lightning/sky deity with the Varja spear or "lightning" of the gods... very Zeus, 6th century Japan.
A lightning/sky deity, 21st century Japan. Zeus is a chick? Sure thing.
The interesting plausible parallel here for me is that of the Eastern Roman Esoteric 14th Century Kabbalah traditions which explore psychology and narrative as the emanations of constituted framework. A sort of primordial Jungian psychology and use of archetypes are very common in Japanese lore starting around the 6th century.
Debate-ably most of what is called the "post modern philosophical tradition" is "all" eastern, and essentially has had a huge impact on post modern thinking and certainly philosophers such as Heidegger and Nietzsche. Nietzsche had quite a lot to say about Buddhism for example, so did Schopenhauer who, in his day, was basically the "go to guy" for Buddhist thought in the western world.
The vast majority of the field of Freudian psychology utilizing the notion of the sub-conscious, and Jungian analytic psychology owe a great debt to these influences.
For me, it is those influences of the 18th and 19th century simply coming full circle, which gives Japanese narrative a sort of familiar yet mysterious quality. That said we "usually" don't find ourselves struggling with the suspension of disbelief or the metaphorical propositions that are typical with Eastern cultures art forms.
I will attempt to land the golf ball on the green in one stroke by noting the 3rd century poem of "Indra's net" within the pure land school of Buddhism. This is the "fractal" narrative of repeating elements within nature, which is similar to those elements within esoteric Judaism, as well as Nietzschean "living ones life repeated" framework within his epistemology.
The reason I bring this all up is that I am going to "figure" that you are already aware of a great deal of this, so I just want to (on some level), show that the 500 some odd pages of thread space is not going to be needed as we discuss the topic. I feel that we are on level ground with the subject matter more or less. =D
Onto Eva...
My take on the whole thing, simply... a breaking of the fourth wall attempting to transfer Shinji as a character within the framework of the series, to that of an avatar of the "audience". Shinji and the audience then are the same entity within the space, or at the least, are participating and co-opting the scene. Classic.
That is, that Shinji, weak, effeminate, not life affirming, caught up in the world more or less "along for the ride", finally "gets it", by degrees. This makes the fantasy of the series, just that, a fantasy, a concoction of his own imagination in which he has been formulating his own "self narration" in an attempt to cope with his life, as it is.
Rolling with this all the characters may be considered various archetypes of either people he knows or aspects of his own personality that he has yet to integrate into a personality of his own.
The uncomfortable aspect of this is that the way the shot is conducted is behind his head, facing the "actors" or "characters" in his own little personal play, they are clapping for him, congradulating him, Shinji and solipsism.
Clapping for us, the audience.
Our own mind, is the "only one" that exist. Everything else is fantasy.
Cut, print.
Does it work? Eh? Yeah for me it did, but I like that sort of thing. The trope being "it's all in your head", smacks of a little lazy I am NOT going to dispute that... It's damn lazy.
but it is here that we find ourselves oftentimes... especially on shit like this...
Was it lazy? Or was it genius?
Lazily Genius. Like you said, they went with what they had and I think they made a good showing, not entirely convinced the narrative supports it, mostly because during the exposition we are presented with information as the audience that Shinji would never know. The shoe does seemingly fit and ultimately the deconstruction would have to occur outside of the context of the work, due to the ambiguous nature of the exposition.
Cleverly, the "work" rarely commits to much of anything. Typical for the fantasy genre.
Where do the angels come from? Who are these people again? Why do the angels "know" things? Why does....?
Again for me, not that big of a stretch simply because a ton of Eastern stuff pulls this card... Kubric is also famous for messing with the audience as well... really like his work.
Now I am going to bring up another guy...
Good ole' Thomas here was Sainted for his argument against the Manichean dichotomy of Black/White frameworks.
This is a fundamental "true dichotomy" which strikes at the very heart of 19th century thought going all the way back to Plato. What is "the good"? Is there good without evil? So on and so forth.
Eastern conceptualization of good and evil are very different than what is generally conceived of in western thought and would really need an entire treatment to cover adequately.
Suffice to say, that I found the "EoE" to be both good, and interesting, but slightly different in that all the male characters are essentially "rejected" by their female counterparts established within the character arcs as prime motivations for their actions.
Thematically this sets us up for the black and white dichotomy and takes us in a slightly different direction. Shinji comes into his own, does what his father desires, kills his boyfriend affirming his genetic and fractal life, and is still rejected by the object of his physical desire with whom which he had beat it raw to when she was unconscious.
Shinji "wins" and still "looses". Shinji never makes his life "his life".
Shinji is still under the spell of solipsism.
The world is tidied up, and the fractal narrative is rebooted. Shinji is "still" an idiot.
Ultimately the "audience" is still an idiot.
The "audience" can be be brought "further" into the narrative as an active participant as they are now the Lilin, the final angel "as a collective".
I found it quite "westernized" in this sense, yet still maintaining a quality of the original presentation. There is probably an arguement here to be had concerning the dramatic concept within Eastern literature between "Giri" and "Ninjo", that is matters of the duty and matters of the heart. Individual identity and collective identity, which is a modern dialog as the world marches on into more "net spaces".
Shinji clearly loves Kaworu. Yet he desires Osuka. Karoru is very effeminate but with a sort of masculine charm found in people whom are very secure in who and what they are. Typical of the bishonen style within popular culture of Japan. This is NOT an uncommon internal struggle with young men.
Though this is again, another very popular archetype.
The moon, the cat (this is in the kanji of his name), the reflecting of the water... for me, it's all there. Shit is iconic. It is Descartes "Deceiver within his meditations", it is Buddhist "Devil of the Cave"; known as Makyo. It is close to Plato's allegory of the cave. The devil as a cat is in Christian studies and certainly Islamic narrative.
Simply, reflecting on what it is to "be" a "reflective" being, "in time and space".
Psychologically this may be a terrifying experience.
There are a lot of parallels here with the Mass Effect ending. Definitely won't dispute that. I suppose I question the line of demarcation as to "what extent" those parallels are and why it was done the way it was done.
The religious undertones and quest for identity are major themes of both Japanese pop culture media, Eva, Persona... shit the list goes on and on. THAT perhaps is the answer though.
I find that however you slice it, Eva has both a simplicity and a depth that allows the audience to sort of "interpret" what they are watching in a myriad of wonderful and creative ways. The audience must reflect upon the journey that they are having with Shinji, how they, like Shinji are "powerless" in the context of the narrative "at large".
Not sure if this is any different than the confrontation with Nyx Avatar, if so, only by degrees.
I like Eva "because" of this. 10 people watch it you get 10 different responses. This is telling me people are engaging the work, the 4th wall "was" broken, and the audience is actively participating in the creative process.
We are STILL participating =DDDD
Brilliant! So much so that the narrative has a flexibility in it to continue to produce content. Bad Ass! Smart! Way to Go!
In contrast, examining Battle Star Galactica and it's ending, it "ends" the only way it "could" end. Due to the nature of the exposition. Predictable, safe, some space magic, but "god stuff" and prophecy was littered throughout the work, it was to be expected.
I like it too, for very different reasons.
Class systems, prejudice, military industrial complex, politics, purpose, religion and science; classic sci-fi fodder. It's amuzing in the same way that legion (cylon/machine) quest for god and spiritual purpose. This is VERY VERY similar to Sephiroth. Dark sci-fi, but sci-fi.
Now here is where Sephiroth came from!
If we are seeing a trend with robots/lucifer/identity/machines... look no further, it's all tied together. Now this is noir, specifically cyberpunk... closer to home, not entirely sci-fi.
Transhumanism is traditionally a cyberpunk topic.
Sephiroth is simply Roy Batty "effeminate and Japanified". Thanks Syd Mead where would we be without you?
Digressing a little bit I did find the character legion to be far in a way the most interesting character of the ME universe. Fantastic attention to detail, great writing, excellent research. I like people who do their homework.
Archtypes are INCREDIBLY POWERFUL narrative devices!
Does this frame have a soul?
"Well shit legion, you put me on the spot... not even sure I have one" (4th Wall Brilliance!)
Babylon 5, it's similar but it is closer to "science fiction", rather than "science fantasy". It keeps it's narrative tight and stays way away from space magic at almost all cost. This insures the drama stays focused and the audience isn't sitting around going... da' fook?
Tight narrative and exposition can still be "art" in the same way a simple meal may be prepared "well". Craftsmanship. Again, military industrial complex, politics, chaos and order as a false but necessary dichotomy, mans/alien maturity as a unified front into an uncertain future. It's sci-fi, good ole' fashion sci-fi.
It's the total package.
Sigh ME3...
Enough screwin' round... best to finish this up.
ME1 and ME2, are sci-fi...
ME3, maybe not so much... there is a strong shift into the science fantasy realm, and there is the problem.
Similarly an issue with Prometheus, it isn't sci-fi either, it's a mummy movie set in space briefly then onto a dirt planet. That is, it is a fantasy film, in the future, it is science fantasy, not fiction.
Take the ship, make it a river boat, and presto... mummy movie.
The ship is the river boat, the trip back and forth from the boat to the mountain is like "going ashore". It is a gosh darn mummy movie... dressed up like a space movie. Scott is a visual artist, and I suspect it is his modern deconstruction or "re-visioning" of classic 50's B-movie schlock films... mummies in space.
Not judging... but there it is.
Expectations here are pretty key, sci-fi, as a genre especially in the west, has implied rules.
I discuss why that is at the top of this post. These rules help us understand and frame our own conceptual "suspension" of disbelief. Typically sci-fi says:
Suppose.... ?..... and "stuff goes here", are the conditions.
That said:
ME3 breaks those rules and I am not sure it was intentional.
What I think happened is that ME3 "shoplifted wholesale" a lot of other sci-fi, sci-fan, and cyberpunk "stuff", and in so copying; it copied the themes of the various works quite unintentionally.
It copied some of the things that worked, but it copied all the problems of the works that where resolved within the works themselves.
This gives ME3 an identity crisis thematically.
Space ninja, is cyberpunk and noir, not sci-fi.
Space Jesus, is science fantasy, not sci-fi.
PTSS, makes Shep into a character uprooting him or her as an avatar.
Cerberus is a big bad, deflating the threat of the Reapers.
The crucible may as well be from "contact", which is a drama, some sci-fi themes; religion and science. It is very Carl Sagan stuff.
To touch on a topic here, the "kid", re-works Shepard as a "character", and eliminates him as an "avatar". The end, works him back as an "avatar" and then somewhat "self" declares a brilliance of having of "broke the 4th wall"... thing is, it was always an avatar.
Sheppard doesn't have a character... because he is the players avatar. To make him or her a character means taking away choice and putting them onto a narrative rail.
Like Shinji.
Now we are in a character narrative, not so much an avatar based "theme park, or RPG sand box (of sorts)". ME3 is loaded with this sort of "shell game", this works because it reduces pipeline in the design of the product; there is simply "less shit" to keep up with. Meaning more exposition by random characters and less scenes to actually craft.
It's physically "less work".
This is an intentional retcon, which is retcon'd back... it's a confidence trick. Clever... sure. Genius?
IF I look at ME3 as a work of science "fantasy" and a stand alone product... it's not "all bad". The game is still rushed, it is still a hack, but it works (ish).
It is functionally told "like" it is fantasy narrative, putting it on par with Final Fantasy 13. Thing is, Mass Effect, isn't really Final Fantasy... is it? Final Fantasy runs on anime rules, and it works... for FF. ME runs on science fiction's dime.
We actually saw this same "shift" with Dragon Age 2. When it dipped it's cup into Anime Physics. Narrative as well... and it sorta' sucked. Just explaining why.
Here is the "shit kicker" This product ironically needed to go into a fantasy direction as it helps free up the creative team which is clearly under tremendous time, budget, and asset constraints.
Bioware "needs" the narrative to loosen up, because the game "has gotten smaller".
Japanese RPG is NOTORIOUS for dragging out limited resources and stretching a play through. Bioware simply cribbed notes. It's cheap, efficient, audio in fewer takes, less scenes to animate, less shit to deal with.
So... let me ramble a little more as to why this was bad...
As a composition, as a sequel, this simple will not do.
In the evaluation as a work of art as a trilogy I fail it here. Now art as expression is certainly subjective, I cannot nor should I attempt to "tell" someone what they want to express.
As a work of design, which follows the principles of design, things become quite a bit more objective and in that, a critical analysis may not only be levied but stands as a objective critical analysis.
Art as Expression (personal-working in medium-elements of art, playing with principles of design)
Art as Artifice (cultural-products-principles of design applying the elements of art)
Games as art, yes, however the vast majority of the arguments are right in the same way a broken clock is right... twice a day.
Like I said in my previous post on this thread, I found it rushed from beginning to end. A rushed product is not one that is going to justify a masterstroke at the end of the journey.
The end here, was a "consequence" of the design decisions that where made, or implied during the hi-jacking of others creative works.
The endings "as they are", are by-products of the lazy work that had been done. Lazy work -> Lazy ending. No happy accidents in design.
The work done is not in the service of the ending. The ending is the excuse for the laziness of the work that had been done up to that point.
I grant you, it is very clever... I also feel strongly "for what that is worth" that it was incredibly foolish.
Said it before, say it again... 13 lines of dialog does not trump 90ish hours of gameplay and world building. 13 lines of dialog is a consequence of not having a plan and trying to "explain away" the missteps after the fact.
Genius or Lazy?
Cleverly lazy with ramifications. Price paid for getting away from the genre. Yes there are expectations, this is not entitlement, that is bullshit spewed by people covering their ass.
Now at the end of the day where does this leave us?
When I buy art I am generally buying the artist, typically a master or up and coming master of their medium. I "like" what they are doing with a medium.
When I buy artifice I am generally buying a very well designed product. I am buying in accord with my own expectation.
Sometimes this does and will overlap, more often than I think "collectively" we really acknowledge.
My point, somewhere in all this, is that Eva from start to finish always had room "by design" to pull off what it did and still remain a viable material. The room was always there to ask "big questions".
Mass Effect crippled itself by cutting corners, and "hastily" cobbled together "something" to try to tie it all together.
This violates a rule I tend to run with:
Rule: 6 P
Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance
Piss Poor... Mass Effect 3, without a doubt. Cutting so many corners it resolves the same way a slinky or curly cue french fry does...
This is why, without a doubt, I conclude that we end up with something 'pinched out' like this:
Simply because of trying to be this:
Alas I may only really talk about "what is there". Like anyone else. Same story 500 threads later. The thing to keep in mind perhaps is that video games, already break the 4th wall, because they are video games. An interactive medium that allows for more tactile depth with the mechanics of the world in which we are exploring.
ME3 As art... I dunno I just don't know. I am of the mind to say no, simply due to the copy/paste nature of it. Art inspires, it requires skill, transcendental expertise... art is likely "not" art if it is or was "influenced" into being.
As Plato said "imitation is the greatest form of flattery". Final Fantasy, well.. it's art, same with Eva, same with Blade Runner, same with B5, or Star Trek... same with ME1 and ME2...
As a product? Sloppy. Not very interesting. Done better elsewhere. Just didn't live up to any kind of expectation... hell more of the same would of been nice.
My roof is wet with piss, the excuse is that it is raining.
Philosophically? Does it ask big questions? Are we left with anywhere to go? Nah, not really... which is why so many JRPG's don't really do sequels in step... they focus on world concepts and internal memes as the framework.
Are all my bro's dead? (not a big question)... Why are all the Reapers so same same? (not a big question).
That is why, I think, when Bioware talks at PAX they talk about "Fereldan" the world... as being important... they really are off in high fantasy land. Discussing ME they want to go way off into the future of the world...
They don't seem particularly interested in working with fiction. That's fine. Good luck to em.
On the bright side at least we have had an interesting conversation on the topic! That's pretty cool. Thank you for the opportunity to talk on it.
.png)
