There, There, Bioware

Courtesy of meonlyred from the Bioware forums

This article contains spoilers.

There has been a fair amount of people flouncing all over internet message boards and social media since the release of Mass Effect 3.  There have been posts requesting a ‘better’ ending, video edits of the final cut scene to make it more ‘satisfying’, and people threatening to boycott Boware altogether.  People are unhappy, and assert that Bioware has messed up big time.

Fans, let me tell you: you are (mostly) wrong.  Not wrong to be deeply moved, but wrong to be so hasty as to not consider the possible implications that the ending does present.

I won’t lie.  I completely understand your passion for a franchise that, it could be argued, may well have defined video games for the twenty first century (although it is probably a little early to assert this).  I, like many of you, have developed a deep love for the characters of this universe.  Indeed, it is a testament to the talent of the writing staff that the relationships they have established over three video games elicit such a passionate response from an incredibly diverse fan base.  So, then, how can anyone say that the writing staff provided an ending that was inherently lacking with any real fairness?

The ending cinematic gave us a lot to process in a very short amount of time, and I think that people are getting caught up in what makes them mad (which is most amusingly expressed in VigilanceSaurfang’s Angry Hitler) instead of trying to analyze what they did give us.  After several days of thinking about the ending, I believe I have finally happened upon a way to find hope where I used to only see fatalist despair.

What exactly do we see in the ending cinematic?

A wave of energy radiates from the Crucible, enveloping all forces on Earth and in space.  Fighting ceases.

The same energy shoots out in a beam towards the mass relay.  The relay overloads and sends a chain reaction of energy traveling from relay to relay before each explodes (and please note, the explosion her is very, very different from the explosion at the end of Arrival).  The energy radiates from each relay in the exact same way that it does from the Crucible, effectively covering the entire galaxy and therefore affecting every single synthetic.

Joker tries to outrun the energy and crashes God knows where.  Your squad—including people you took with you on the final push through London—survive.

If you chose what people believe is the cannon ending, Shepard survives but is badly injured.

The credits roll, and, if you imported a character, you get a cut scene in which a child asks someone called Stargazer for another story about the Shepard.

It’s true that in two of the three endings (including the one I chose), Shepard dies.  Would I have liked more closure on how your friends take this, or if they even know?  Absolutely.  Would I like to been told for a fact that people survive the explosion of the relays?  You bet.

But let’s think about things logically for a minute.  Yes, we’ve seen what happens when you smash a relay with a huge rock.  Worlds are incinerated and people die.  But we’ve never seen what happens when the intelligence that built the damn things uses them for something we never knew they could do.  Would it not be possible—hell, even likely—that the Crucible’s signal uses all that energy instead of releasing it, and that life in systems with relays survives?  After all, the energy to destroy, control, or integrate all synthetics in the galaxy has to come from somewhere.

It can be tempting to see the destruction of the relays—even if everyone does survive—as the end of all hope for inter-stellar contact, but remember: there is a huge Prothean archive on Mars that contains more information than humans have been able to sort through, some of the most intelligent beings in the galaxy are now stuck together in the Sol system, and they have debris that they can study in an attempt to re-engineer the technology.

If you’re not convinced by my theory about the relay explosions and the possibility of people developing relay-like technology, then Stargazer’s conversation should assuage any other fears.  In order for the stories of Shepard’s exploits to reach our descendants, then either people who knew Shepard survived long enough to re-unite in a galactic society or Liara’s galactic record survived and was discovered.  The fact that “some of the details [about Shepard] have been lost with time” suggests an oral tradition for the stories, or at least a situation in which they are told and re-told by many different people rather than coming from a single source, which makes me lean towards a galactic community rather than a discovered data cache.  So, even if it takes a while, humans do find a way to travel the stars once more.

Whatever you believe, you cannot believe for even one minute that any of us can ever love these characters or this universe as much as the people who created them, and I find it shameful that anyone would be so self absorbed and narrow sighted as to personally attack people involved in the project.  If there is anything that Bioware does better than create amazing and lovable characters, it’s that they look at the long-term story generally beyond the scope of our speculation.  You have to leave room for the possibility that what they showed us is setting up something specific—and quite possibly fantastic.  I, for one, cannot wait to see what they have in store.

xbox360 and Fable 3

The day my husband bought Fallout: New Vegas a few weeks ago, we discovered that our poor Halo 3 special edition console was dead.  And the last time we sent it in to Microsoft,  it took nearly two months to get it back again.  So welcome to our new sexy black xbox with fabulous wifi!

The only downside to the new console was that I couldn’t remember whatever BS email I created for my gamertag back when you were required to have a Microsoft-related email service.  So I lost my 7k or so achievement points.  But I did get to make a new more pertinent tag: screencraZe43.

We also lost all the saved games on the hard drive (like all my Mass Effect 1 & 2 decisions).  But then again, I’ll get to re-play my favorite xBox games and get achievements again–so I’ll feel like it’s less pointless.  And in the case of the Mass Effect series, I’m sure I’ll have some down-time in the next year or so to get ready for number 3 (coming sometime in late 2011, or so we’ve been told).

I’m registered on xbox360achievements.org if you’d like to follow my current/future gaming conquests.  It’s a nice little website, even if the interface is somewhat…difficult at times.  I still haven’t figured out how to join groups.  But that could be because my account is still a probie.

In any event: Fable 3 is a fairly good sequel, but it definitely breaks some of the expectations established by the first two parts.  Being completely good or completely evil and then kicking the bad guy’s asses is not good enough to save the world (and being good takes quite a bit more work.  Which I suppose makes sense, but was very frustrating).  Also, your morality does not affect your avatar the way it did in both of the others (until the final battle, that is), which I kind of missed.  Your weapon skills, however, do affect your avatar a bit more than before, and upgrading them affects your weapons themselves rather nicely.

The chickens are back, of course, but the kicking-related game is gone (as far as I can tell–I haven’t bothered completing the quest to investigate the chicken races), and the pub games are gone (I’m not yet sure if I’m happy about this or not), but they have some great new puzzles to figure out to get Gold Keys (on top of the 50 silver keys, you can find 4 gold ones to unlock doors hiding ‘cool’ items).

Overall, I’ve enjoyed it.  I would say that I wished I had waited for a used copy, except that it was nice to be able to placate my husband with something decent when Fallout: New Vegas started glitching like a madman (which he hasn’t touched in almost a week he’s so mad).  I can’t wait to see what Ben “Yahtzee” Croshaw has to say about it.  Whenever he gets to play it.

Review: Shrek Forever After

When I was first researching the 2010 summer season, I was rather surprised when I heard that we would be presented with yet another Shrek film—and that it would absolutely be the “final chapter” of a series now twelve plus years in the making.  As much as I loved Shrek and liked Shrek 2, Shrek the Third was completely disappointing, and I was unsure how to feel about Shrek Forever After.  However, my enjoyment of the first two installments in the series, as well as my general like of Mike Myers’ films, did make Forever After a must-see this summer (and, well, let’s face it, there really wasn’t anything else out that I hadn’t already seen).  After all, Mike Myers has made a similar comeback once before when he proved that the Austin Powers series could still be funny, even after the inappropriately disgusting Austin Powers: the Spy who Shagged Me.

My trepidation increased when, as I was looking up the release dates for the other Shrek movies on Google, I ran across a few lines of reviews that dubbed Shrek Forever After as “disappointing.”  After seeing the movie, though, I’m rather surprised that it got such condemnations, as it was a vast improvement over Shrek the Third (which I will probably never watch again or ever purchase).

Shrek’s troubles in Forever After all stem from a very real and adult fear: what if the major decisions I made in life weren’t really the right ones?  Though perhaps a bit more emotional than the others, Forever After returned to the supporting characters and sense of humor of the first two films while still addressing Shrek’s need to deal with responsibility.  The ‘alternate reality’ Shrek finds himself in even allows for some hilarious new character quirks (I especially liked Gingy’s new attitude) and reminded me why I liked the original Shrek in the first place.

Some franchises, especially in children’s films, release half-rate sequels in order to make as much money as possible off of the success of one story (ahem, Lion King 2½), but Shrek Forever After was not such a film.  I’m sure it would have been unsatisfying for the filmmakers to end the Shrek saga on a dud, and the final chapter brought closure to the characters and the story in a way that Shrek the Third never could have.

Next movie review: Prince of Persia

Review: Robin Hood

There is something inherently appealing about a story in which the weak and the few overcome the strong and the many.  These kinds of stories have permeated our culture since the tail of David and Goliath, and the film industry is no exception: Cinderella, Gladiator, Slumdog Millionaire, 300, even The Man Who Knew Too Little. The most famous non-secular English hero, however, is undoubtedly Robin Hood, the yeoman archer who was made an outlaw for taking a stand against a tyrannical king.  Robin Hood’s tale has existed for hundreds of years, originating in the early thirteenth century and slowly evolving, gathering characters and new dimensions until it became the legend we know today.

Ridley Scott’s new film is just the latest of over a dozen major motion pictures made on the subject worldwide, though he has certainly added some flare of his own to the story.  In spite of the pace, which, at times, feels more like a four hour Kevin Costner saga, Scott has definitely brought romance and excitement back to the old relationships and conflicts.  Though Maid Marion and Friar Tuck first appeared in the Robin Hood legend 100 years after its inception, and were sexually involved with each other at the time, Marion and Robin’s love has been absolute since their coupling in an Elizabethan play from the 1590s.  The chemistry between Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett, which was really the highlight of the movie for me, is a refreshing change from the assumed coupling of the two in the Disney version and the complete facetiousness of their ‘courtship’ in Robin Hood: Men In Tights (yes, I’m sure it was Mel Brooks’s intention to make fun of the tradition of courtly love, but this was merely a final step in the degradation of these characters as people).

Another larger change to the story is the way in which King Richard the ‘Lion Heart,’ King John, and the historical background of the period are portrayed. In an interview for the History Channel’s program “The Real Robin Hood,” Crowe said “one of the problems of approaching Robin Hood is the last 100 years of cinema have over simplified [Robin Hood].”  Instead of laying all of the blame on King John, Scott admits to the financial reality of what it cost England for Richard to wage his Crusade—and what it costs for a king to govern and rule, for a king to not appear entirely weak in front of other monarchs who might wish to ‘acquire’ new lands.  Though there is balance in where Scott lays the blame, as the other contributing factor to the empty treasury was the repeated defeats John suffered in France.  The final confrontation between the English and the French in the film has a few shots that portray a humorous and snide attitude towards John’s ‘skills’ as a general—which were, frankly, abysmal.  “I think the core value, of robbing from the rich to give to the poor, is the thing that is going to survive,” Crowe concluded.  “We haven’t approached that core from a literal, money sense.  We’ve jumped off from there into a metaphor, and that’s why we’ve shifted the timeline and put it in the era of the Magna Carta, [which eventually limited John’s power in 1215], and our redress of the balance, our robbing from the rich, is [the re-balancing of what they saw as] their rights and privileges.”

Other than the pace, the only nit-picky thing that bothered me was the design for the ending credits.  The opening credits and several historical points were in and illustrated by beautiful illuminated lettering, but the end credits were set against a backdrop of modern impressionist paintings of scenes from the film, the juxtaposition in style of which was completely jarring and seemed rather inappropriate (more thematic continuity please!).  Overall, Robin Hood was not as epic as Scott and Crowe’s last major project together (Gladiator), but it is still worth seeing, though I doubt that it will supplant Iron Man 2 as number one in the box offices.

Next week’s review: Shrek Forever After, maybe MacGruber, and possibly Rozencrantz and Guildenstern Are Undead if I can find a showing

Review: Iron Man 2

At last!  We have emerged from the movie doldrums that inevitably come between last-minute Oscar bids and the Baby Boomer period for films: we have arrived at this year’s Summer Blockbusters.  And what better way to herald the return of good (or at least entertaining) movies than the return of the Avengers with the release of Iron Man 2.

Though perhaps not as dynamic in terms of character arc as its prequel, the second installation is still as fast-paced, as visually appealing, and as enjoyable as the 2008 hit.  Robert Downey Jr. returns to the role of Tony Stark, to which he adds yet another dimension: Stark’s reaction to his very real mortality.  And, of course, being surrounded by an incredibly talented group of supporting actors doesn’t hurt either.  I was sad to hear that Terrence Howard, who played Rhodey in the first film, wasn’t returning.  That is, until I realized that Don Cheadle (an actor I wish we could see more of, especially after Hotel Rwanda and Ocean’s 11-13) had taken the role, especially since the Rhodey we meet in the second film can be seen as the voice of reason when Tony gets a bit out of control.  Who better to stand up to these two than Mickey Rourke, whose work in The Wrestler has been earning him some major roles (he’s in yet another film to look forward to this summer, The Expendables) and is proving to be a delight to watch.

Pepper Potts (played by Gwyneth Paltrow) was rather downplayed; a shock when considering the ending of the last movie—but not when you see Scarlett Johansson in action.  I’ve never been as obsessed with her as an actress, or of her work (Lost in Translation simply couldn’t find my interest).  Don’t get me wrong.  She wasn’t terrible in films like The Island or The Prestige.  She just wasn’t amazing.  Her performance in Iron Man 2, however, proved to me that she is worthy of all the attention she has been given in the past.

But Iron Man 2 didn’t just herald the beginning of the ‘Summer Blockbuster’ season.  It also promoted the other major films of it’s ilk: Robin Hood, Prince of Persia, Shrek Forever After, the film formerly known as Avatar: the Last Airbender (that is until James Cameron sniped all of the public recognition for the word ‘Avatar’), and a Stephen Spielberg/J. J. Abrams flick for next summer titled Super 8 (supposedly about the botched transportation of ‘something’ from Area 51 to Ohio).  Though perhaps Spielberg is allowed the overly zealous trailer spot.  After all, it was Jaws that first demonstrated that a summer release could be key to pulling in massive numbers at the box office.

While Iron Man 2 may be currently dominating the Box Office charts at number one ($133.6M in this last week, while the second place, A Nightmare on Elm Street, is at a lowly $9.1M), the film is in for some major competition, starting with today’s release of Robin Hood.  I know I have sixteen films marked on my calendar between now and September that I’m excited about, not to mention the films I may want to see just so I can write about how terrible they really are (MacGruber, I’m talking to you, though mayyyyybeee you’ll surprise me…naaaah).

Next week’s review: Gladiator—no, wait, sorry, Robin Hood.

Announcement: Warcraft Expansion Cataclysm

Those of us who have ventured into the world of Azeroth in the past five years have some exciting new content to look forward to some time in the next year and a half (maybe).  Deathwing, formerly know as Neltharion the Earth-Warder, will emerge from the Elemental Plane of Earth (the elemental planes are where the Titans banished the elements in order to make Azeroth habitable for the rest of us) and change the face of Kalimador and the Eastern Kingdoms as we know them.

Aside from revamping some of the way stats and talents work, Blizzard is allowing several new race-class combinations–we can finally say ‘Holy Cow!’ and a great deal of other jokes aimed at dwarven shamen, human hunters (when did that ever not make sense?), etc. etc.–as well as bringing two new playable hero races to the table: Worgen (basically Lycen/Warewolves) for the Alliance and Goblins for the Horde.  How this makes sense given the Alliance’s track record for making outcasts of ‘unnatural’ races and the Goblin’s greed…….but perhaps I shouldn’t question the plot device.  I suppose the Horde needs a short race to equally annoy the Alliance, and the Alliance needs at least one bad-ass race to play.    ^.^

In any event, the exploration of new lore, the artistry of the dungeons, and the new game play mechanics are sure to delight Blizzard fans across the world.

For more information on specific new changes, visit Blizzard’s official Cataclysm website.

To watch the expansion announcement cinematic, visit this youtube page.