Lit Unpopular EU opinions

Discussion in 'Literature' started by Team Padme, Sep 14, 2012.

  1. ezekiel22x Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 9, 2002
    star 5
    Yeah. Poorly phrased on my part, but I would've been okay with a child outside of marriage as well. Main point was that it should be okay for a big name adult character to have a relationship/family status that is not married with children. Closest we've had were Jaina and Jacen, but like someone else said they really did come across as teenagers even in their 30s. And of course Jacen couldn't be portrayed as a normal, unmarried father when he was too busy being capital e evil. Some others:

    - Clone Wars microseries was kind of lame

    - I didn't care how Traviss wrote about the Jedi. At worst she was a bit repetitive, not to mention guilty of the "everybody has to get married" mandate, but overall I think the backlash against her work is way overblown.

    - Boba Fett: Death, Lies, and Treachery is the only good Star Wars comic I've read.

    - Even though I'm a huge Stover fan, I prefer the ROTS film to his novelization.

    - Episode I Pod-Racer is better than the KOTOR games.

    - I'd rather read about the prequel era than anything else.
  2. Havac Former Moderator

    Member Since:
    Sep 29, 2005
    star 7
    In Inferno, the Jedi are also operating out of a hangar number one hundred something. It suggests a design very different from anything we've seen before; a supercarrier type of design.
  3. Sinrebirth SWC and EUC Forum Moderator

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 15, 2004
    star 7
    Hanger 51, exactly. It could be a 19km design with less guns but more starfighter/troop space?
  4. Havac Former Moderator

    Member Since:
    Sep 29, 2005
    star 7
    Okay, yeah. I couldn't remember the exact number but knew it was ridiculously high. The one possible way to trim that down is if the hangars were numbered by deck -- so Hangar 51 is Deck 5, Hangar 1.
  5. imiller Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 26, 2004
    star 3
    Wait...for some reason, a carrier based around a triangular body sounds familiar...
  6. Sinrebirth SWC and EUC Forum Moderator

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 15, 2004
    star 7
    Endurance-class carriers?
  7. Zeta1127 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 4
    Fixed.
  8. imiller Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 26, 2004
    star 3
    Nup. Those are pocket-destroyer sized (1050m, if I remember correctly). I'm thinking a devoted carrier built around an SSD-sized hull...man...I just read about it somewhere...
  9. Zeta1127 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 4
    1040m, actually. There have been vague references to dedicated carriers like that before, but I don't believe in them because of Imperial doctrine. The largest known dedicated carrier is the Secutor-class Star Destroyer.
  10. imiller Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 26, 2004
    star 3
    Oh, so close! Nearly an X-Wing's length off, though ;)

    Maybe it's the Secutor? I dunno. Would be awfully small for a dreadnought, though. When was Megador built?
  11. Zeta1127 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 4
    The Secutor-class Star Destroyer is that rather odd looking Star Destroyer from Dark Empire that Fractalsponge finally helped give a name and a keel length of 2.2km in TEGtW.
  12. instantdeath Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 22, 2010
    star 5
    I'll assume you were addressing me, at least in part of this post? :p

    Now that I've got time more time, I'd like to elaborate and add a few things... no one click, content for privileged eyes only.

    Show Spoiler
    I definitely understand the sentiment that it's possible to even mention Mass Effect these days without getting a barrage of embitterment. Very unfortunate, considering it's such a great series overall, and perhaps one of the more unique gaming experiences out there.

    I wouldn't say we necessarily have opposing views here, since I really don't even dislike the original endings. I just feel that, overall, a visual representation is very appropriate for a project like Mass Effect, even if it does somewhat sully a creative idea. I can't begin to describe how much the Mass Effect fan base has... disappointed me in the past few months. Of course, it did get the EC endings, which I greatly appreciate, but on the other, the fanbase is just not a fun thing to be a part of anymore. I used to sporadically visit the Bioware forums. Haven't been there in months, and I have no desire to check back in. I don't expect the fans to just accept an ending they don't like with a smiles and thank yous, but the manner in which some fans go about their daily complaining is beyond tiresome.

    One thing that drives me nuts about popular sentiment regarding the ME3 endings is the mindset that Shepard should drive toward her goal, destroying the Reapers, with never even the thought of compromise or reconsideration. Sure, there is wisdom in this- a defining trait of Shepard, of every possible incarnation of Shepard, is the refusal to give up. Even so, I find the idea that once one sets their eyes on a goal, they must complete it regardless of any new variables hopelessly simplistic. If killing off an entire race isn't enough to make one stop and reconsider their goals, I'm not sure what is. That's why I see it as the ultimate renegade ending; it embodies the "I'll sacrifice anything to complete my goal" archetype. What annoys me is the fans who pass it off as the one true ending, and make excuses like "it was obviously lying!".

    I had this point about the ME3 ending that was quickly dismissed as pretentious by a friend of mine, but what the heck, I'll fire it again. So, obviously the whole "are video games art" debate can get pretty fierce. I think it's pretty easy to guess which side I am on. But regardless, most gamers these days will probably say, "of course video games are art". Cool, I agree. The thing is, when you acknowledge something as art, I also feel you acknowledge artistic intention, be it good or bad. When ME3 first hit, a common meme on the Bioware forums was to mock the endings "artistic vision", which to me almost seemed to mock the very idea of artistic vision in video games. I found this troubling. It struck me as a fanbase willing to call their favorite hobby art, but when one of their favorites does something genuinely artistic (you can get into the connotations of the word "artistic" all day, and of course there's that lovely "the only true art is angsty" trope), they rage. They'll call it art, but they won't defend its right to be art, if that makes any sense. I differ with many ME fans in that I don't feel that ME is truly our story. It's a story we influence, that we help shape. That doesn't give us license to it. We play in Bioware's sandbox. As I've already spelled out, I do not believe the original ME3 were spectacular, but I don't personally feel their right to end it that way should be mocked as it has been.

    But I digress. On the refusal ending, I will say that this article influenced my opinion. I do not agree with all of it, but it is an interesting view point. For my part, I completely disregard the idea that the next cycle uses the crucible. But you are right, it does seem quite selfish. For me, it remains an interesting alternate ending. I don't think I'll ever actually take a Shepard through three games and have him/her choose refusal at the end.

    I really can't express how much those "the refusal ending is nothing but a middle finger" people annoy me, so I won't try. I thought it was absolutely spelled out from the beginning of the game, arguably even with Sovereign's attack on the citadel, that the galaxy would lose a prolonged war with the Reapers. If they were to put in an ending where Shepard refuses and still wins, it would invalidate the other endings, because it would pretty much be the ending. After all, what's the point of picking the other endings if there's one where you win with no consequences whatsoever?

    Anyway though, there's one thing you haven't mentioned that I'm actually really curious about. What is your opinion of the mass relays? See, I feel the fact that they're totally destroyed is the greatest flaw of the original endings, not to mention a plothole large enough to fly a few dozen Star Destroyers through. I think the reason so many fans took a "the galaxy is doomed" viewpoint is that, without the relays, the galaxy would stagnate for centuries, the quarians would never see their home, etc. So, by changing it to just merely damaged, I feel they fixed the single greatest flaw with the endings. Do you prefer they be destroyed? I know some have raised the idea that the relays could have been rebuilt, and I don't necessarily disagree, but it definitely would not happen in any of the characters you interacted with lifetime. [/end spoiler]
  13. imiller Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 26, 2004
    star 3
    Show Spoiler
    But if it is art, couldn't you make the argument that is is bad art?
  14. instantdeath Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 22, 2010
    star 5

    I like this whole secret conversation gig we've got going on.

    Show Spoiler
    Absolutely. Everyone has the right to what they like and what they don't. What sort of perplexed me was that people were sort of making fun of the idea of artistic integrity in general. Like it's something largely unimportant, especially in a childish thing such as video games. I don't believe all good art is controversial- Bioware could have easily come up with a much more widely accepted ending without sacrificing much, if any, artistic integrity. I respect the fans rights to be angry (I wasn't exactly happy), but I think some of the fans really possessive attitudes towards the franchise really reflected badly. Of course, you could argue that those same possessive fans led to the EC, which I really enjoy, so I suppose some good did come out of it. [/endspoiler]
    Last edited by instantdeath, Sep 18, 2012
  15. Skywalker_T-65 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2009
    star 6
    Probably very unpopular (I'm sure Zeta will hate me:p )...

    But I really REALLY don't like Traitor...I know people say LotF threw everything that book did out the window...but the same is true of Traitor itself. Since IT threw everything previously said about the Force out the window. And that just doesn't really sit right with me. I much preferred it when using the Dark Side was EVIL not 'oh you're just using the Force in a different way...who cares about that guy you just Force Choked/fried with lightning'.

    And before anyone gets on my case about how that's 'not what the book was about!' I haven't read it in years. But I stand by my dislike there.
  16. RC-1991 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 2, 2009
    star 4
    Well yeah, that's not what the book was really about. Traitor is about how identity and ethics influence each other.
    Zeta1127 likes this.
  17. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9
    Unpopular opinions (or potentially unpopular opinions?):

    - Vergere evidenced herself by being a Sith from almost everything she said in the NJO, especially within Traitor...

    - ... however, if you believed Vergere is a Sith simply because Lumiya said so later, rather than the former statement, then I don't know what to tell you.

    - Speaking of: Traitor is one of the most masterfully-written novels I've ever read. And it's a terrible STAR WARS novel.

    - The GFFA was better when WEG held the bible via LFL.

    - Star Wars is better when it's space opera.

    - Courtship and Darksaber are some of my favorite Bantam-era novels.

    Some other notes:

    1) Sean Stewart does not want to write more Star Wars; Del Rey would love for him to come back. He likes new things.
    2) The DESB is potentially one of the greatest things in the EU and made Dark Empire a gazillion times better (and it was already awesome), as previously noted.
  18. Skywalker_T-65 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2009
    star 6
    I think I agree more with dp...Traitor isn't a bad book...but it isn't a good STAR WARS book.
  19. CooperTFN TFN EU Staff Emeritus

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1999
    star 6
    If you strike me down, powerful, etc. [face_talk_hand]
    Draconarius likes this.
  20. instantdeath Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 22, 2010
    star 5
    Remember, much of the philosophy presented in Traitor is Vergere's, which Luke largely rejects. It isn't representative to how things are with no room for argument.
  21. Dr. Steve Brule Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 7, 2012
    star 4
    I don't think any of these opinions are really that unpopular, are they? Especially about WEG and DESB. And in the Daley/Crispin thread from a few days ago there seemed to be consensus that one of the reasons the Daley books were so good was because they reflected the pulp roots of Star Wars so well.

    That being said I think it's interesting that you listed enjoying WEG and enjoying SW's space opera roots right next to each other. While I truly do love WEG's work, I think their sourcebooks' attempts to define, standardize, explain and introduce real-world reasoning to things from the EU was one of the first major steps in turning the franchise from a space opera/pulp work into a more realistic, traditional military-sf bent (which only accelerated under Del Rey).
  22. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9
    Oh, totally disagree -- expressly because WEG defined the setting and space opera in particular in such a way that they'd lose more than half of their audience (or more); basically, every time I quoted it during the NJO run, people said "that sucks!"
  23. beccatoria Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 8, 2006
    star 4
    @instantdeath - ugh, yes, I did mean to tag both of you. But you both have names that start with lowercase "i"s!

    And @imiller, yeah, while I know there were some people out there who were unhappy at the lack of "happy ending", to dismiss everyone with that is cheap and insulting, not to mention the fact there's nothing wrong with wanting a happy ending; you can even argue it's ME2 that sets the precedent for expecting it. Though obviously I'm glad they went with something more ambiguous.

    Anyways - to the secret conversation!

    Show Spoiler
    Yeah, I basically agree with your assessment of fan reaction. I also think you're pretty spot on with the comments about video games as art. As imiller notes, anyone is entitled to believe it is bad art, but you're right, there was a vested interest among some quarters in proving that it could not be considered art in the first place. I think people became invested in that perspective because taking a capitalist, "I paid money for a product," attitude is both culturally in vogue right now and helps restore a feeling of control that many people felt was lost when they were given endings they disliked and felt railroaded into. If it's not art, then it's not just a matter of opinion that it was "bad". If it was false advertising then they can demand it be "fixed" because it is self-evidently "broken". I also imagine it was partly a reaction to a perception (not entirely undeserved) that the ending is a piece of effete intellectualism, and this is a way of shutting down the "you just didn't get it" arguments. I get why those are annoying, but also it saddens me that it's impossible to make them without sounding condescending. "You just didn't get it," shouldn't necessarily be a comment on the person who didn't get it. "You just didn't get it because the game failed to explain it as well as it could," or better yet, "You just didn't see the same things I did in it, because we like different things."

    Anyway. The relays!

    I was initially shocked and devastated about it, until I thought about it, and yes, after thinking about it, I was okay even with that, and actually thought it was...the proper thing to do.

    Because the Mass Relays and the Citadel are a trap; that was the twist as far back as the first game. The cute little Keepers are malignant spies, and the Citadel is there, waiting, at the centre of the Relays, this perfect vine trellis to force entire cycles of civilisations into neat little patterns, and not just geographically. Technology is based around the mass effect, around eezo creating biotics, the systems that are colonised are those near Relays; the resources within them are the ones that shape the future of social, biological and technological development. Weirder races like the Thorian or the Rachni don't flourish as well as the Asari or Turian - coincidence or engineering?

    Even if only passively, the Relays are a constraint as much as a source of freedom. I don't think that's enough to declare it worth getting rid of them no matter the cost (because I'm a technophile who finds no nobility in waste), but I do think, especially thematically, there's something to be said for growing up and exploring a universe free of your parents' leash and beyond the borders they have declared safe. There's something about expulsion of deceptive and limiting influence. I also think there's something interesting in there about the use of tools and evolution and how they influence each other.

    Specifically, I think it's a decision that plays very differently, and appropriately, in each of the three primary endings.

    1) Synthesis - here I feel like, with the implied evolutionary leap that is about to occur, newer, stranger, wilder technologies are about to develop. I felt it was implied that something new would be developed in place of the Relays - something built and developed by the people who are going to use it, not an ancient race seeking to control them. It's a symbol of how truly unimaginably different the future will be.

    2) Control - the animation even in the original endings was different here. We saw the Relays overload, but we didn't see them fall to bits as we did in the other two endings. To me, that implied they were not as profoundly damaged, and combined with Shepard controlling the Reapers who created them, I took that as a sign that they were fixable. So in Control, as is appropriate, things continue on much the same trajectory as they did before, but with a new (benign?) overlord.

    3) Destroy - here they're just plain gone and it will probably take much longer to fix/replace them than in either of the other endings. Although I'd note that I don't think it's as bleak as many seem to - as I understand it (and I'll never be a Fleet Junkie in any universe), you need some eezo to build a ship's core engine, but after that, you're good - the eezo doesn't get used up, you use regular fuel to travel at FTL speed. Obviously it's not as fast as a Relay, but given the Normandy seems to pop between nebulae and star systems like it's going to the corner shop, even if it takes months or years, people are going to get to where they want to be. It's brutal, but it's a brutal ending and one that - I'd argue - when contrasted with the others, evokes notions of "not being ready" for certain knowledge and advancements, and of "man" as something intended to be separate from "machine". That kind of, "we'd all be happier out in the fresh air hunting wildebeest away from the rat race!" sort of pastoral nostalgia that I think works well with the idea of cutting the cancer out at the root and ridding the galaxy of every last vestige of the Reapers and their influence.

    Finally, I didn't consider the future of the franchise at all mainly because I hope when they make more games set in it (I know they intend to), they're prequels, set before ME1, not sequels. Because there's just *no way* they're going to be able to adequately show how different the universe ought to be. I was fine with the end animations being similar because the idea behind what Shepard just did in each instance was SO wildly different. If it turns out that we're just going to get another game with (a) no Geth, (b) Geth and elusive references to The Shepard, or (c) Geth and a slight reskin for all characters and no omnitools because we just stick our arms into doors to hack them now, I'm gonna really be pretty disappointed.

    Thanks for the link to the Forbes article. It was pretty interesting. I was quite interested in the ending and the reaction to it so I did a lot of reading at the time (though I took one look at the active fandom and decided that even lurking was likely to be bad for my health), but I'll be honest, Forbes was running a seemingly endless stream of negative editorials (like literally it was more than one a day at times and it went on for a few weeks, it was honestly surreal) so I ended up skimming/skipping most of what they were posting and totally missed this.

    But it's neat. I like how they configure Liara as the hero - it's a very true thing to say. I also found that showing Shepard's choice as one from an archeological, rather than military perspective, was the first time I could see it as *interesting* instead of self-righteous. I still find it basically selfish because, as presented here, it revolves around taking a moral stance by refusing to write of the Geth as acceptable losses, but apparently being perfectly willing to write off the entire cycle, but I don't think we're in disagreement about the options tendency towards being somewhat selfish? And as I said, configuring it this way, and trying to "unlearn what I have learned" and instead just viewing it as another option, it's...philosophically a lot more interesting to me when it's a considered "long view" choice rather than a gung-ho middle finger because Shepard should be that dang awesome.

    That said, I disagree with the author's assertion that the concern about organic/synthetic conflict is as misguided as he portrays it and he has a fairly narrow definition of "machine", but I think that's probably the fact that I read Vernor Vinge and watched Battlestar Galactica and the Sarah Connor Chronicles for all the stuff about the blurring boundary between people and machines years before I ever picked up ME1, because it is one of my favourite themes in fiction and we're all cyborgs by now anyway, and that sort of skews how I approach the whole franchise. Probably in ways directly relevant to my divergent opinion on the ending. ;)

    Anyway, thanks for sharing.
  24. Master Valon Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2012
    star 1
    Wow....I honestly wasn't aware of the extreme disdain for Traviss....so I guess MY most unpopular belief would be:

    -I consider Traviss to be the best SW author, and I was severely disappointed with how LFL dealt with her, and her subsequent leaving from the SW universe.

    I know this isn't the point of the thread, but....could I get some opinions/evidence as to why people don't like KT/her writing? I'm at a loss.
  25. RC-1991 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 2, 2009
    star 4