55 réponses à ce sujet

[CannonO]

aftohsix wrote...

I've seen several different threads addressing various issues people have taken with the prior two Mass Effect games and how they'd like to see them fixed.

Invariably one of the main criticisms seems to be that said issue doesn't fall in line with the established "lore."

This is what I'm taking issue with.

In a nutshell the Mass Effect games are SCIENCE FICTION games with GIANT ROBOTS and ALIENS WITH PLEASANT AMERICAN ACCENTS. 

I find it hard to understand how one can pick and choose elements of the game to complain about when we have this basic framework established.  Logically either you should be able to "buy into" all of it or none of it.

So my request:  When saying something doesn't line up with the "lore," please say that it doesn't line up with your definition of the lore.

A minor distinction but an important one.  It changes the tone of your argument from "These are facts, Bioware why won't you listen to HARD FACTS YOU SUCK!" to "In my opinion this feature doesn't make sense to me, based on my understanding of the fiction, here is how I think it should be improved."

Follow this suggestion and maybe many of the discussions we have will be more constructive. 

The accents are in the lore. Translation renders the the alien tones in an understandable dialect through translator tech. 

Lore is a big deal when a company writes so much of it and makes it important in the game as BioWare has. Nothing wrong with wanting consistency.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

There's a difference between sci-fi tropes and a series directly contradicting itself and not adhering to its own basic rules, thus losing credibility. For a common example I like to use, one can't try and treat the dangers of space as a major plot point one moment by having the main character die from such factors one moment, and then treat them so cavalierly the next by having squaddies run around in dangerous environments wearing next to nothing. One can also not claim that something has only existed for two years max one moment, then have a grizzled mercenary tell a story from a decade or two ago mentioning said new items and a planet that's been isolated for 10 years littered with them too. One can't have an entire race so worried about contamination that any visitors need to go through strict procedures for decontamination and wear a suit in one case, then later on have a woman with bare skin walking amongst them freely. etc, etc.

yeah the difference between dying from vaccuum exposure and running around in atmospheric environments with a breather and at the very least a degree of shielding totally contravenes all the laws of physics and the universe's own rules. yeah. 

(and you're still ignoring the simple storytelling fact the looking at faces in a game filled with cinematic conversations is better than staring at helmets, something BW also got criticised for with the one-piece helmets).

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 22 juin 2011 - 03:23 .

[Massadonious1]

I think we should make a distinction between standard game world lore and the lore that is attached to gameplay mechanics. (like the ammo system)

I have no problem with them contradicting the latter.

[Lumikki]

CannonLars wrote...

Nothing wrong with wanting consistency.

I agree, but not with any cost.

Meaning if developers feels like something in game has to be changed, they can do it. We have to accept that games can change and that doesn't mean just gameplay, but also lore changes. Specially ones what are connected to gameplay it self as lore details trying to explain gameplay in lore perspective.

Modifié par Lumikki, 22 juin 2011 - 03:33 .

[Terror_K]

The thing is, most of ME2's lore inconsistencies and errors and the like weren't made to improve gameplay. The thermal clip issue is one case that was, but that still doesn't excuse the bad writing associated with it with regards to Zaeed's old stories or Aeia. The catsuits and breathing masks and the like didn't add to the gameplay in any way shape or form, they were just poorly thought out designs in almost every regard. It's as simple as that.

The thing is, I'm supposed to take this game seriously and BioWare used to go on about how rich and detailed their universe was and the overall quality of it, but then ME2 came along and just seemed to spit in the face of all this and a lot of great stuff the original game set up. It seemed so much was altered not for gameplay reasons, but to just be "rule of cool" and appeal to a different audience than who the IP originally set out to appeal to. As javier said, I didn't expect Mass Effect to be "that kind of sci-fi" at all. I thought it was more mature and better than that, but I turned out to be wrong, which was sad and made me lose respect for both the universe and the people who worked on ME2 as well. Things like the catsuits, breathing masks, etc. just pulled me out of the game and universe entirely, and the only thing that stopped me from just giving up on Mass Effect as an IP right there and then was the fact that there were only a small amount of locations where it would really be an issue (logic regarding kinetic barriers and medi-gel dispensers magically working for these characters aside).

Jebel Krong wrote...

yeah the difference between dying from vaccuum exposure and running around in atmospheric environments with a breather and at the very least a degree of shielding totally contravenes all the laws of physics and the universe's own rules. yeah. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/wondering.png[/smilie]

Are we also completely ignoring the fact that kinetic shields and medi-gel dispensers (amongt other factors) shouldn't even be functional without a suit of armour, let alone the fact that few of the squaddies in ME2 even have sealed suits and a proper helmet. As I've said before countless times (to you in fact too), these are a group of people exploring the possibly unknown and knowing full well about the dangers of space. The least they can do is be prepared for it when necessary.

Thankfully according to Casey Hudson, everybody in ME3 is apparently going to have a suit of armour, even if it's optional.

(and you're still ignoring the simple storytelling fact the looking at faces in a game filled with cinematic conversations is better than staring at helmets, something BW also got criticised for with the one-piece helmets).

No. You are ignoring the (again, repeatedly pointed out) fact that helmets only need come into play when needed, which is largely during only rare occasions where such things are needed and those were moments where conversations were fairly thin on the ground, with the one exception of the Migrant Fleet where it just makes logical sense to be fully sealed. ME1 did this fine where you could toggle the helmets and they'd automatically snap on in situations where needed, and off again when not. I don't recall anybody complaining about that aspect of the original game.

Again, it's good that according to Casey Hudson that this too is going to be fixed in ME3 apparently.

Modifié par Terror_K, 22 juin 2011 - 03:35 .

[aftohsix]

Massadonious1 wrote...

I think we should make a distinction between standard game world lore and the lore that is attached to gameplay mechanics. (like the ammo system)

I have no problem with them contradicting the latter.

Now this is a reasonable suggestion.  Using my earlier example of thermal clips.  I understand how they don't make sense with established lore. 

But let's be honest.  The reason people don't like them isn't because they contradict the lore, it's because they're ammo.  Don't use the lore as a way to dress up what you don't like.  This is the BSN.  Feel free to hate away, but at least be honest about why you don't like something.

[CannonO]

Lumikki wrote...

CannonLars wrote...

Nothing wrong with wanting consistency.

I agree, but not with any cost.

Meaning if developers feels like something in game has to be changed, they can do it. We have to accept that games can change and that doesn't mean just gameplay, but also lore changes.

Yeah, I get that.

I just don't like it when they change things that you have to see a lot which are off the lore. Mainly guns and ammo. I can live with heat sinks, but I never got used to the more bullet-like appearance.

But I absolutely think that within reason, they can adjust the mechanics if its for the best.

[streamlock]

@ aftohsix

I would agree to some extent on what I would consider the science aspect of the science-fiction. At some point you have to suspend your thinking on how the world works to really enjoy the game world they have created. Especially if you come from a science or engineering background. And suggestions on how to improve the science part of the science fiction should be welcomed without wanna be PhD ragging.

However, I think were many people go kinda screwy, myself included is when an IP holder walks all over what they have already set down for whatever reason.

To give an example. The Hammerhead has an unlimited ammo store of missiles. Does this make any sort of sense with what we know of the tech of mass effect? No. But I think most people will probably just chuckle a bit at the absurdity and get on with the game. No harm done.

Now if in ME3 they up and decide to give, I dunno have horns or spikes growing out of krogen all of the sudden just because walking/talking dino's with horns worked better in a couple of marketing focus groups, then use some asinine explanation like "Oh, will all the Krogen you met before just grind them down" -THEN you have a 'lore' break and everyone nerd rages. And rightfully so.

I think there is a clear differentiation between the science 'cannon' of an IP and what I would consider 'lore'. Though I don't know the literary terms to properly differentiate the two.

[Apollo Starflare]

javierabegazo wrote...

My problem with the catsuits, is that when I first played ME1, I never thought Mass Effect would become *THAT* kind of sci-fi.

As much as I love Mass Effect, I did lose a bit of respect when I saw Miranda's body peel, It just makes me a bit sad, when I'm playing Mass Effect, and I happen to be in a scene with Miranda in it, and my girlfriend walks by, and then upon seeing her, just rolls her eyes and disregards the scene altogether. It doesn't do the series credit.

And I hated the breathing masks as well, I felt a bit...cheated when they all had breathing masks. In ME1 we were always treated to interesting armor models for wrex and garrus, and with all these new races in ME2, I was hoping to see more different kinds of models.

I both agree and disagree. I don't have a problem with Miranda's outfit(s) per say (just look at who I have in my avatar) but it was definitely OTT in ME2, with too many lingering shots emphasising it. In terms of the character it actually makes sense that she would wear somethign that shows off her form, she reminds me a lot of the idea behind Barbarella (sexy female sci fi James Bond) in that she isn't about going into combat all guns blazing but more behind the scenes stuff.

But as I say, it's just too overdone in the game, particularly from a cinematic perspective. Lots of now infamous shots of her rear and whatnot just weren't necessary, and because of the nature of the ME franchise (a squadmate is going to be involved in a lot of combat) she should have at least had an outfit more suited to such situations as an alternative in the vanilla game. The breathing mask thing is another case of pushing the suspension of our disbelief beyond breaking point, and again it seems unnecessary. However it would appear that they have fixed these issues for ME3 so it's really a moot point.

Incidentally I totally know what you mean about the disdain from the girlfriend, the 'ridiculous and unbelievable looking' aliens get picked on as well. I don't think the ME series has changed what sort of sci fi it is though, I think it has always had this element of pulpy silliness mixed in with the more realistic 'distant future' military stuff.

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote...
The catsuits and breathing masks and the like didn't add to the gameplay in any way shape or form, they were just poorly thought out designs in almost every regard. It's as simple as that.

But they add to the aesthetic of the game. There are always two camps with armour: the realist and anti-realist camp.

The thing is, I'm supposed to take this game seriously and BioWare used to go on about how rich and detailed their universe was and the overall quality of it,

As I said multiple times, if you took the lore in ME1 seriously, I have a bridge on the moon I think you might be interested in.

The only way I can describe the lore in ME1 would be like this: the Bioware writers secretly flunked intro to Biology in 1st year, and they took their anger on evolution out in ME1.

It seemed so much was altered not for gameplay reasons, but to just be "rule of cool" and appeal to a different audience than who the IP originally set out to appeal to.

The entire ME1 end fight has a bone to pick with you. Beyond telling the lore about space battles to go **** itself, ME1 also had Shepard defeat Sovereign 1-on-1 instead of making it about the fleet battle.

This ignores how the rachni egg survived (another biology go **** yourself moment) and absolutely everything Bioware wrote about VI (which is a computer science go **** yourself moment).

[locowolfie]

streamlock wrote...

@ aftohsix

I would agree to some extent on what I would consider the science aspect of the science-fiction. At some point you have to suspend your thinking on how the world works to really enjoy the game world they have created. Especially if you come from a science or engineering background. And suggestions on how to improve the science part of the science fiction should be welcomed without wanna be PhD ragging.

However, I think were many people go kinda screwy, myself included is when an IP holder walks all over what they have already set down for whatever reason.

To give an example. The Hammerhead has an unlimited ammo store of missiles. Does this make any sort of sense with what we know of the tech of mass effect? No. But I think most people will probably just chuckle a bit at the absurdity and get on with the game. No harm done.

Now if in ME3 they up and decide to give, I dunno have horns or spikes growing out of krogen all of the sudden just because walking/talking dino's with horns worked better in a couple of marketing focus groups, then use some asinine explanation like "Oh, will all the Krogen you met before just grind them down" -THEN you have a 'lore' break and everyone nerd rages. And rightfully so.

I think there is a clear differentiation between the science 'cannon' of an IP and what I would consider 'lore'. Though I don't know the literary terms to properly differentiate the two.

sort of what i said earlyer but i agree with this as well  +1

[Had-to-say]

NuclearBuddha wrote...

You forgot how the technology is based on magic rocks created by supernovas. ME is not even moderately hard sci-fi, and yes, people should take a chill pill.

This isn't  that far off base as you may think.

[In Exile]

streamlock wrote...
I would agree to some extent on what I would consider the science aspect of the science-fiction. At some point you have to suspend your thinking on how the world works to really enjoy the game world they have created. Especially if you come from a science or engineering background. And suggestions on how to improve the science part of the science fiction should be welcomed without wanna be PhD ragging.

Sci-fi tends to try and at least take engineering and physics semi-seriously beside justifying light-speed. But things like biology? Not good.

However, I think were many people go kinda screwy, myself included is when an IP holder walks all over what they have already set down for whatever reason.

The thing is, we're looking at a game here. Priority 1 is to make the game fun to play. That means tweaking how the combat works first and foremost. And that means overwriting a lot of lore to start.

For example, ME1 doesn't even bother to take how biotics work seriously.

[Sgt Stryker]

streamlock wrote...
To give an example. The Hammerhead has an unlimited ammo store of missiles. Does this make any sort of sense with what we know of the tech of mass effect? No. But I think most people will probably just chuckle a bit at the absurdity and get on with the game. No harm done.

Technically the guns in ME1 had unlimited ammo as well, assuming you took a literal interpretation of the gameplay. Solution? Don't do literal interpretations of gameplay mechanics.

[habitat 67]

The only time I, as the girlfriend rolled my eyes was when I saw Benezia's boobs, which are possibly larger than some of the lesser moons of Saturn.

As for lore issues, whatever. I guess I'd be flattered that people liked my work so much that they studied, claimed entitlement to and nitpicked it to death.

[Il Divo]

javierabegazo wrote...

And I hated the breathing masks as well, I felt a bit...cheated when they all had breathing masks. In ME1 we were always treated to interesting armor models for wrex and garrus, and with all these new races in ME2, I was hoping to see more different kinds of models.

Perhaps it's just me, but I didn't find any character armors in ME1to be 'interesting'. They seemed rather generic/uninspired, even for Garrus/Wrex.

[Veex]

I don't think making requests of a forum community, especially when it requires them to examine their own opinions and stances, ever meets much success. I can appreciate the thought though.

[aftohsix]

Veex wrote...

I don't think making requests of a forum community, especially when it requires them to examine their own opinions and stances, ever meets much success. I can appreciate the thought though.

It was worth a try.  The cherry-picked nitpicking drives me nuts.

[TheRealJayDee]

aftohsix wrote...

Veex wrote...

I don't think making requests of a forum community, especially when it requires them to examine their own opinions and stances, ever meets much success. I can appreciate the thought though.

It was worth a try.  The cherry-picked nitpicking drives me nuts.

What tends to drive me nuts from time to time are the "haha u want realism? it's sci-fi/fantasy!" responses when complaining about certain aspects of games and the internal consistency/logic of their respective universes.

Like when I say "I have problems with teleporting mages and Templars turning invisble while backflipping in full armour in DA2 given the context of the Dragon Age setting as I got to know it" and someone answers with a delightful "dude, u know there's like FIREBALLS and ELVES and DRAGONS in the game lol". Never gets old...

[aftohsix]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

What tends to drive me nuts from time to time are the "haha u want realism? it's sci-fi/fantasy!" responses when complaining about certain aspects of games and the internal consistency/logic of their respective universes.

Like when I say "I have problems with teleporting mages and Templars turning invisble while backflipping in full armour in DA2 given the context of the Dragon Age setting as I got to know it" and someone answers with a delightful "dude, u know there's like FIREBALLS and ELVES and DRAGONS in the game lol". Never gets old...

I see what you did there.  See what you did was take my argument and throw it back at me like it has no merits.  But you said it yourself "In the context I got to know it."  You imply if I argue that in a lore in which we have magic if somebody teleports it shouldn't suddenly ruin the game I'm an idiot.  However you can only argue that if you feel the "context I got to know it." is the only correct context.


This is what many of you sound like:
www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par aftohsix, 23 juin 2011 - 01:04 .

[Mann42]

Massadonious1 wrote...

I think we should make a distinction between standard game world lore and the lore that is attached to gameplay mechanics. (like the ammo system)

I have no problem with them contradicting the latter.

Most of the lore nit-picking I see on this board are actually requests for gameplay changes, not lore nit-picking. People who want the overheat system back or people who want biotic powers to be overpowered and one dimensional again are probably the two most common I've seen. They use 'lore' as an excuse, but they're really just trying to backdoor their gameplay preferences. 

I'm not saying that some players don't have valid lore concerns, but those threads are rare and almost never make it past 2 or 3 pages before they die. 

[atheelogos]

aftohsix wrote...

I've seen several different threads addressing various issues people have taken with the prior two Mass Effect games and how they'd like to see them fixed.

Invariably one of the main criticisms seems to be that said issue doesn't fall in line with the established "lore."

This is what I'm taking issue with.

In a nutshell the Mass Effect games are SCIENCE FICTION games with GIANT ROBOTS and ALIENS WITH PLEASANT AMERICAN ACCENTS. 

I find it hard to understand how one can pick and choose elements of the game to complain about when we have this basic framework established.  Logically either you should be able to "buy into" all of it or none of it.

So my request:  When saying something doesn't line up with the "lore," please say that it doesn't line up with your definition of the lore.

A minor distinction but an important one.  It changes the tone of your argument from "These are facts, Bioware why won't you listen to HARD FACTS YOU SUCK!" to "In my opinion this feature doesn't make sense to me, based on my understanding of the fiction, here is how I think it should be improved."

Follow this suggestion and maybe many of the discussions we have will be more constructive. 

"I find it hard to understand how one can pick and choose elements of the game to complain"

Easy. We get mad when Bioware goes through the trouble of putting the lore down into a codex, but when the next game comes around they don't reference it.....
If your going to ignore the lore then why the hell would you go through all the trouble of writing it down for the fans in the first place?

"Logically either you should be able to "buy into" all of it or none of it." So just because they mess up in a few places in ME2 we should disregard everything that made sense in ME1? That logic does not follow.

[aftohsix]

atheelogos wrote...


Easy. We get mad when Bioware goes through the trouble of putting the lore down into a codex, but when the next game comes around they don't reference it.....
If your going to ignore the lore then why the hell would you go through all the trouble of writing it down for the fans in the first place?

"Logically either you should be able to "buy into" all of it or none of it." So just because they mess up in a few places in ME2 we should disregard everything that made sense in ME1? That logic does not follow.

In Mass Effect 1 ME fields can't stop radiation.  If they do in ME2 does that ruin the game?

The whole argument is just coming straight back to either follow the codex to the letter or don't have it at all.  Either way Bioware is screwed because somebody will be mad about either choice.

[Homebound]

its all a crapshoot anyways.

[In Exile]

atheelogos wrote..
"Logically either you should be able to "buy into" all of it or none of it." So just because they mess up in a few places in ME2 we should disregard everything that made sense in ME1? That logic does not follow.

ME1 had lots of inconsistencies. The real issue is when people don't buy the feeble lore justification for a gameplay change. That's when it gets silly. It's not acceptable that weapons changed wholesale, but ME1's biology can go **** itself approach is something that's okay because of the genre?