530 réponses à ce sujet

[The Heretic of Time]

@GimmeDaGun:

Science fiction is exploring the consequences of scientific innovations. Science fiction has been used by authors and film/television/game makers as a device to discuss philosophical ideas such as identity, desire, morality and social structure etc. Sci-fi takes a closer look at how scientific innovations influences our identity, our desire, our morality and our social structure.

GimmeDaGun, if you agree that Mass Effect is lacking all that what I described above and in my previous post, than you should also agree that Mass Effect isn't sci-fi. It's a crappy written piece of fiction in a space setting at best.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 14 janvier 2013 - 03:41 .

[GimmeDaGun]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

@GimmeDaGun:

Science fiction is exploring the consequences of scientific innovations. Science fiction has been used by authors and film/television/game makers as a device to discuss philosophical ideas such as identity, desire, morality and social structure etc. Sci-fi takes a closer look at how scientific innovations influences our identity, our desire, our morality and our social structure.

GimmeDaGun, if you agree that Mass Effect is lacking all that what I described above and in my previous post, than you should also agree that Mass Effect isn't sci-fi. It's a crappy written piece of fiction in a space setting at best.

First paragraph: Abso-f.ing-lutely. That's what makes hard-core sci-fi, but the genre is not that limited. Plus I must add that sci-fi also is a genre which is used for projecting our current existential and moral questions, problems and debates to a fantastic, distinct but parabolic setting or world which can be used as a devise of making the reader to look at these problems from a distance, so he or she can get a better, clearer and more unbiased view of them (or is manipulated by the author to make him or her look at it the way he or she - the author, I mean - means to). So it is a good neutral ground to play around with ideas and existing issues and trying to provoke thoughts. Fantasy can also be used for this purpose, but it is more limited given its possible settings and past tense kind of approach.

Second paragraph:

Because I don't like something it won't make that thing being something else than what it is. It is sci-fi. Not high quality or hard-core... or "proper" as you put it (though these things are all debatable) sci-fi, but sci-fi. Our preferences, tastes and opinions won't change things or set bars and limits. It is a sci-fi, it even experiments with some moral and existential questions in its own merit (whether it succeeds in that regard is up to debate). So, again, it is a sci-fi. Sorry, it seems that we won't agree on this one, even if I understand what you're trying to say. And no mistake, I still like ME very much and consider it being a sci-fi also the themes and devises it uses are sci-fi elements (the execution and its success is another question... and it's up to every single player to judge).

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 14 janvier 2013 - 05:55 .

[SimonTheFrog]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

GimmeDaGun, I only need to share this one quote to debunk your entire wall of text. This is a quote from a former Mass Effect writer in fact:

"What I didn't understand as a child was that science fiction is not about a gun that atomizes someone; it's about what a human does when they can commit murder and not leave a corpse." - Chris L'etoile


You see, that's EXACTLY what Mass Effect 2 and especially 3 is lacking.

eeerrr... ok? I guess... Did you even read my "wall of text" before you "debunked" it? 

Just because I don't see where it does debunk what I wrote, nor does this statement contradict the themes and messages of both ME2 and ME3. So call me a fool, but I don't see your point. Care to explain?

I knew it would be too hard for you to understand what I was saying. Okay, I'll explain it for you.


The point is, that sci-fi is not about bringing dead Spectres back to life with superb technology. Sci-fi is about what a human would do with such technology and more importantly, how the reanimated subject (Shepard in this case) would deal with it.

Sci-fi is less about the technology and more about the psychological, sociological and ethical consequences of such technology.

A good example of this would be the anime Ghost In The Shell. It's about a female police officer named Motoko who died but is brought back to life in a synthetic body. Her new android form makes her better, stronger and faster than ever, but she can't help but questioning her identity. Is she really Motoko, or just an AI copy of herself? Is she still human, or just a robot? Ar her memories her own memories, or just copies of her mer memories? Are her memories even real? These are all questions that consume Motoko and over the course of te anime these questions are answered slowly but surely.

Now THAT is proper sci-fi. THAT is how project Lazarus in Mass Effect 2 should have been handled. But as it is right now, project Lazarus is just a lazy, stupid and silly reset button.

BioWare comes from a magical place. ME was their first attempt to do something a bit more technical and ratio-oriented. But, at it's core, ME is still more about the feelings and morals of the characters and not their philosophies and reactions to technology. It is, to be frank, creating situations or settings that allow feelings of bravado, sacrifice and triumph etc.
In that way ME2 was even more successful as ME1 as the character stories were mostly very emotional.

I personally would LOVE to see a good scifi game that both does the sci-part and alos explores the psyche of the protagonists.

It won't be coming from BioWare, though, i guess.

[GimmeDaGun]

SimonTheFrog wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

GimmeDaGun, I only need to share this one quote to debunk your entire wall of text. This is a quote from a former Mass Effect writer in fact:

"What I didn't understand as a child was that science fiction is not about a gun that atomizes someone; it's about what a human does when they can commit murder and not leave a corpse." - Chris L'etoile


You see, that's EXACTLY what Mass Effect 2 and especially 3 is lacking.

eeerrr... ok? I guess... Did you even read my "wall of text" before you "debunked" it? 

Just because I don't see where it does debunk what I wrote, nor does this statement contradict the themes and messages of both ME2 and ME3. So call me a fool, but I don't see your point. Care to explain?

I knew it would be too hard for you to understand what I was saying. Okay, I'll explain it for you.


The point is, that sci-fi is not about bringing dead Spectres back to life with superb technology. Sci-fi is about what a human would do with such technology and more importantly, how the reanimated subject (Shepard in this case) would deal with it.

Sci-fi is less about the technology and more about the psychological, sociological and ethical consequences of such technology.

A good example of this would be the anime Ghost In The Shell. It's about a female police officer named Motoko who died but is brought back to life in a synthetic body. Her new android form makes her better, stronger and faster than ever, but she can't help but questioning her identity. Is she really Motoko, or just an AI copy of herself? Is she still human, or just a robot? Ar her memories her own memories, or just copies of her mer memories? Are her memories even real? These are all questions that consume Motoko and over the course of te anime these questions are answered slowly but surely.

Now THAT is proper sci-fi. THAT is how project Lazarus in Mass Effect 2 should have been handled. But as it is right now, project Lazarus is just a lazy, stupid and silly reset button.

BioWare comes from a magical place. ME was their first attempt to do something a bit more technical and ratio-oriented. But, at it's core, ME is still more about the feelings and morals of the characters and not their philosophies and reactions to technology. It is, to be frank, creating situations or settings that allow feelings of bravado, sacrifice and triumph etc.
In that way ME2 was even more successful as ME1 as the character stories were mostly very emotional.

I personally would LOVE to see a good scifi game that both does the sci-part and alos explores the psyche of the protagonists.

It won't be coming from BioWare, though, i guess.

They tried to do that with ME and they were successful in their own way, but the thing which you are talking about is very hard to pull off... and being a game (which you have to play... khmm... shooting etc.) is a huge limitation of the medium. ME is a nice try and deserves appreciation... if not for what it is, than for the fact that it opened the door of possibility to something like you are talking about. One thing we can't deny: they tried and they put lots of effort into it and that they are pioneers of this new kind of story-telling.

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 14 janvier 2013 - 04:24 .

[dreamgazer]

SimonTheFrog wrote...

I personally would LOVE to see a good scifi game that both does the sci-part and alos explores the psyche of the protagonists.

Perhaps that'll come with Cyberpunk 2077.

[GimmeDaGun]

dreamgazer wrote...

SimonTheFrog wrote...

I personally would LOVE to see a good scifi game that both does the sci-part and alos explores the psyche of the protagonists.

Perhaps that'll come with Cyberpunk 2077.

Well... maybe. I hope so too.

[NovaM4]

I finished the game 3 or 4 days after it was released. I wan't satisfied with the endings at all! So i joined the forums. And im still hoping for a DLC to "fix" things. If this DLC will be "Epic". It will make me play Mass Effect again. I will definately get it.

[dreamgazer]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

SimonTheFrog wrote...

I personally would LOVE to see a good scifi game that both does the sci-part and alos explores the psyche of the protagonists.

Perhaps that'll come with Cyberpunk 2077.

Well... maybe. I hope so too.

Faint elements of it are present in ME, but it could definitely be explored more directly and thoroughly in a game narrative.

[The Heretic of Time]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

They tried to do that with ME and they were successful in their own way, but the thing which you are talking about is very hard to pull off... and being a game (which you have to play... khmm... shooting etc.) is a huge limitation of the medium.

 Correction: BioWare tried to do that with ME (explore the social and ethical consequences of scientific advancements) and they FAILED in their own way.

And honestly, it's not that hard to pull it off if other, smaller  studios manage to pull it off. The Deus Ex series manages to pull it off. No doubt CD Projekt RED will be able to pull it off as well with their upcomming Cyberpunk 2077 game.

ME is a nice try and deserves appreciation... if not for what it is, than for the fact that it opened the door of possibility to something like you are talking about. One thing we can't deny: they tried and they put lots of effort into it and that they are pioneers of this new kind of story-telling.

Pioneers? New kind of story-telling?  I must have missed something. What is this "new kind of story-telling" and how exactly are BioWare pioneers at it?

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 14 janvier 2013 - 04:47 .

[GimmeDaGun]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

They tried to do that with ME and they were successful in their own way, but the thing which you are talking about is very hard to pull off... and being a game (which you have to play... khmm... shooting etc.) is a huge limitation of the medium.

 Correction: BioWare tried to do that with ME (explore the social and ethical consequences of scientific advancements) and they FAILED in their own way.

And honestly, it's not that hard to pull it off if other, smaller  studios manage to pull it off. The Deus Ex series manages to pull it off. No doubt CD Projekt RED will be able to pull it off as well with their upcomming Cyberpunk 2077 game.

ME is a nice try and deserves appreciation... if not for what it is, than for the fact that it opened the door of possibility to something like you are talking about. One thing we can't deny: they tried and they put lots of effort into it and that they are pioneers of this new kind of story-telling.

Pioneers? New kind of story-telling?  I must have missed something. What is this "new kind of story-telling" and how exactly are BioWare pioneers at it?

Like trying to personalise a whole trilogy for you (choices and consequencses system stretched troughout 3 games)?

The Deus Ex games were singular stories and they introduced a very unrefined choice system (without any real consequences), but it was new at the time. The Cyberpunk game is not out yet... so we can't be so sure about it being successful or not. It's just an assumption or more like a desire from your part. I hope it will pull it off though. They managed to do something great with The Witcher games (though there's no real connection between the two installments c&c-wise), but the 2nd one is great at the choices and consequences system (though it is just a self contained game at this point). 

As for ME's failure: maybe it failed for you. To me it didn't. Now this is very subjective from this point on.

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 14 janvier 2013 - 06:02 .

[MattFini]

Whatever this new DLC is, I think I'm over it.

Not in a self-pitying way. But I completed my third ME3 playthrough last week. At this point, the only thing that would likely pique my curiosity would be post-ending content.

Not because I'm expecting or hoping for it, but because I don't feel the need to pick up ME3 again for more side stuff.

Oddly, I liked the side stuff in ME2, because that whole game sort of felt that way. But it doesn't work as well in ME3's "bigger picture" narrative. And I think that's why A LOT of people on the BSN aren't interested in stuff like Omega.

Having said that, I'll happily be back for ME4. ME3 didn't ruin the series for me, although I am less enthusiastic about it than I am the first two games.

[Caprea]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

BioWare tried to do that with ME (explore the social and ethical consequences of scientific advancements) and they FAILED in their own way.

I don't know, did they even attempt to "explore the social and ethical consequences of scientific advancments"? Was that their intention all along or simply tell a story within a space setting? Or none of the listed things? That would be an interesting question to ask them, but we can't just assume knowing what they tried or didn't try to do unless, well, we get an in-depth and elaborate answer from the people in charge. (It's like interpreting a piece of poetry, imo: You can't know what the author's intention was or what he/ she was trying to say until we get to ask them about it.) And you can't fail at something that you didn't attempt in the first place.

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Pioneers? New kind of story-telling? I must have missed something. What is this "new kind of story-telling" and how exactly are BioWare pioneers at it?

Story-telling when it comes to games and their mechanics, maybe. Not in the sci-fi genre itself. I haven't heard of any game before Mass Effect that attempted a completely personalized system in which a) the choices you made could have serious repercussions in the current and next installment(s) and your choices made in the previous game(s) are carried over to the next installment(s) - so I'm with GimmeDaGun here. Sure, Deus Ex tried that, as well as Deus Ex HR did, but it wasn't by far as individualized and well-engineered as it was in ME. And at that time, it was something new concerning storytelling in games. Once you take a look under the hood of the whole concept and consider all the possible variables and the amount of time and effort that has to go into it, I can't help but be in awe of what BioWare managed to pull of there.

Modifié par dea_ex_machina, 14 janvier 2013 - 06:18 .

[What a Succulent Ass]

"Change the ending"

[Taboo]

I bet there will be lots of explosions! Just like a Michael Bay movie!

And no plot! Just like a Michael Bay movie!

[Scorpion1O1]

I hate to sound so negative but I enjoyed Leviathan because it had a relevant intriguing mystery to uncover that affected the ending. Omega was kind of fun and all but in the end of it, I was like “eh”.

I don't think I can close the book on the Mass Effect trilogy with another “eh” ending.

It has to impact the ending.

[The Heretic of Time]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Like trying to personalise a whole trilogy for you (choices and consequencses system stretched troughout 3 games)?

They tried, and they failed. The import feature was one of the most praised and advertised features of Mass Effect, but in the end, what we got was nothing more than the import feature of The Witcher, which is, according to The Witcher devs, merely an experiment, a small feature that they might expand upon in their future games.

The Deus Ex games were singular stories and they introduced a very unrefined choice system (without any real consequences), but it was new at the time.

That "unrefined choice system without any real consequences" is still better than Mass Effects choice system, that doesn't have any real consequences either.

The Cyberpunk game is not out yet... so we can't be so sure about it being successful or not. It's just an assumption or more like a desire from your part.

No, it's more of an expectation on my part based on the excellent The Witcher 2 that CD Projekt RED developer. I have all the reason to think both Cyberpunk 2077 and The Witcher 3 are going to be awesome.

I hope it will pull it off though. They managed to do something great with The Witcher games (though there's no real connection between the two installments c&c-wise), but the 2nd one is great at the choices and consequences system (though it is just a self contained game at this point). 

The Witcher games are actually connected better than the Mass Effect games. At least The Witcher 1 had proper foreshadowing of what would happen in The Witcher 2.

And when it comes to the import feature of The Witcher 2: Sure, it's nothing spectacular, but it's not anything worse than the import feature of ME2 and ME3, which wasn't all that spectacular either in hindsight.

At least both Witcher games have excellent choices and real consequences within the games themselves. I like the fact that The Witcher games allow you to choose your own path, literally (The Order v.s the Scoia'tael in TW1 and the Blue Stripes v.s the Scoia'tael in TW2).

I would have loved it if Mass Effect 3 gave us the option to choose our own path: The Alliance v.s Cerberus. Sadly, all us (former) Cerberus supporters all got railroaded back to the Alliance in ME3. <_<

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 14 janvier 2013 - 07:39 .

[The Heretic of Time]

john_sheparrd wrote...

^ witcher 2 is ok but me 3 is much much better (in my opinion)

You might prefer Mass Effect, but that doesn't make it better. 

I'm curious: Why do you think ME3 is better than The Witcher 2? In what departments can you honestly say that ME3 really is better than TW2? Graphics? Story? Chararacters? Gameplay?

Tell me, what about ME3 is better than TW2 and why do you think that?

[Caprea]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

They tried, and they failed. The import feature was one of the most praised and advertised features of Mass Effect [...].

Why did BioWare fail at it? Could you expand on that assumption a bit? I'm curious. Because the fact that you're repeating it all over again doesn't make it so.
I think the games, the choices and respective consequences were connected quite well, e.g. saving or deleting Maelon's data in ME2 influenced whether Eve lived or died in ME3. If you didn't save his data, Mordin has to create the cure for the genophage from scratch, which means that he has to do more tests on Eve - that'll lead to her extreme exhaustion, which then results in her death.
Or doing/ not doing the characters' loyalty missions in 2 pretty much determined how their respective stories played out; take Grunt, for example: If you did his loyalty mission back in 2, he also survives his fight against the rachni in 3. If you don't, and he still manages to survive the Suicide mission somehow, he dies at the end of his quest.

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
That "unrefined choice system without any real consequences" is still better than Mass Effects choice system that doesn't have any real consequences either.

That's what you think. But throwing in claims like that without actually backing them up with arguments or examples doesn't make them facts.
Mass Effect's choice system has consequences: E.g. leaving Ash to die results in Kaidan dying and not being available for the rest of the series. That's a consequence right there. Granted, it's trivial, but it's there. Another example: In ME3, you're requested to investigate Grissom Academy. If you do the quest within a time limit, you meet Jack trying to get her students out of the mess. If you don't do the quest later, you don't encounter her personally, but just hear some Cerberus scientists' banter which suggests that they'll do something terrible to her. And indeed, later on in the Cerberus base, you get to fight her as a Phantom, and kill her.
You have the choices and their respective consequences right there.

Modifié par dea_ex_machina, 14 janvier 2013 - 08:06 .

[The Heretic of Time]

dea_ex_machina wrote...

I haven't heard of any game before Mass Effect that attempted a completely personalized system in which a) the choices you made could have serious repercussions in the current and next installment(s).

Mass Effect doesn't have choices with serious repercussions in the current and next installments. The Witcher does though.

Sure, Deus Ex tried that, as well as Deus Ex HR did, but it wasn't by far as individualized and well-engineered as it was in ME.

At least in Deus Ex: HR  your choices actually have actual consequences. So I guess Deus Ex HR is better engineerd than Mass Effect is.

And at that time, it was something new concerning storytelling in games.

You mean at the time when Deus Ex 1 was released, which was way earlier than Mass Effect. Yeah, Deus Ex as quite revolutionary for its time. Mass Effect? Not so much.

Once you take a look under the hood of the whole concept and consider all the possible variables and the amount of time and effort that has to go into it, I can't help but be in awe of what BioWare managed to pull of there. 

And what exactly did BioWare manage to pull of here? To make a trilogy that is inconsistent with itself in which your choices from the previous games result in nothing more but fluff and window-dressing in the later games?
Sorry, but that does not really impress me all that much. The Witcher 2 does exactly that and the devs of The Witcher even admit that their save-import feature is not that special, just a little experiment and fun extra for the fans who played the previous Witcher game.

[Kabraxal]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

@GimmeDaGun:

Science fiction is exploring the consequences of scientific innovations. Science fiction has been used by authors and film/television/game makers as a device to discuss philosophical ideas such as identity, desire, morality and social structure etc. Sci-fi takes a closer look at how scientific innovations influences our identity, our desire, our morality and our social structure.

GimmeDaGun, if you agree that Mass Effect is lacking all that what I described above and in my previous post, than you should also agree that Mass Effect isn't sci-fi. It's a crappy written piece of fiction in a space setting at best.

That is a small subgenre of science fiction... just like urban fantasy is part of the much larcher fantasy genre.  Not every sci fi work has to be hard sci fi wrestling overtly with the efffects of technology on human existence.  Star Trek, often lauded as THE science fiction work, does not actually fit your definition.  Most of it's philosophical "discussion" has nothing to do with technology, but with cultural differences, how humanity can better itself from within, and various things like that.  Sometimes it dealt with AI and it's moral implications, but mostly technology was only a setting.  It rarely actually drove the plot or the characters.

Now, Battlestar Galactica, even with heavy spiritual overtones, had a deep rooted philoshopical basis in how technology shapes humanity and if humantiy is even ready for it.  Both Star Trek and BSG are sci fi, they just both take different ideological stances on the importance of the technology in that... setting v purpose.

[The Heretic of Time]

dea_ex_machina wrote...

Mass Effect's choice system has consequences: E.g. leaving Ash to die results in Kaidan dying and not being available for the rest of the series. That's a consequence right there. Granted, it's trivial, but it's there. Another example: In ME3, you're requested to investigate Grissom Academy. If you do the quest within a time limit, you meet Jack trying to get her students out of the mess. If you don't do the quest later, you don't encounter her personally, but just hear some Cerberus scientists' banter which suggests that they'll do something terrible to her. And indeed, later on in the Cerberus base, you get to fight her as a Phantom, and kill her.
You have the choices and their respective consequences right there.

And all that is supposed to impress me? Like I said, the "consequences" in the Mass Effect trilogy are just fluff and window-dressing. They do not seriously influence or impact the story. The "consequences" are merely glorified cameos at best.

Now lets look at The Witcher 2. THAT is a game doing choices and consequences like a boss. Your decisions in Act 1, which appear to be minor at that point. influence not only the direction of the story, but the entire second Act takes place in an entirely different location, with different characters, different quests and a different perspective on the story!

Playing The Witcher 2 twice truly is worth it, because your 2nd playthrough, if you choose the other path, truly will give you a brand new experience with a completely different perspective on the story, with different information and different details that you didn't get in the other path. 

Now THAT is how you do choices and consequences! THAT is something that gets my respect! Bravo CD Projekt RED, bravo! Good job!

[The Heretic of Time]

Kabraxal wrote...

Both Star Trek and BSG are sci fi, they just both take different ideological stances on the importance of the technology in that... setting v purpose.

And both discuss philosophical ideas such as identity, desire, morality and social structure etc. Which is what makes BOTH of them sci-fi series.

Mass Effect does not have any of that, or far too less.

I can see Mac Walters tried to drag Mass Effect more towards the sci-fi genre in ME3, with the discussions with EDI, the geth and the question whether we could and should control reaper tech, but it's still far too late and far too less in my opinion. Not to mention that the main plot in ME3 is absolutely silly, with the Crucible nonsense, the Deus-Ex-Machina plot-device known as the Catalyst and all the plot-holes that he introduces. There is not much sci-fi to be found there, only a lot of fantasy and space-magic.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 14 janvier 2013 - 08:18 .

[David7204]

Hoo boy. Look at you, shilling the Witcher like a 12 year old girl on Facebook trying to make a boy jealous. Yet again, you use these childish tactics.

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

Hoo boy. Look at you, shilling the Witcher like a 12 year old girl on Facebook trying to make a boy jealous. Yet again, you use these childish tactics.

Wait.... what? That doesn't even make sense. 

There is no need to be jealous of anything, since anyone can just buy The Witcher and play it. So there is no reason to be jealous of the fact that The Witcher 2 is the superior game. Just buy it. play it, enjoy it and see for yourself how much better it is than Mass Effect 2 or 3.  No "childish tactics" involved son.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 14 janvier 2013 - 08:31 .