Rasofe wrote...
Mhm. First off, I'm not sure who you're refering to about good being subjective, me or the guy I was quoting.
Secondly, considert QEC's, biotics, super-translators, medigel, or even the idea of a cooperative galaxy (let alone cooperative humanity).
Mass Effect is really good science fiction, and it has a really solid premise. What makes it good is NOT the setting though. So getting caught up on the damn details of things that are easily in line with the laws of narrative is only causing yourself unnecessary harm. I recommend against it.
I'm quoting you. Because I honestly think your statement was rather arrogant and ill-thought.
Those are examples of things that make sense in the universe of Mass Effect. You missed the point of what I'm saying, ergo
ignoratio elenchi. What I'm saying is that despite all of that technology of the future, according to the lore of the game, which, being set in a hypothetical future to our own, normal scientific facts and values are still in effect.
Mass Effect is hard sci-fi: It's premise doesn't rely on space magic, like the Force for Star Wars, or magic for Harry Potter. Unless something is reasonably explained to be otherwise, modern science, history, etc. is assumed to be true.
The manner of Shepard's death, specifically the manner of how his body survived atmospheric re-entry at very, very high speeds, is not believable. It isn't science. It breaks suspension of disbelief. No matter how good it might seem from a dramatic point of view (which really isn't all that great at all), it is worthless and unbelievable if it doesn't follow the lore. There are ways that they could have accomplished Shepard's death in a more believable or acceptable manner. They didn't need to fly him into a planet. In fact, I think that they should have had him suffocate and/or freeze by leaving his body drifting in space. That way, his body is intact, and they don't have to make an asspull with how his intact body survived a sitution that is legitimately not survivable without said asspull.
The premise of Mass Effect is good because of the setting. The story on it's own really only is bout a 6/10, and I'm being generous. It's the setting, the characters, the themes, the smaller things, the galaxy, that makes Mass Effect. It's the way the player can interact with that universe. It's not the Reapers. It's not the main story behind them. Those really only get in the way. It's things like being able to see and interact with this world that makes it so enjoyable in my opinion.
That's what I mean by 'good is subjective'. Your idea of what makes Mass Effect good is nothing more than a mediocre but necessary establishment in my opinion.
By the way, 'laws of narrative?'
You're falling into Davidian territory there.
As I said, for something to be good, it must be internally consistent (and externally consistent in matters where it applies, such as here). Too often, as the ME series wore on, it not only failed with internally consistency, but external as well (see Synthesis and here). As I said, suspension of disbelief.
That is what keeps Mass Effect from being great, though I honestly believe now (and don't get me wrong, it is my favorite VG series with the best characters imo) that ME never really had a chance of being more than a very good video game.