580 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcfly616]

Could it have been better. Yeah (anything can).


Was I expecting more. Yup.

But I'm not gonna come to the BSN and say it's an atrocious failure of a game because of these little tidbits. Rarely have I seen something that couldn't possibly have been any better than it is. Even more rare are instances when something I can't wait to get my hands on, actually meets my astronomical expectations.

In the end, I can decide whether I liked it or didn't and if I thought it was well-done or not. However, my expectations, likes/dislikes will not solely determine whether I consider something good or bad.


I've seen movies, read books, and played games that I didn't "like". And some of them were "good" in my opinion.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 12 février 2014 - 01:19 .

[ElitePinecone]

SwobyJ wrote...

1)Yes, both founders are medical doctors, and have both operated in the emergency room.
2)Yes, I think Bioware meant something more general before.
3)But yes, I think 'BioWare' has become something different over time. This partially may have to do with Casey's affinity for certain things (technology), and Mac Walters' background (in psychology).

Uhhhh. ???????

I really wouldn't start looking for meaning in a company name that was decided a decade or more before the idea for Mass Effect was even considered. And Casey doesn't run the company.

It literally just means "software for people".

[SwobyJ]

StreetMagic wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

1)Yes, both founders are medical doctors, and have both operated in the emergency room.
2)Yes, I think Bioware meant something more general before.
3)But yes, I think 'BioWare' has become something different over time. This partially may have to do with Casey's affinity for certain things (technology), and Mac Walters' background (in psychology).

Uhhhh. ???????

I really wouldn't start looking for meaning in a company name that was decided a decade or more before the idea for Mass Effect was even considered. And Casey doesn't run the company.

It literally just means "software for people".

That's pretty cool.

It's neat to interpret Mass Effect retroactively though.. I never noticed their old logo was a robot and human hand. It's subtle. If they meant this one.

EP, I'm not talking about some master plan of theirs since day 1.

I'm saying that the company likes to have themes and to follow them, and its based on their personal histories. That.. is no secret.

And yes that's their old logo Street I also think its fun to interpret Mass Effect retroactively, and I think Bioware does as well. It's hard to tell what will exactly be in the future, but the past can be used as a guide for that, IMO.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 12 février 2014 - 05:42 .

[wright1978]

iakus wrote...

"Commit suicide because art" is not a choice

QFT

[dreamgazer]

wright1978 wrote...

iakus wrote...

"Commit suicide because art" is not a choice

QFT

Good thing Shepard didn't commit suicide then.

[wright1978]

StreetMagic wrote...

Just to add, I think the end is "interactive" enough btw. I just don't think Crucible itself is. I think the whole monolithic nature of it makes it boring, gameplay wise. It should have been seperated into components or something.. and had accompanying missions to certain features.

I don't know. Something's missing.

Not sure i'd agree. Stripping player of all weapons and powers and forcing them into a super slo mo limpathon didn't feel very interactive to me.

[wright1978]

iakus wrote...

And that's what separates a story from real life.  I am not a protaginist in a story.  Shepard is.

You're cool with your character dying.  Fine.  But it's clearly not fine for others.  Bioware should have anticipated this  and made allowances for it. 

Now those disappointed fans have to ask themselves "Why should I get invested in another character when Bioware can make another artistic statement and take it away from me again"

...
Yes, it is taking away agency.  Mac Walters even admitted that the ending takes choice away from the player, and was intended to.

...
The anger is totally warranted because to this day Bioware doesn't seem to get why people were so upset in the first place.  And seem more interested in saying "No, you're wrong" than figuring out where they went wrong to begin with.

There is no reason to think Bioware won't pull this stunt again and claim 'artistic integrity" Again.

This is why to me, it really doesn't matter if Shepard is the main character or not.  Why should I get invested in any character again?

Yep agree with all this. Given Shep was a player characterised protaganist of over 2 games that they then tried to turn into a fixed Walter White fatality, i'm not 100% convinced that they won't decide that giving players a player characterised protaganist was the error and just create a new fixed protaganist for their purposes.

[ElitePinecone]

wright1978 wrote...

Not sure i'd agree. Stripping player of all weapons and powers and forcing them into a super slo mo limpathon didn't feel very interactive to me.

I agree, but I also think the interactivity should've extended to that entire level. As much as the actual ending ending was only one step removed from Deus Ex Human Revolution's button-pressing, Priority: Earth was a bit of a disappointing missed opportunity to send off the trilogy with one impressive and reactive final battle. 

If i had the power to radically restructure everything from the Cerberus base onwards, the ending would've been a straight-up assault on the Reapers - maybe even boarding Harbinger to retrieve a [insert plot device] required for the Crucible to fire properly. The ending story itself should've been more interactive, in terms of allocating fleets or armies to the fight on Earth, allocating major characters for a fight inside Harbinger, etc. Assuming the Starchild didn't exist and we were never offered the opportunity to control or merge with the Reapers, the divergence would've come from which characters/factions survived that final battle and what it took to win.

(Though I suppose that would mean the Crucible would just be a big Reaper-killing device, rather than a vehicle for magical explosions - which I have no problem with at all.)

[maaaad365]

ElitePinecone wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Not sure i'd agree. Stripping player of all weapons and powers and forcing them into a super slo mo limpathon didn't feel very interactive to me.

I agree, but I also think the interactivity should've extended to that entire level. As much as the actual ending ending was only one step removed from Deus Ex Human Revolution's button-pressing, Priority: Earth was a bit of a disappointing missed opportunity to send off the trilogy with one impressive and reactive final battle. 

If i had the power to radically restructure everything from the Cerberus base onwards, the ending would've been a straight-up assault on the Reapers - maybe even boarding Harbinger to retrieve a [insert plot device] required for the Crucible to fire properly. The ending story itself should've been more interactive, in terms of allocating fleets or armies to the fight on Earth, allocating major characters for a fight inside Harbinger, etc. Assuming the Starchild didn't exist and we were never offered the opportunity to control or merge with the Reapers, the divergence would've come from which characters/factions survived that final battle and what it took to win.

(Though I suppose that would mean the Crucible would just be a big Reaper-killing device, rather than a vehicle for magical explosions - which I have no problem with at all.)

A final confrontation with Harbinger is the EPIC moment that I was expecting after playing the 3 games. They screwed up a perfect ending with their artistic integrity. 


This is what I was expecting :
 

Modifié par maaaad365, 12 février 2014 - 12:10 .

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...
"Commit suicide because art" is not a choice

"Do something monstrous to the galaxy or lose" is hardly a choice.

Not exactly, but choosing between 3 distinct monstrous things definitely is.

You claim I am imposing on the purpose of games?  I say Bioware is imposing on me.  No games are not "purely entertainment"  But that is their primary purpose.  And a game series that claims to be trying to broaden its audience, and shaping the story based on player choice should cast as wide a net as possible.  Not restrict the outcome to some sort of railroaded artistic statement.

No, BioWare is not imposing on you. They are imposing on the story of the game they created though, which makes perfect sense.

But you do make a good point. It's going to be interesting to see how BioWare juggles their desire to attract new players with every iteration with their desire for creative freedom that may not always have a casual appeal.

Oh I intend to.  I understand that the journey and the destination are one and the same.

No, they aren't. While it's wrong to separate the journey and destination it's also wrong to suggest the destination is the entirety of the journey,

[Dr_Extrem]

dreamgazer wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

iakus wrote...

"Commit suicide because art" is not a choice

QFT

Good thing Shepard didn't commit suicide then.

well its either "suicide ause the catalyst says so" or "entering full retard mode by ignoring that the catalyst tried to kill you for three games".

well ... plague .. cholera ... choices ...


btw ... is it really a choice, if your role is limited the be the executor of the antagonists will?

shepard has no influence of the choices ... he/she can only choose how the catalyst changes the galaxy. its choose or you all die .. and thats hardly a choice.


i have to agree, that the journey and the destination are not the same thing but they are part of the same experience and influence each other.

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...
"Commit suicide because art" is not a choice

"Do something monstrous to the galaxy or lose" is hardly a choice.

Not exactly, but choosing between 3 distinct monstrous things definitely is.

But is it a choice worth making?  If the choice leaves you feeling like you did something wrong, regardless of the options, where is the fun in that?

No, BioWare is not imposing on you. They are imposing on the story of the game they created though, which makes perfect sense.

Not when they claim the player gets to help shape the story.  The final fate is pretty much the most basic aspect of stroytelling:  How does it end?  What about the Shepards who aren't Walter White?

But you do make a good point. It's going to be interesting to see how BioWare juggles their desire to attract new players with every iteration with their desire for creative freedom that may not always have a casual appeal.

They can start by realizing more players=broader scope.  And write accordingly, rather than assuming everyone played their character the same way.

No, they aren't. While it's wrong to separate the journey and destination it's also wrong to suggest the destination is the entirety of the journey,

The destination is part of the journey.  The means of achieving victory are as important as the victory itself.  At least to me.

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

iakus wrote...

"Commit suicide because art" is not a choice

QFT

Good thing Shepard didn't commit suicide then.

Yeah, walking into an explosion, grabbing a pair of electrodes or leaping into a beam of green space magic, all make perfect sense. 

Face it, there is no logical reason why Shepard had to die in any of these.  it's all purely an "artistic" statement

::does a shot::

Player desire, player agency, player choice, had nothing to do with it.  It was purely "Burn your Shepard or the rocks fall"

[The Heretic of Time]

Could Shepard be the protagonist in ME4? Sure, but I sure as hell hope he isn't.

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

iakus wrote...

"Commit suicide because art" is not a choice

QFT

Good thing Shepard didn't commit suicide then.

Yeah, walking into an explosion, grabbing a pair of electrodes or leaping into a beam of green space magic, all make perfect sense. 

That's fine.  Still doesn't make it "suicide".

Face it, there is no logical reason why Shepard had to die in any of these.  it's all purely an "artistic" statement

::does a shot::

I don't agree, and I don't have to face anything.

Seriously, man, stop with the "artistic" junk, since everything in fiction can be labeled as such.  The Virmire decision is a contrived artistic expression with rigid parameters, too, and it's one of many. 

Shepard was going to take damage in the chamber no matter what in Destroy, since there's no communication channel working to call for backup (remember, Hackett's radio communication was one-way) and nobody knows precisely where he/she is at on the Citadel (despite what MEHEM cooks up).  They're Not Afraid to Die, and they're stuck in the decision chamber until the situation is over, until rescue crews can sift through the damage.  If you want to interpret death after that scenario, instead of Out of the Inferno and a Finger Twitching Revival, go for it.  But you know that's not the intent. 

Why wouldn't the permanent and reliable uploading of consciousness require physical sacrifice?  Every instance of this in the universe has either involved a permanent upload by sacrificing one's body (the virtual aliens in ME2), swapping with another digital entity one-for-one (again, virtual aliens), problematic and unpredictable coexistence with the physical body and the digital world (Overlord), or merely passive interaction (geth consensus). Unless you want Shepard to just walk around with the remote control in his omni-tool, ripe for hacking/overthrow and without the ability to intuitively navigate the thousands of Reapers out there in the way the Catalyst did.  A living form piloting the Reapers opens the door for far more problems and jumps in logic; in short, the Reapers need a digital Catalyst.

Not touching Synthesis' execution, but invasive exploratory analysis of what makes Shepard a true hybrid entity doesn't sound that far-fetched to me. 

Granted, I'm neither a Control nor Synthesis supporter and have my own problems with the execution, but I certainly contest the "no logical reason" statement.  And Mass Effect has always operated around these types of sacrificial decisions, where a fourth or fifth option would have been more preferable. 

Player desire, player agency, player choice, had nothing to do with it.  It was purely "Burn your Shepard or the rocks fall"

... by choosing three very different options, one of which suggests the survival of the protagonist.  

Player choice indeed had something to do with it. Suggesting that it doesn't is entirely dishonest. 

Modifié par dreamgazer, 12 février 2014 - 10:55 .

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...

That's fine.  Still doesn't make it "suicide".

Then what does it make it?  A reunion?

Well, maybe for Thanemancers...

I don't agree, and I don't have to face anything.

Seriously, man, stop with the "artistic" junk, since everything in fiction can be labeled as such.  The Virmire decision is a contrived artistic expression with rigid parameters, too, and it's one of many.

Wasn't an expression that dealt with the final state of the galaxy or the protagonist.

And if you can tell me a better reason why Shepard "had" to die in order to do something incredibly morally grey in order to save the galaxy, I'd like to hear it.

It was an attempt to be somehow deep and meaningful and had little to do with the actual trilogy that came before, near as I can tell.  Thus it deserves a derisive "artistic" label.

Shepard was going to take damage in the chamber no matter what in Destroy, since there's no communication channel working to call for backup (remember, Hackett's radio communication was one-way) and nobody knows precisely where he/she is at on the Citadel (despite what MEHEM cooks up).  They're Not Afraid to Die, and they're stuck in the decision chamber until the situation is over, until rescue crews can sift through the damage.  If you want to interpret death after that scenario, instead of Out of the Inferno and a Finger Twitching Revival, go for it.  But you know that's not the intent.

Then they sure have shown the intent in EC.  That was their opportunity.  Their make-up exam, so to speak.

Why wouldn't the permanent and reliable uploading of consciousness require physical sacrifice?  Every instance of this in the universe has either involved a permanent upload by sacrificing one's body (the virtual aliens in ME2), swapping with another digital entity one-for-one (again, virtual aliens), problematic and unpredictable coexistence with the physical body and the digital world (Overlord), or merely passive interaction (geth consensus). Unless you want Shepard to just walk around with the remote control in his omni-tool, ripe for hacking/overthrow and without the ability to intuitively navigate the thousands of Reapers out there in the way the Catalyst did.  A living form piloting the Reapers opens the door for far more problems and jumps in logic; in short, the Reapers need a digital Catalyst.

You're forgetting, oh, every VI ever made.

Not touching Synthesis' execution, but invasive exploratory analysis of what makes Shepard a true hybrid entity doesn't sound that far-fetched to me.

Which could have been done with a simple blood test.  Plenty of blood lying around.

... by choosing three very different options, one of which suggests the survival of the protagonist.  

All burn Shepard.  All but one are clear on Shepards death.  One hints otherwise.  None definitively show Shepard surviving to be rescued.

I repeat:  "Burn your Shepard or the rocks fall.

Player choice indeed had something to do with it. Suggesting that it doesn't is entirely dishonest. 

Yes, you can choose how you want to screw the galaxy, and if Shepard wants to be caught in a fire, be electrocuted, or disintegrated.  So many chocies!

Modifié par iakus, 13 février 2014 - 03:07 .

[dreamgazer]

[quote]iakus wrote...

[quote]dreamgazer wrote...

That's fine. Still doesn't make it "suicide".[/quote]

Then what does it make it? A reunion?

Well, maybe for Thanemancers...[/quote]

Do I really need to educate you on the definition and meaning of the word suicide, iakus?

[quote][quote]
I don't agree, and I don't have to face anything.

Seriously, man, stop with the "artistic" junk, since everything in fiction can be labeled as such. The Virmire decision is a contrived artistic expression with rigid parameters, too, and it's one of many. [/quote]

Wasn't an expression that dealt with the final state of the galaxy or the protagonist.[/quote]

So? It got the ball rolling.

[quote]It was an attempt to be somehow deep and meaningful and had little to do with the actual trilogy that came before, near as I can tell. Thus it deserves a derisive "artistic" label.[/quote]

The series wouldn't have happened without renegade synthetics created by careless organics.

Drew K. even mentions organics and synthetics as a theme in the series.

[quote][quote]
Shepard was going to take damage in the chamber no matter what in Destroy, since there's no communication channel working to call for backup (remember, Hackett's radio communication was one-way) and nobody knows precisely where he/she is at on the Citadel (despite what MEHEM cooks up). They're Not Afraid to Die, and they're stuck in the decision chamber until the situation is over, until rescue crews can sift through the damage. If you want to interpret death after that scenario, instead of Out of the Inferno and a Finger Twitching Revival, go for it. But you know that's not the intent. [/quote]

Then they sure have shown the intent in EC. That was their opportunity. Their make-up exam, so to speak.[/quote]

The intent was clear even in the vanilla ending. They stuck to their guns.

[quote][quote]
Why wouldn't the permanent and reliable uploading of consciousness require physical sacrifice? Every instance of this in the universe has either involved a permanent upload by sacrificing one's body (the virtual aliens in ME2), swapping with another digital entity one-for-one (again, virtual aliens), problematic and unpredictable coexistence with the physical body and the digital world (Overlord), or merely passive interaction (geth consensus). Unless you want Shepard to just walk around with the remote control in his omni-tool, ripe for hacking/overthrow and without the ability to intuitively navigate the thousands of Reapers out there in the way the Catalyst did. A living form piloting the Reapers opens the door for far more problems and jumps in logic; in short, the Reapers need a digital Catalyst.[/quote]

You're forgetting, oh, every VI ever made.[/quote]

Not the same thing. Replication =/= Emulation.

[quote][quote]
Not touching Synthesis' execution, but invasive exploratory analysis of what makes Shepard a true hybrid entity doesn't sound that far-fetched to me. [/quote]

Which could have been done with a simple blood test. Plenty of blood lying around.[/quote]

There's more to the biological synergy than just what can be seen in Shepard's blood. Can't tell everything about a car by an oil dip, either.

[quote][quote]
... by choosing three very different options, one of which suggests the survival of the protagonist. [/quote]

All burn Shepard. All but one are clear on Shepards death. One hints otherwise. None definitively show Shepard surviving to be rescued.


I repeat: "Burn your Shepard or the rocks fall.[/quote]

Yes, two definitively end Shepard's life as it's known, and one implies survival after destruction. What of it?

[quote][quote]
Player choice indeed had something to do with it. Suggesting that it doesn't is entirely dishonest.
[/quote]

Yes, you can choose how you want to screw the galaxy, and if Shepard wants to be caught in a fire, be electrocuted, or disintegrated. So many chocies![/quote]

You really just like to focus on the negatives in everything, don't you?

[Br3admax]

/getting rid of the robots that have been killing everyone for 300 years

How is Destroy screwing the galaxy again? Everything is clearly rebuilt, the geth never become involved with the "galaxy" either way. How was anyone screwed? Your personal opinion you say? As in with this entire discussion?

[Dr_Extrem]

Br3ad wrote...

/getting rid of the robots that have been killing everyone for 300 years

How is Destroy screwing the galaxy again? Everything is clearly rebuilt, the geth never become involved with the "galaxy" either way. How was anyone screwed? Your personal opinion you say? As in with this entire discussion?

the only reason earth is not a toxic wasteland is the rule of cool.

during the battle of earth, we ignore the first rule of space-fight. "do not shoot at targets, who are in front of settlements." remember the drill seargent? one missfire would cause the damage equel to the hiroshima-explosion.  (codex proves this)

but destroying reapers in close proximity to earth looks cool ... 


normally, every destroyed reaper would be pulled into earths gravity field (its shaped like a funnel btw) and would ultimatly descent into our amtosphere.

the iss is affected by apr. 98% of earths gravity field ... it has to be accelerated to 28000 km/h or it would crash. in addition, the iss is slowed down by the very thin atmosphere. due to both effects, the iss orbit has to be corrected by apr. 100 meters every day. the reason the astronauts/cosmonauts appear to be weithless, is the centrifugal force, that counters earths gravity.

the same thing would happen to the dead reapers / reaper debris floating around earth / every other settlement.


bigger parts would cause incredible damage when they hit. craters, firestorms, earthquaukes, firestorms. a reaper if really huge and has a big mass - in addition, they are a little more durable, than rocks. a reaper who would fall into the see, would cause tsunamis of incredible magnitudes. (logical consequence of a 2 km long object hits a puddle at several thousant km/h)

even if we ignore this stuff, the in-universe lore shows what happens, when you dump eezo-cores into the atmospheres of inhabited planets. in short: most living beings would die of brain cancer. (see codex, dialogue with kaiden)


the asari would be the only species who would have the chances to survive this in the long term.


this is why earth is screwed .. no matter what ending you choose ...

[Iakus]

Don't forget all the eezo leakage.

Cancer rates will be skyrocketing.

[durasteel]

Suicide is killing yourself. If you blow up something big enough while standing next to it, you're killing yourself. If you grab a couple of electrodes knowing that it will run enough current through you to turn you into a pile of ash, you're killing yourself. If, by the wonders of space magic, you have a giant energy beam available to you and you jump into it... you're killing yourself.

People commit suicide for all sorts of reasons. Killing yourself to achieve an objective is still suicide.

I think the two sides on this issue are talking past one another, confounded by the concept of the ME3 ending as "art." Not all art is equal, and some of it is thrown together to meet a deadline and comes out lacking inspiration, coherence and quality. Ray Muzyka was defending his employees against venomous angry fans, and used the "it's art" line to imply that some of us didn't like the end because we simply didn't "get" it. I think that same attitude is sometimes evident among catalyst apologists even still. It's silly, quite frankly, because the end--original and extended--isn't really that deep, no matter which color you pick.

The "organics blah blah synthetics" malarkey is just window dressing. It's meaningless, nothing more than a distraction. The end comes down to (1) kill the bad guys but sacrifice allies to do it; (2) dominate the bad guys with no further losses to your allies, but you have to join them and go away forever; (3) solve the conflict by erasing an arbitrary distinction between your side and the bad guys, accepting on faith that this will fix the problem (and killing your character to make it seem more epic.) The ending does not flow naturally from the preceeding narrative, it is a contrived end choice dressed up to make it seem like it might be relevant and contextual.

The sad truth is that the end of Mass Effect 3 was uninspired and thrown together to get the job done. Interviews and notes from that phase of development leave no doubt that it was rushed, that the voice actors were in essence reading the first draft into the mic. It wasn't dishonest, it wasn't nefarious, it wasn't malicious... Hell, it wasn't even what the intended a few months prior. it was just business.

Modifié par durasteel, 14 février 2014 - 05:45 .

[ElitePinecone]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

this is why earth is screwed .. no matter what ending you choose ...

Well, not really. 

This is one of those times when authorial intent *has* to trump what appeared to happen on the screen. No ifs, no buts.

The writers surely didn't intend for Earth to be obliterated, Endor-like, by space debris - just like they didn't intend for us all to assume that the exploding Mass Relays wiped out everything in the galaxy, and they didn't intend for the Normandy crew to starve to death on the jungle planet, and they didn't intend for the turians/quarians to resort to cannibalism in Earth's orbit because they were stuck there, and they didn't intend for all the people on the Citadel to die horribly when the Reapers invaded, etc.

You can call all of that a case of negligence and not following the rules of your own world (which it is!), but it's also an example of fans thinking about things incredibly obsessively, in a way that the authors never did, and never intended. Fans take things literally, nitpick things into oblivion, and are generally prepared to assume the worst about any situation. Unless the writers had spelled out exactly what happened in all those cases above, fans can and will jump to the most pessimistic conclusions. If there's one lesson to be drawn categorically from the ME3 ending, it's that some fans think about every possible minute detail of what happens *far* more often than the developers, and they're far less willing to let things slide because they sound cool. If the reaction to the ending was surprising or disappointing to people at Bioware, it might've been because nobody had any idea people would analyse and nitpick at its consequences the way they did - there's a fundamental mismatch of thinking there.

So while most of that final battle was a "rule of cool"-type affair, it's unquestionable that Bioware did not intend for the planet to be irridiated by eezo and die in a firestorm of Reaper fragments. Handwave that however you want (giant deflector shields, the allied fleets intercepting debris, ground teams destroying dangerous pieces as they fall), but in this case their intention for that part of the story absolutely trumps your extrapolation of what would've happened based on the physics. Since the ending slides show Earth was fine in a high-Destroy/Control/Synthesis ending, and nobody had enormous brain tumours, I think we can safely say the space battle didn't destroy the Earth.

Nobody's going to tell a cinematic designer they can't have a final space battle with the Reapers because Newton's laws of motion state that it's silly to shoot at an enemy with a planet behind them. As much as I want them to keep the lore in mind and stick far more to actual science in their science-fiction game, at some point a game developer is going to do something because it's fun, or cool. People have different levels of tolerance for implausibility, but you can't expect them to completely sacrifice good cinematic storytelling in favour of making the game a science simulation. 

(After all, I hear virtually no complaints about how the Normandy flies like a jet in space, and nothing behaves in a vacuum like it actually would.)

[Ieldra]

ElitePinecone wrote...
(After all, I hear virtually no complaints about how the Normandy flies like a jet in space, and nothing behaves in a vacuum like it actually would.)

You missed my rant about that, then

it's one of the reasons I think the Normandy isn't cool. A "cool" design would at least be somewhat interesting and creative. A spaceship that looks and flies like a jet is silly, not cool. It is odd to think of: using halfway realistic physics for movement in space is almost unheard-of in SF stories told through visual media, so that if someone actually did it, they'd have created something new and interesting that people would talk about. Such a wasted opportunity.