I wouldn't say they aren't fair at all, Dream. I'd say a capacity towards criticism towards this fiction, and all interpretations of it, is necessary. Lest we all agree that it's unrealistic, period. Seems very fair to me.
I would, since it's effectively rendering the entire discussion pointless in the process.
Which doesn't really jibe well with passively labeling another's contrasting viewpoint as inauthentic and subjective.
I would, since it's effectively rendering the entire discussion pointless in the process.
Which doesn't really jibe well with passively labeling another's contrasting viewpoint as inauthentic and subjective.
Again, that's the point (such irony, and I don't even view myself as a hipster). But it doesn't diminish the value because of the pointlessness.
The point is to say that how would one be able to truly say in an extra-canonical bit what is authentic and objective? We all have our feelings on what is and what could be and what should be. But objectively, it's not going to mean much more than an interpretation or an opinion. But still, it only lacks value if you decide to let it lack value. I don't. Therefore, it isn't truly pointless. The Doctor lies Dream. Rule One.
1) It is explained, it even has a codex entry. It's not nonsensical, it's just a fantastical element in what is otherwise a sci-fi setting. Dune had the spice mind-melidng, ME has the Cipher. It's nicely downplayed and simply not a problem. And it is necessary for the story, sure, it's a part of it. That's an argument for the story, not against it, that it's composed of bits that are necessary to it.
2) I'll agree on a Peugeot 205 GTI T16 Rally car and a Peugeot 207. Diesel. It's a very nice analogy come to think of it, they were made by the same company, but by different people, and the newer one is generally similar (it's a hatchback), but essentially it's something completely different, it's ugly and in general a bit rubbish.
3) But it's there, which at least shows they thought about it. And yes, I said Vigil's file, not Vigil.
4) Incorrect. There is no evidence, as whether a story works or not is highly subjective, and people generally didn't have your problems with ME1's story. You're finding problems where there aren't any.
5) Oh come on. The entire situation is pretty much begging for Shepard to drop by and do something awesome to solve the conflict peacefully against all odds.
6) Ah, you see, you couldn't be more wrong. There is no precedent. The sacrifice always has a payoff, it feels poignant but necessary (I don't know if it actually is necessary after you've analyzed the situation from a gazillion different viewpoints and come up with 13 differently written scenarios for that scene, but it doesn't feel contrived when you play it), and maybe even more significantly, there is no picking up on it whatsoever (the sacrifice thing) in ME2, where you can save everyone if you do well. Mass Effect is about earning your happy ending. I'm not having it any other way.
Again, that's the point (such irony, and I don't even view myself as a hipster). But it doesn't diminish the value because of the pointlessness.
The point is to say that how would one be able to truly say in an extra-canonical bit what is authentic and objective? We all have our feelings on what is and what could be and what should be. But objectively, it's not going to mean much more than an interpretation or an opinion. But still, it only lacks value if you decide to let it lack value. I don't. Therefore, it isn't truly pointless. The Doctor lies Dream. Rule One.
Otherwise, I'd just point out that the series is story-breakingly unrealistic literally within the first 30 seconds of ME1 by having Shepard standing up, looking over Earth, with no apparent lack of gravity that has him floating like a realistic astronaut. It's not realistic and therefor bad and the story was inherently flawed because it can't follow modern physical laws.
Story-breakingly unrealistic? I can see unrealistic, but how do you get to story-breaking?
Facetiousness.
I'm was making a strawman to demonstrate a point more or less that you really can't say what is and isn't authentic for story telling in fiction, especially on the more speculative and futuristic means regarding technology.
In that example, the story is broken because right off the bat, space travel isn't portrayed realistically (i.e. by modern standards of space travel here right now in the early 21st century).
Mass Effect fields would have saved Sandra Bullock and George Clooney a lot of trouble.
OK. Then for the purposes of this thread dreamgazer might as well agree with you. As I read it, the substance of dreamgazer's position is that ME3 can't be said to be more nonsensical than the other games. If we can't assign a "sense" value to the games in the first place, this proposition is still true. Unless "authentic" is being used here in a way I don't follow.Facetiousness.
I'm was making a strawman to demonstrate a point more or less that you really can't say what is and isn't authentic for story telling in fiction, especially on the more speculative and futuristic means regarding technology.
OK. Then for the purposes of this thread dreamgazer might as well agree with you. As I read it, the substance of dreamgazer's position is that ME3 can't be said to be more nonsensical than the other games. If we can't assign a "sense" value to the games in the first place, this proposition is still true.
That is his position. What I was stating that it's ultimately pointless to go ahead and describe any part of one game more or less non-sensical in the context of fiction vs. reality.
My personal position is that ME3 can indeed be viewed as more nonsensical (and indeed fully deserves to be), as well as warranting a more critical eye due to its position in the plot, the setting, and the lore. Two games (however you view them) have established both a plot, a setting, and a lore for the third game to follow. Whereas the second game has more freedom to define the setting, lore, and plot in any direction based on what is established in the first game.
Basically, the way I view a trilogy (of any kind) is that the first part establishes the setting, plot, and lore, the second part establishes a direction for the plot as well as further definition of the setting, plot, and lore, and the third game takes the direction established by the second part (while adhering to the plot, lore, and setting) to reach the climax and conclusion of the trilogy. In my admittedly biased and subjective perspective, the highest critical standard lies with the third act, and it is no longer allowed to get away with certain... developments that the first two acts could. This is how I perceive the trilogy for Mass Effect as well. And to me, ME3 did not function properly as a third act in many ways (which would get down to a lot more technical ideas and developments as well as preference and satisfaction for how the story developed). But suffice to say, the third act is where the most important parts of the trilogy occur (at least how I view it), namely the climax and conclusion. It's the part that makes or breaks the trilogy. It rightfully deserves to be held to a higher standard in regards to plot, setting, and lore.
OK. Then for the purposes of this thread dreamgazer might as well agree with you.
I for one am glad that "human genetic diversity" never made it out of ME2.
What's Mass Effect 3? Oh that. Yeah, I'm at peace with it.
I for one am glad that "human genetic diversity" never made it out of ME2.
I wasn't a fan of it either, but at least it was an attempt to give a grounded reason for why humans were oh-so-special rather than being the species the messiah belonged to.
Oh, I knew precisely where Capaldi was going with his tongue-in-cheek comments. It's similar territory to that of the reductive "What is art?" discussion. Hence, the sigh.
I wasn't a fan of it either, but at least it was an attempt to give a grounded reason for why humans were oh-so-special rather than being the species the messiah belonged to.
I dunno, I'm fine with the Reapers looking at the human species as a threat simply because one of them took down their scout/doorman and thwarted their Plan A.
That reason always bothered me. It just seems weird for an AI to get so hung up on a species because of one guy. As a whole the Turians or the Asari seem like a much better choice.
I dunno, I'm fine with the Reapers looking at the human species as a threat simply because one of them took down their scout/doorman and thwarted their Plan A.
I can imagine Harbinger going full Scooby Doo villain.
I dunno, I'm fine with the Reapers looking at the human species as a threat simply because one of them took down their scout/doorman and thwarted their Plan A.
My question has always been, why does the series need to have the Reapers pay special attention to humanity in the first place? The colony abductions of ME2 were a rather weak story hook anyways (IMO), so I don't think you'd be losing much if the Reapers never really singled out humanity at any point during the series.
My question has always been, why does the series need to have the Reapers pay special attention to humanity in the first place? The colony abductions of ME2 were a rather weak story hook anyways (IMO), so I don't think you'd be losing much if the Reapers never really singled out humanity at any point during the series.
The human centrism I always thought was one of the weaker parts of trilogy.
That reason always bothered me. It just seems weird for an AI to get so hung up on a species because of one guy. As a whole the Turians or the Asari seem like a much better choice.
My question has always been, why does the series need to have the Reapers pay special attention to humanity in the first place? The colony abductions of ME2 were a rather weak story hook anyways (IMO), so I don't think you'd be losing much if the Reapers never really singled out humanity at any point during the series.
They didn't take Sovereign down, though. Foiling their relay-disconnect plan isn't an insignificant thing, since it forced them into crude brute-force tactics that depleted some of their numbers during this war, instead of the stealthy status quo. Humans have ... gumption, I guess, something the other species didn't really display during the events of ME1's ending.
I guess my point that it wasn't humanity being super special awesome that led to that though, just a series of events where they happened to be the people standing in the right place at the right time. It was the Protheans who initially foiled the whole Keeper thing. And Saren did most of the heavy work in uncovering the whole thing, Shepard just sort of follows the bread crumbs (which I think any pre-ME3 Spectre could have done). The Alliance just happened to be standing nearby, who knows how things would have gone down if the bulk of the Citadel fleet was there. It just seems to me that humans didn't really do anything 'worthy' but just happened to be lucky that one of their woman gave birth to such a badass.
My question has always been, why does the series need to have the Reapers pay special attention to humanity in the first place? The colony abductions of ME2 were a rather weak story hook anyways (IMO), so I don't think you'd be losing much if the Reapers never really singled out humanity at any point during the series.
Retour en haut
