126 réponses à ce sujet

[SNascimento]

The meme also happens to be true, given Jensen was augmented without his permission.  Granted it was to save his life, but

 

Spoiler

He was also augmented far more than was necessary to save his life, for no other reason than "he can take it"

 

I'd also say that DXHR handled it far better than ME2 did.  ME2 passed it off as a joke, they couldn't even be bothered to explain how the Lazarus Project worked.  While for Deus Ex made it a defining moment in Adam's life.  How and why are important questions.  Sarif's motives for helping Jensen, why Jensen was attacked in the first place, all tie into the conspiracy around him.  

 

What reasoning was there behind the Collector interest in Shepard, why the Illusive Man decided to bring back Shepard, " You're a symbol"  How does Shepard react to being dead for two years?  How do others react?  

 

"I never asked for this" is one line, but it's a defining example of where Deus Ex: Human Revolution succeeded and Mass Effect failed:  Jensen (and the player) gets to define how such a traumatic event affects him.

To be fair, that is like saying a fish is more successful at swiming than a bird. 

ME2 didn't pass the Lazarus Project as a joke, it just didn't develop the repercussions of such an accomplishment. I can see why someone would be bothered by this, but it is important to see things for what it is. Mass Effect 2 didn't fail where Human Revolution succeeded because it never tried to do so. This is like saying Mass Effect fails at stealth or plataforming. Or that Deus Ex fails at space exploration.

And as to why the Collectors were after Shepard and why the Illsuive Man wanted him that was explained. To the former it was that the reapers perceived Shepard as a special specimen and they wanted him in their human dna stew. To the latter the Illusive Man saw Shepard as a uniquely talented human soldier/leader and deemed his existence necessary to the efforts of defeating the reapers. And considering what Shepard accomplishes, that was a sound decision.

[JohnDoe60]

Some of the posts above have me wondering if I played the same games... the trilogy was all about genetic and cybernetic enhancements, and in the end you got to choose between the status quo (control the Reapers), getting rid of it (destroy the Reapers, which would also fry all the implants), and totally embrace it (the Synthesis option, which is the ultimate in fiddling with organic life).

 

The way I see it, the developers were too subtle about it during the game, then too heavy handed about it at the end - which resulted in a lot of people missing the point while playing and being blindsided by the ending.

 

So, I'm hoping the next game(s) address something else and expect they will effectively go with the "status quo" with respect to the level of genetic and cybernetic enhancements used by the general population, NPCs, and PC.

[SwobyJ]

No. This is not Star Wars and it is not Star Trek either. Lets keep the space magic and the science fantasy to a minimum. Reaper tech was ridiculous enough to justify husks, collectors, and all that other nonsense. We need less of that in future Mass Effect installments.

 

That far of a mentality is curious to me, considering the setup we were given with Mass Effect from the start.

 

I get being annoyed at ME2-ME3, but ME1 itself had its inclusion of space fantasy. TBH to me, it wouldn't BE Mass Effect without that.

 

And trust me, I'm NOT one who adores the 'basically fantasy but not' that is put in Star Wars and the 'science can do anything and it doesn't need a proper explanation' that is put in Star Trek. I just have to say that ME1 itself does have a DEGREE of this, and it is not at a minimum. Low to mid level, yeah, but not a minimum compared to what it could have been, IMO.

 

Again, it wouldn't be Mass Effect to me if there wasn't something that pushed our boundaries of understanding (aka wasn't explained to a signfiicant degree). I like that we got Biotics. I actually do like that we got the Reaper Cycles. I like the Mass Relays. I like the Husks. I like that we got Sovereign. I like that we got Indoctrinated. Yeah.

[Revan Reborn]

That far of a mentality is curious to me, considering the setup we were given with Mass Effect from the start.

 

I get being annoyed at ME2-ME3, but ME1 itself had its inclusion of space fantasy. TBH to me, it wouldn't BE Mass Effect without that.

 

And trust me, I'm NOT one who adores the 'basically fantasy but not' that is put in Star Wars and the 'science can do anything and it doesn't need a proper explanation' that is put in Star Trek. I just have to say that ME1 itself does have a DEGREE of this, and it is not at a minimum. Low to mid level, yeah, but not a minimum compared to what it could have been, IMO.

 

Again, it wouldn't be Mass Effect to me if there wasn't something that pushed our boundaries of understanding (aka wasn't explained to a signfiicant degree). I like that we got Biotics. I actually do like that we got the Reaper Cycles. I like the Mass Relays. I like the Husks. I like that we got Sovereign. I like that we got Indoctrinated. Yeah.

What made Mass Effect interesting in my opinion was not the reapers directly, but the relationships between the various races of the galaxy. It was those dynamics and the struggles that ensued that made the experience so compelling. The only interesting point with regard to the reapers was that they were unknown and their intentions mysterious. Once they were fully explained, the concept of this "mysterious race of sentient machines" lost its luster.

 

I don't mind some elements of science fiction being unexplainable. Everything doesn't have to be grounded in realism, such as the Mass Relays and the Citadel. However, I don't believe the entire experience should then be dictated by the fantasy and space magic elements. That ultimately takes away from the immersion and the engagement. Biotics are interesting, even if it's a direct ripoff of the Force, but how BioWare rationalized it in ME through element zero deposits and evolution was interesting.

 

It's the idea of this intergalactic community and an endless amount of possibilities and places to explore that really gets me excited for Mass Effect. Sovereign and the rest was alright, but hardly the main appeal.

[SwobyJ]

Ah okay, I was actually more interested in Sovereign and getting to understand the Reapers whether they liked it or not, so I guess that's why I wasn't as put off as others.

 

Asari were silly, Turians were weird looking, Salarians were the Greys about to take me to their UFO.

 

Aliens were pretty comical to me when I played ME1. I couldn't take the Council seriously.

 

To put it in an simplified way - I got through the alien stuff just to do the tech stuff.

 

ME1 I did the zipping through colonies in order to face Sovereign.

ME2 I fought hundreds of mergs in order to meet Legion and learn about the Geth.

ME3 I fought a War in order to learn about the Harvest.

 

Reading BSN, I suppose my priorities don't match others'.

[Revan Reborn]

Ah okay, I was actually more interested in Sovereign and getting to understand the Reapers whether they liked it or not, so I guess that's why I wasn't as put off as others.

 

Asari were silly, Turians were weird looking, Salarians were the Greys about to take me to their UFO.

 

Aliens were pretty comical to me when I played ME1. I couldn't take the Council seriously.

 

To put it in an simplified way - I got through the alien stuff just to do the tech stuff.

 

ME1 I did the zipping through colonies in order to face Sovereign.

ME2 I fought hundreds of mergs in order to meet Legion and learn about the Geth.

ME3 I fought a War in order to learn about the Harvest.

 

Reading BSN, I suppose my priorities don't match others'.

I guess my main criticism of the reapers is they aren't exactly "original" in terms of science fiction. We have the Borg in Star Trek. We have the Star Forge and the Infinite Empire in Star Wars. All of these things share similarities of these highly advanced civilizations applying pressure over those lesser and weaker in mind and body.

 

I actually liked the various aliens in Mass Effect. Not necessarily for how they look, but how they all interacted with one another. I appreciated the inherent discrimination against humans and how humans discriminated against the other races. I appreciated that humans were the underdog and were trying to catch up to the rest of the galaxy, unlike in Star Trek where humans are at the center of the universe.

 

It paints a more believable yet appealing future in which anything is possible and there is just a score of civilizations waiting to be found and explored. That really appealed to my sense of wonder, exploration, and what it would be like to find other life in the galaxy. That, at least for me, is why I love Mass Effect. With the reaper arc now officially over, I expect we'll see a continuance of exploration and seeing new species as that's a focus on the next game with the retun of the Mako.

[Gwydden]

No. This is not Star Wars and it is not Star Trek either. Lets keep the space magic and the science fantasy to a minimum. Reaper tech was ridiculous enough to justify husks, collectors, and all that other nonsense. We need less of that in future Mass Effect installments.

"Space magic"? "Science Fantasy"?

 

My dear friend, genetic engineering and cybernetics are WAY more plausible than half of the stuff you find in ME, and that's being generous. I mean, FTL travel? Eeezo? Biotics? Asari? The Crucible? Fairy tales.

 

I mean, in this thread we're talking stuff that is almost guaranteed to happen in the not-so-distant future (hell, we can even see some early examples right now), assuming we manage to avoid nuclear holocaust and environmental apocalypse and that scientific progress continues at its current pace.

 

Star Wars and Star Trek have absolutely nothing to do with it. And I find it kind of baffling that you claim ME is not like those, seeing as, well, it kind of is. It's a space opera that takes heavily after the big classics. Admittedly, this also means it doesn't go into human modifications all that much. Which is a pity, as it is a fascinating and even relevant topic that opens up a lot of storytelling possibilities.

[Iakus]

To be fair, that is like saying a fish is more successful at swiming than a bird. 

ME2 didn't pass the Lazarus Project as a joke, it just didn't develop the repercussions of such an accomplishment. I can see why someone would be bothered by this, but it is important to see things for what it is. Mass Effect 2 didn't fail where Human Revolution succeeded because it never tried to do so. This is like saying Mass Effect fails at stealth or plataforming. Or that Deus Ex fails at space exploration.

And as to why the Collectors were after Shepard and why the Illsuive Man wanted him that was explained. To the former it was that the reapers perceived Shepard as a special specimen and they wanted him in their human dna stew. To the latter the Illusive Man saw Shepard as a uniquely talented human soldier/leader and deemed his existence necessary to the efforts of defeating the reapers. And considering what Shepard accomplishes, that was a sound decision.

 

The thing is, though, Mass Effect 2 failed specifically because they didn't try.   They effectively killed off Commander Shepard for two years.  That should have repercussions. But it's glossed over like it was nothing.  Death and extensive reconstruction are big deals, but it was trivialized.

 

And "Shepard is special" was never spelled out.  Why was Shepard special?  As near as I can figure, Shep's specialness could be described as "He/she was the player character"    

 

As for the Illusive Man, no real reason was given to spend billions on reviving one person.  Again aside from "This is the Player Character"  Sure Shepard's a bad@ss, but there's lots of them in the galaxy.  What makes Shepard unique?  What is it about Shepard that, without this one person, the galaxy is frakked?  

[StealthGamer92]

The thing is, though, Mass Effect 2 failed specifically because they didn't try.   They effectively killed off Commander Shepard for two years.  That should have repercussions. But it's glossed over like it was nothing.  Death and extensive reconstruction are big deals, but it was trivialized.

 

And "Shepard is special" was never spelled out.  Why was Shepard special?  As near as I can figure, Shep's specialness could be described as "He/she was the player character"    

 

As for the Illusive Man, no real reason was given to spend billions on reviving one person.  Again aside from "This is the Player Character"  Sure Shepard's a bad@ss, but there's lots of them in the galaxy.  What makes Shepard unique?  What is it about Shepard that, without this one person, the galaxy is frakked?  

Luck? No that's another Sci-Fi characters running theme.

[SNascimento]

The thing is, though, Mass Effect 2 failed specifically because they didn't try.   They effectively killed off Commander Shepard for two years.  That should have repercussions. But it's glossed over like it was nothing.  Death and extensive reconstruction are big deals, but it was trivialized.

 

And "Shepard is special" was never spelled out.  Why was Shepard special?  As near as I can figure, Shep's specialness could be described as "He/she was the player character"    

 

As for the Illusive Man, no real reason was given to spend billions on reviving one person.  Again aside from "This is the Player Character"  Sure Shepard's a bad@ss, but there's lots of them in the galaxy.  What makes Shepard unique?  What is it about Shepard that, without this one person, the galaxy is frakked?  

Again, I say the exact same thing I said previously. I don't think you can say a game failed because something it didn't want to do. ME2 clearly didn't want to tackle the 'jesus' aspect of Shepard. Bringing someone back to life is a huge deal, I agree, but the game is not forced to make it a main theme of the story.

About Shepard being special, it's because he is arguably the greatest leader in the galaxy. The Illusive Man brought him back because he thought no one else would be able to pull the Suicide Mission, and Miranda latter agree with that when she says she doesn't have Shepard's "fire". 

[Inprea]

"Space magic"? "Science Fantasy"?

 

My dear friend, genetic engineering and cybernetics are WAY more plausible than half of the stuff you find in ME, and that's being generous. I mean, FTL travel? Eeezo? Biotics? Asari? The Crucible? Fairy tales.

 

I mean, in this thread we're talking stuff that is almost guaranteed to happen in the not-so-distant future (hell, we can even see some early examples right now), assuming we manage to avoid nuclear holocaust and environmental apocalypse and that scientific progress continues at its current pace.

 

Star Wars and Star Trek have absolutely nothing to do with it. And I find it kind of baffling that you claim ME is not like those, seeing as, well, it kind of is. It's a space opera that takes heavily after the big classics. Admittedly, this also means it doesn't go into human modifications all that much. Which is a pity, as it is a fascinating and even relevant topic that opens up a lot of storytelling possibilities.

 

It's kind of neat. I would have put medi-gel in the list of sci-fantasy at one time but then I took a class in microbiology. One of the things I found very interesting is alternative medicines which include genetically engineered bacteria that hunt down and kill undesirable bacteria. I'm not sure if they've moved to invivo testing but the invitro testing is just so amazing. Then when you consider how bacteria is essential to our day to day lives to the point they suspect it even influences mental health and suddenly medi-gel seems a whole lot more possible.

 

If we can program bacteria to hunt down and kill another bacteria while leaving us unharmed how far is programming it to respond to tissue factor and help with the clotting process? Well probably several kilometers away but it's on the same road. I can see us getting there in a few decades. Then how far away is medi-gel?

[Vazgen]

Regarding medi-gel, I remember seeing a video not so long ago about something remarkably similar in real life. This video shows a glimpse of it, I've seen the presentation of the invention but I can't seem to find it now.

[SolNebula]

Not too fond of it. Cerberus ended quite bad with their implants. To me a good synthetic is a dead one. I still save the geth in ME only as cannon fodder till i pick destroy. Deus Ex does a quite neat job of exploring that aspect of sci-fi, let ME focus on other things.

[Mad Cassidy]

I'd love to see gen eng and cybernetics embraced more fully. And I'd love for it to be a relative non-issue in-universe. Too many bad sci-fi stories try to run with the idea that 'synthetic = bad, natural = good', ignoring that the entirety of human history has been a story of overcoming 'natural' limitations, and with pretty much no exception, it's led to better, longer, happier lives.

 

There seems to be this huge fear of genetic engineering, and I don't understand it. The human body - any body - is a machine. And like any machine, it breaks, wears down, or experiences manufacturing errors. If you have the technology to fix it, you should. If you have the capability to improve upon it, do so. There's no moral conundrum.

[Farangbaa]

"Space magic"? "Science Fantasy"?
 
My dear friend, genetic engineering and cybernetics are WAY more plausible than half of the stuff you find in ME, and that's being generous. I mean, FTL travel? Eeezo? Biotics? Asari? The Crucible? Fairy tales.
 
I mean, in this thread we're talking stuff that is almost guaranteed to happen in the not-so-distant future (hell, we can even see some early examples right now), assuming we manage to avoid nuclear holocaust and environmental apocalypse and that scientific progress continues at its current pace.
 
Star Wars and Star Trek have absolutely nothing to do with it. And I find it kind of baffling that you claim ME is not like those, seeing as, well, it kind of is. It's a space opera that takes heavily after the big classics. Admittedly, this also means it doesn't go into human modifications all that much. Which is a pity, as it is a fascinating and even relevant topic that opens up a lot of storytelling possibilities.

Don't forget that nonsense called 'essence', which the trilogy is riddled with.

And 'the Cipher', lol.

Space magic all the way.

Asari btw aren't that weird. The way they are explained in ME makes them seem really weird, but if you put them in the proper biological terms (asexually reproducing species with DNA recombination on reproduction) they are probably the most likely alien species of the bunch.

In fact, asexual reproduction with DNA recombination is far superior to anything known on this planet. It outweighs sexual reproduction and asexual reproduction as we know it (i.e. cloning) by miles, for obvious reasons, I hope.

But the way they are explained in ME (which the Asari might do on purpose, come to think of it) makes them sound mystical and magical. But what they say translates to the terms in which I put them. Remember that the 'father' adds NOTHING at all, hence asexual reproduction. The reproduction only causes the genes to be juggled around slightly, which is a thing that happens in humans too. You don't just get straight copies of one of your mom and dad's DNA strains, the genes are shuffled around slightly too.

That they need some other individual to reproduce at all is the only really odd thing they do, but that seems more an emotional thing than anything else. (and I'm not even completely sure they need it)

[SwobyJ]

I'd love to see gen eng and cybernetics embraced more fully. And I'd love for it to be a relative non-issue in-universe. Too many bad sci-fi stories try to run with the idea that 'synthetic = bad, natural = good', ignoring that the entirety of human history has been a story of overcoming 'natural' limitations, and with pretty much no exception, it's led to better, longer, happier lives.

 

There seems to be this huge fear of genetic engineering, and I don't understand it. The human body - any body - is a machine. And like any machine, it breaks, wears down, or experiences manufacturing errors. If you have the technology to fix it, you should. If you have the capability to improve upon it, do so. There's no moral conundrum.

 

The fear is:

 

1)That the human body is not a machine. Or if it is, its crafted by something much greater (God/Evolution/Universe) and if we try to 'improve it' or especially significantly change it, we have screwed up the plan. This is basically a view of sacredness of the human body. The 'if it was made this way, and it works enough, then intentionally changing that is evil' route.

 

2)Even if its a machine and we can engineer it, 'fixing' it may be done in a way that neglects personal or universal truths. That in trying to engineer our bodies to such a level, we have disrupted the way the world works and perhaps ought to always work, and then it'll require a whole cascading set of actions and changes in order to adapt, etc etc, until there's no 'human' left. This is basically a conservative view.

 

IMO like anything conservative/sacred, its only true until it really really isn't. There is nothing actually wrong with, for example, changing our DNA to reduce or eliminate our worst diseases, no matter the fears about creating giant monstrosities or plagues.

 

But I'm a transhumanist. And I'm ready for many of my own 'young' generation to act like 'old angry men' if transhumanism becomes a point of contention later this century.

 

 

EDIT: Definition of 'machine' - a tool. People don't want to think of themselves as machines, or at least their bodies as that (because to most people body = brain = mind = self = soul, to some extent). Transhumanists may be more free to consider that the self/soul can be transferred or changed while still being itself (aka code rewrite doesn't mean everything has changed, but just that the machine/code can work better).

[Farangbaa]

There is no soul.

There is no plan.

But evolution is not a random process. Mutations are random, but evolution is not. (I felt like I had to throw this in there, before some fundamentalist hijacks this thread)

[Mad Cassidy]

There is no soul.

There is no plan.

But evolution is not a random process. Mutations are random, but evolution is not. (I felt like I had to throw this in there, before some fundamentalist hijacks this thread)

 

Yep, but as amazing as most evolutionary processes are, we can do a hell of a lot better.

 

Evolution does not optimize for maximum fitness and it has no planned trajectory, it's just a selective process that weeds out things that don't work within a novel environment, or work slightly worse when compared to something else. It's the non-random selection of random mutation. Evolution is, as some call it, the blind idiot god, neither kind, nor cruel, nor cognisant of anything in particular. It stumbles around and goes with whatever works, and sometimes 'whatever works' isn't all that great in absolute terms.

[Farangbaa]

Yep, but as amazing as most evolutionary processes are, we can do a hell of a lot better.
 
Evolution does not optimize for maximum fitness and it has no planned trajectory, it's just a selective process that weeds out things that don't work within a novel environment, or work slightly worse when compared to something else. It's the non-random selection of random mutation. Evolution is, as some call it, the blind idiot god, neither kind, nor cruel, nor cognisant of anything in particular. It stumbles around and goes with whatever works, and sometimes 'whatever works' isn't all that great in absolute terms.

I know, I'm a biologist, lol.

And fervent supporter of transhumanism, in every way. Genetic engineering, synthetic engineering (adding tech to organism).

I also kinda laugh at people who don't wanna mess with God's plan, but go see a doctor anyway. In that aspect, those nutters that refuse medicine altogether at least got that part right.

[Ahriman]

Was waiting for genetic-cybernetic upgrade trees since ME1. Got cybernetic in ME2, but genetic upgrades are still forgotten for some reason.

They said extensive genetic modification do exist, but are illegal. You know, almost like working with racist terrorist organizations or marauding. Too bad Shepard is too lawful.

[SwobyJ]

A POV, as sad as it is, is that evolution doesn't care at all about us and if anything, will have us all die and for other species in the universe to matter far more (if they're not far above us already). So we are best to hold dominion over what we currently see as dominion (aka Earth, as Humans), and expanding past that and to be transhuman, we'll be opening our species to things that it just is not organically (including brain composition) ready for, and may never be ready for, and will cause disaster. The Void.

 

Arguably, even every scientific advancement has brought disaster and pain in that advancement, and it'd suck if those outcomes came to those we know and love. I'm still transhumanist and think the benefits can outweigh the dangers and disasters/pain though.

 

We call mutations random (and so far I believe that consensus) but we're still a bunch of... little things on a single planet - what are we to confidently call this stuff 'random'? We can't even visit any other planets, let alone have proof of this stuff.

 

#creationismlol

 

Javik in Mass Effect expresses some of this line of thought. The Prothians viewed themselves above all other organics in the Milky Way, but they also considered this to happen enough 'natural' evolution. And they believed this in a sort of religious way.

 

IMO Javik is a possible vision into the future for humanity, that even (hypothetically) with a full ending of current religion, we could still advance very highly scientifically but still have many who regard *something* that exists 'by default' with a religious air. 'Cosmic Imperative' lol. Javik has no proof, but it kept the Prothians culturally strong, in a way. It kept them together and willing to fight for survival against other species. It kept them apex... until it didn't. (Hello Reapers)

 

Doesn't mean it is rational - like any conservative view (IMO) it is only true... until it isn't. I'm only saying as well that it could be that 100% of all of our views are also 'conservative' in the cosmic sense, all ready to be disproved - and this includes our views on evolution itself. But this is just imagination and a philosophicl experiment, I have to admit, so I'm fine with being transhumanist and doing for whatever tech is out there. I'm just expressing what I think is the POV that is part of being fearful of things like genetic engineering. We have to have some awareness that advancing this tech will result in new, bad things. And emotionally, many people may think that these new, bad things are things that will happen to themselves or those they care for. Its easy for the religious to latch onto these feelings, but it exists also in the non-religious. We can think we're safe with tech until whoops a war and someone dropped nukes on a major city. We can think we're safe with tech until whoops someone designed a genetic disease that wipes out millions, including your family. Yes, it is all fear based. Fear is often important though.

[SwobyJ]

Was waiting for genetic-cybernetic upgrade trees since ME1. Got cybernetic in ME2, but genetic upgrades are still forgotten for some reason.

They said extensive genetic modification do exist, but are illegal. You know, almost like working with racist terrorist organizations or marauding. Too bad Shepard is too lawful.

 

Shepard is lawful to a point. He'll follow 'law' by default.

 

But he's actually more chaotic in practice. Continually put into positions where he will just do whatever he thinks he needs to in order to keep himself/his allies/Humanity/Alliance/Council going (against the Reapers), depending on situation.

 

He's just not scientifically chaotic. He has to be given a 'pass' to be chaotic in science, to break the laws. He has to 'be a Spectre'. He has to 'join Cerberus'. He has to 'get fleets to Earth no matter the cost'. He doesn't have a character stance of taking on technology and science just for the sake of its potential benefits - even his choices in ME3 about that had to have Shepard closely tied to the characters involved, not the broad concepts of advancement themselves. He's hugely humanity focused, and this typically means humanity-as-it-is, not what-humanity-can-be. Even at his smartest, there's a grunt mentality that doesn't think beyond the immediate goal (most of the time).

 

I'm glad we're done with him. I got tired of Cerberus-pushing all the time with a tone of 'Oh we can't do that, we'll screw it up!' while Shepard's just fine with it as long as it's done for the 'right reasons' and done in the 'right way'. Yeah yeah I get the message and even agree with it, but a trilogy of it got tiresome. We can indeed push for science just to push for science for the benefit of humanity. I know we have the option to 'advance', but with Shepard, it is always grudgingly. I always feel like I'm breaking some rule to do it. Again, I'm glad we're done with Shepard.

 

 

EDIT: I want to remind that I know that if you go things more Paragon/Perfect ('Perfect' = Peace, Cure, Synthesis, full Normandy Upgrades, etc), then of course Shepard is RPed to be relatively more friendly to technology and even technology that engineers humanity. However, its just not his default path, and he's not allowed to be anything like that about the Reapers (until the ending sorta) because that's just the story goes. Its humanity-centric in the end, not transhumanity. And okay, fine, I like humans a ton too actually, and I understand there being a lot of dangers in the pursuit of technology, and the scifi implications of it. But I'd like something more than that next. I, personally, enjoyed how we've went from relatively-not-magical in DAO-DA2 to someone touched by a unique form of magic no matter what in DAI. I'd like the same to go with tech's relationship to the protagonist in DAI. Shepard was arguably transhuman either from the start (some genetic mod?) or ME2+ (Lazarus Project), but he could always be argued back (even if eventually to an ignorant point) to 'be human'. I'd rather that rationalization not happen in the next game. If I'm transhuman, I'm transhuman.

[Inprea]

I'm glad we're done with him. I got tired of Cerberus-pushing all the time with a tone of 'Oh we can't do that, we'll screw it up!' while Shepard's just fine with it as long as it's done for the 'right reasons' and done in the 'right way'. Yeah yeah I get the message and even agree with it, but a trilogy of it got tiresome. We can indeed push for science just to push for science for the benefit of humanity. I know we have the option to 'advance', but with Shepard, it is always grudgingly. I always feel like I'm breaking some rule to do it. Again, I'm glad we're done with Shepard.

 

That made me think of the beginning of Mass Effect 2 when speaking to the Illusive man for the first time. I went with the options that I felt were polite and respectful. You can imagine my surprise whenever I learned those were the renegade options. I don't see what's wrong/renegade with being appreciative for being brought back to life and given an even stronger body. For me that's one of the few times I can't stay paragon as it just seems like paragon is being an ungrateful ******. To me at least.

 

This is a bad quote but one bit of dialogue I rather liked was. "I notice you made some changes to my body." "We had no." "I like them." "Oh! Well good."

[SwobyJ]

Renegade Shepard is about what will defeat the enemy in the biggest way ASAP, regardless of moral/advancement anything. 

 

You're Renegade because you're supporting Cerberus which is a renegade organization, not lawful.

 

You're Paragon when you go Control in ME3 because it isn't actually Cerberus, but Cerberus' ideals being both fulfilled and subverted. IMO

[Farangbaa]

About evolotion's apparant randomness:

http://www.thenewatl...n-of-randomness

Or, for the lazy