588 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

I thought you were asking for ME to change its approach to technology, rather than for consistency.

[Former_Fiend]

Arguing for consistency is asking for a higher-quality narrative.  The magical waves of light, the Lazarus Project, and such drag the story down.  It doesn't matter if going to another galaxy is "pedestrian" compared to Synthesizing the entire galaxy.  It's like saying a unicorn is less magical than a chimera because the former is just a horse with a horn.

 

It's hard to take a game seriously when all you have to do is run out the clock for another deus ex machina to swoop down and fix everything.  Solving conflict with a wave of the hand from the author takes all the tension out of a story.

 

What is the alternative?

[Killroy]

Arguing for consistency is asking for a higher-quality narrative.  The magical waves of light, the Lazarus Project, and such drag the story down.  It doesn't matter if going to another galaxy is "pedestrian" compared to Synthesizing the entire galaxy.  It's like saying a unicorn is less magical than a chimera because the former is just a horse with a horn.
 
It's hard to take a game seriously when all you have to do is run out the clock for another deus ex machina to swoop down and fix everything.  Solving conflict with a wave of the hand from the author takes all the tension out of a story.

You can't even effectively argue what is or is not consistent within the ME universe. The absurdities are too numerous and too extreme to disregard in favor of less absurd elements. You want us to ignore the things you don't like just so we'll agree with you.

[Iakus]

You can't even effectively argue what is or is not consistent within the ME universe. The absurdities are too numerous and too extreme to disregard in favor of less absurd elements. You want us to ignore the things you don't like just so we'll agree with you.

okay, I'm just going to wait for you to get more coherent before responding.

[Killroy]

okay, I'm just going to wait for you to get more coherent before responding.

Are you trying to be ironic?

[Stazro]

Which method of intergalactic travel would be most consistent with green space magic?

[Iakus]

Are you trying to be ironic?

Not at all.

 

I have no freaking idea what the point is you're trying to make.

 

Which method of intergalactic travel would be most consistent with green space magic?

Rainbow-powered unicorns

[Stazro]

Rainbow-powered unicorns

 

So we should travel to Andromeda on rainbow-powered unicorns, because that would be consistent with the ME-universe.

[Killroy]

Not at all.
 
I have no freaking idea what the point is you're trying to make.

Because you ignore everything that doesn't support your pointless argument/what you want.
There is no technological consistency in the ME universe, but you expect us to support a pointless restriction on technology within the setting.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Control, we see the Reapers reassembling the broken mass relays.

Instead, what if they use the parts to build a super relay? Not one that moves ships through space, but one that moves space out of the way so you don't need to travel through it.

That could intermittently shorten to distance to Andromeda, and then later be taken offline by some cataclysm that befalls the Milky Way, but one of which Andromeda isn't aware becauee there's no way to go back and check.

It's not hard to invent space magic solutions.

[N7Jamaican]

In Control, we see the Reapers reassembling the broken mass relays.

Instead, what if they use the parts to build a super relay? Not one that moves ships through space, but one that moves space out of the way so you don't need to travel through it.

That could intermittently shorten to distance to Andromeda, and then later be taken offline by some cataclysm that befalls the Milky Way, but one of which Andromeda isn't aware becauee there's no way to go back and check.

It's not hard to invent space magic solutions.

 

Don't they do the same in synthesis as well?

[Iakus]

So we should travel to Andromeda on rainbow-powered unicorns, because that would be consistent with the ME-universe.

If you want to be consistent with the absolute worst aspects of Mass Effect, that robs any problem of tension because a magic want fixes everything (or rather, whatever the writers want fixed), sure.

 

Because you ignore everything that doesn't support your pointless argument/what you want.
There is no technological consistency in the ME universe, but you expect us to support a pointless restriction on technology within the setting.

 

There should be technological consistency.  Without it the story turns to mush.  If we can solve any problem by simply waving your hand and making it go away (or removing yourself from the setting) then who gives a sh*t what happens?  Heck if we encounter some problem in Andromeda, why not just leave and go somewhere safer?  There's other galaxies in the local cluster.  Some were even closer to the Milky Way than Andromeda.

 

Limitations>Powers.  Space magic doesn't make thing interesting.  Exploring what space magic can't do it.  The weaknesses that need to be overcome is what's interesting.  that's the "point" to restrictions.

 

You know what, if they devoted an entire game to exploring the galaxy looking for a way to flee to Andromeda in the next game, that would have real potential. (one reason why I would have preferred a broken relay network rather than a synthetic holocaust as a penalty to Destroy.  Force the galaxy to innovate)  

 

But having a Perpetual Motion Machine eezo core or a functioning Stargate lying around just because the writers decided "You know what, we broke the Milky Way for future games"  is very poor writing.  

[Sylvius the Mad]

Don't they do the same in synthesis as well?

I've never seen the EC Synthesis. Maybe.

[Killroy]

If you want to be consistent with the absolute worst aspects of Mass Effect, that robs any problem of tension because a magic want fixes everything (or rather, whatever the writers want fixed), sure.
 
 
There should be technological consistency.  Without it the story turns to mush.  If we can solve any problem by simply waving your hand and making it go away (or removing yourself from the setting) then who gives a sh*t what happens?

Tons of people who hate the endings and decry the space magic want to know what happened afterward. Your argument is invalid.

[Iakus]

I thought you were asking for ME to change its approach to technology, rather than for consistency.

 

I think making things internally consistent would be changing its approach.  Build upon what's already known before introducing something new.

What is the alternative?

 

If you mean to creating MEA, honestly there is no good answer.    ME3 frakked things up but good.  I would have preferred they go completely AU or something so Shepard's trilogy and this can be completely separate stories with no overlap.  But no such luck, because "player choice matters" (Sure now it does)

 

 All that's really left is to hope they manage to take the least contrived, handwavy route they can.  And I have little faith in that.

[Iakus]

Tons of people who hate the endings and decry the space magic want to know what happened afterward. Your argument is invalid.

Was there a point to be found in there?

[Zatche]

Arguing for consistency is asking for a higher-quality narrative. The magical waves of light, the Lazarus Project, and such drag the story down. It doesn't matter if going to another galaxy is "pedestrian" compared to Synthesizing the entire galaxy. It's like saying a unicorn is less magical than a chimera because the former is just a horse with a horn.

It's hard to take a game seriously when all you have to do is run out the clock for another deus ex machina to swoop down and fix everything. Solving conflict with a wave of the hand from the author takes all the tension out of a story.

Just because an improbable hand wave sets up the story doesn't mean one will resolve the major conflict of the story.

The Lazarus Project didn't suck out all of the tension of the Suicide Mission.

[Iakus]

 
The Lazarus Project didn't suck out all of the tension of the Suicide Mission.

Kinda did for me.

 

Who cares if someone dies?  Get thee bodies back on the ship and they can be put back together with "resources"

[RVallant]

Tl:dr, probably been mentioned by now.

 

One thing people overlook is that the endings appear to rely on the relay network to push through the changes into each and every known galaxy that the Reapers + all others inhabited.

 

If Andromeda isn't connected to the network, they become an anomaly to be free of the endings. Nothing said that the Reapers' plan or solutions to the 'question' was ever perfect, and they may well have never taken into account incursions from outside of the relay network, or assumed they would deal with such incursions as and when needed - presumably this is how the relay network became so intensive in the first place. 

 

If it's already been confirmed that there is a relay in Andromeda, you can just ignore me as usual. >_>

[Zatche]

Kinda did for me.

Who cares if someone dies? Get thee bodies back on the ship and they can be put back together with "resources"

Sure, the writers could have stretched it even farther and make it somehow economical and rational for Cerberus to go Lazarus on everybody that dies, but they didn't. And more importantly, they didn't make Lazarus the thing that resolves the conflict.

It's not a zero sum game. One DEM doesn't make it so nothing bad can ever happen.

[Drone223]

Sure, the writers could have stretched it even farther and make it somehow economical and rational for Cerberus to go Lazarus on everybody that dies, but they didn't. And more importantly, they didn't make Lazarus the thing that resolves the conflict.

It's not a zero sum game. One DEM doesn't make it so nothing bad can ever happen.

There are many problems with the Lazarus project one in particular is that they brought Shepard back from the dead (which is already absurd given how there should be nothing left of him/her) and its never brought up again in the rest of the game they never explore the implication of what happened.

[Drone223]

Arguing for consistency is asking for a higher-quality narrative.  The magical waves of light, the Lazarus Project, and such drag the story down.  It doesn't matter if going to another galaxy is "pedestrian" compared to Synthesizing the entire galaxy.  It's like saying a unicorn is less magical than a chimera because the former is just a horse with a horn.

 

It's hard to take a game seriously when all you have to do is run out the clock for another deus ex machina to swoop down and fix everything.  Solving conflict with a wave of the hand from the author takes all the tension out of a story.

Indeed I can see why you like Brandon Sanderson laws of magic they encourage clever writing instead being too heavily reliant on convenient plot devices.

[Zatche]

There are many problems with the Lazarus project one in particular is that they brought Shepard back from the dead (which is already absurd given how there should be nothing left of him/her) and its never brought up again in the rest of the game they never explore the implication of what happened.

 

The Lazarus Project does have narrative issues, and doesn't make much sense scientifically. They did explore a bit of the implications of it, particularly in ME3's datatypes that imply Shepard could possibly me cyborg-ish, not to a largely meaningful degree, but that's totally besides the point. I disagree with Iakus' assertion that it takes away tension from the story.

 

Iakus asserts that if Shepard is brought back from the dead at the beginning of the ME2, then it is theoretically possible to bring anyone who dies back to life. Then makes the assumption, that if this can theoretically happen, then we don't need to worry about who lives or dies, because they will just be brought back to life anyway. But people die and fail in ME2 and ME3. A lot of people. And they don't get brought back to life. Thus the assumption is false.

 

Why would we make similar assumptions with MEA? Why would we assume that any hand waves at the start will inevitably lead to hand waves that resolve the major conflicts and keep anyone ever from having a permanent death?

[AlanC9]

There are many problems with the Lazarus project one in particular is that they brought Shepard back from the dead (which is already absurd given how there should be nothing left of him/her) .

This woukd be true if Normandy had been at orbital velocity. It wasn't.

[AlanC9]

Why would we make similar assumptions with MEA? Why would we assume that any hand waves at the start will inevitably lead to hand waves that resolve the major conflicts and keep anyone ever from having a permanent death?

Because we want to hate the game?