1106 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

 

The established lore of the Mass Effect universe already answes the established limitations of the Mass Effect universe you refer to- namely, that Reaper tech can overcome the limiting factor of the drive buildup. With fabricators long-established since ME2 to handle precision parts, various suspension techs and long-term spacecraft concepts, AI's/VI's to run maintenance, and any number of government/corporate research groups that we know exist without knowing what they haven't done, there's very little that can't be answered by 'technology' without any retcon needed.

 

This has not been established at all.  The only thing established thus far is Reaper tech has longer limits.  We have not yet seen any indication that they are capable of reaching other galaxies.

 

Indeed, the fact that they have a dark space relay in the Citadel indicates that even the three year trip was a greater journey than they are ordinarily willing to make.

 

You are also using contrivance wrong.  That or you really hate science fiction

 

a "contrivance" is  "something that causes things to happen in a story in a way that does not seem natural or believable"  An overly convenient coincidence.  An awkward retcon.  A handwaved explanation for why a needed technology suddenly exists which is not built upon anything that came before.  A story is not contrived simply because it's science fiction. It's not the subject matter.  It's how the subject matter is handled.

[Laughing_Man]

Says the servant of Tzeethch. Careful, lest he warp you into some twisted monstrosity!

Hehehe... He already did, he transformed me into an apostrophe!

 

But even as a mere Apostrophe, I can muster enough defiance to reveal the truth about him.
(he may claim that this is part of his plan, but no one suspects an Apostrophe, no one!)

I AM THE APOSTROPHE, AND BEFORE ME EVEN THE GODS OF CHAOS SHALL TREMBLE!

[AlanC9]

a "contrivance" is  "something that causes things to happen in a story in a way that does not seem natural or believable"  An overly convenient coincidence.  An awkward retcon.  A handwaved explanation for why a needed technology suddenly exists which is not built upon anything that came before.  A story is not contrived simply because it's science fiction. It's not the subject matter.  It's how the subject matter is handled.

Of course, this is pretty far from an objective definition. Not that I'm disagreeing, mind... I'm in the camp saying that ME was built on contrivance from one end to the other.

[Jorji Costava]

a "contrivance" is  "something that causes things to happen in a story in a way that does not seem natural or believable"  An overly convenient coincidence.  An awkward retcon.  A handwaved explanation for why a needed technology suddenly exists which is not built upon anything that came before.  A story is not contrived simply because it's science fiction. It's not the subject matter.  It's how the subject matter is handled.

 

In my humble view, absolute lore consistency is just not the be-all end-all of storytelling it's often made out to be. Consequently it's often the case that retcons and handwave-y plot devices can be justified when they allow one to fulfill other storytelling goals. For example, the idea that the Borg want to assimilate other intelligent species is in fact a blatant retcon; in "Q Who?", the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode which introduced the Borg, it was pretty clearly established that they were only interested in the technology of other species. Even more extensive retcons were needed to resuscitate the Ferengi, whose early appearances in The Next Generation were nothing short of disastrous.

 

These changes worked because they opened up interesting story possibilities (i.e. Locutus, Quark, etc.), and because writers trusted that audiences would not be thinking about the precise details of lore that were being contradicted as they watched the show. These kinds of tradeoffs strike me as eminently sensible. And the same thing goes for ME as far as I'm concerned. To insist that ME:A will be a bust just because the required space travel isn't possible within the rules of the universe (assuming it is; honestly, I kinda don't care) would be like insisting that "Best of Both Worlds" must be a bad episode because it contradicts what was established in "Q Who."

[Dean_the_Young]

Define "relevant"

 

Everything has limits.  

 

Since we are discussing getting to Andromedea, a relevant limited would be the range to get to Andromedea.

[Dean_the_Young]

This has not been established at all.  The only thing established thus far is Reaper tech has longer limits.  We have not yet seen any indication that they are capable of reaching other galaxies.

 

And we've also yet to see any indication that they are not capable of reaching other galaxies.

 

 

Now, since I tend to take the view that before we object that such things are not possible without breaking the lore, there should at least be some lore establishing such a limit...

 

 

What's your source that there's a relevant limit on Reaper tech FTL?
 

 

Indeed, the fact that they have a dark space relay in the Citadel indicates that even the three year trip was a greater journey than they are ordinarily willing to make.

 

Because of the Citadel trap strategy, yes, Vigil established that.

 

And then they motored right over.

 

 

You are also using contrivance wrong.  That or you really hate science fiction

 

a "contrivance" is  "something that causes things to happen in a story in a way that does not seem natural or believable"  An overly convenient coincidence.  An awkward retcon.  A handwaved explanation for why a needed technology suddenly exists which is not built upon anything that came before.  A story is not contrived simply because it's science fiction. It's not the subject matter.  It's how the subject matter is handled.

 

 

And hey, we're back to subjective feels about what seems natural or believable.

 

Just like I said.

 

Imagine that.

[Dean_the_Young]

 

I didn't misuse words. How can you accuse me of misusing something you started with an incorrect definition of?

 

 

Easy- you tried to use a late-plot plot device as a perjorative for backstory. It was a misuse of the deus ex machina.

 

 

Yes, and here the path to Andromeda would be deliberately crafted just to get us there. It doesn't have to be realistic from our universe, but has to be realistic in the Mass Effect universe. A wormhole suddenly appearing would be artificial. We can roll with it because it's sci-fi and those things happen in space stories, but it's still a cheap way out when you've already established cool ways for your ships to get around. That's why I like the Conduit idea, though that probably needs more work than I laid out. Much like plot holes, it's not that whether or not something is contrived that is subjective as much as it is that how much it bothers you is subjective.

 

 

Unlike contrivances or 'meaningful' experiences, plot holes are objective. A plot hole is a logical incosenstency- not to be confused with 'doesn't make sense to me'- or an impossibility in the plot. They can be objectively identified and disected.

 

It's frequently abused for 'things I don't like,' much like deus ex machina, but eh.

 

 

Interestingly, and playing into the problem of subjectivity you raise, part of the problem is caused by the title and the fact that it is known that we are going to Andromeda. This leaves us here wondering how this is possible. Had they simply started with the journey, even something like a wormhole suddenly appearing wouldn't have seemed as odd because it would seem like a natural event that took us to Andromeda rather than a solution to the problem of a predetermined setting change.

 

 

If this is a problem, it sounds rather self-inflicted. If a sudden introduction of a wormhole for the purpose of intergalactic travel wouldn't strike you as just as odd or contrived, then there's really no basis for any writer to particularly worry.

 

 

 

 

Hawke's travel isn't comparable in the least. Boats exist in the Dragon Age universe and they were traveling across the sea to another area of Thedas that we already know about and people from Ferelden travel to, or vice versa, regularly. Adding to the list of terms your don't understand, this is not a handwave. It's merely Varric telling us about it rather than us following Hawke do it. It fits entirely within what is known about the universe and does not require anything new or unknown. This is like if you were watching a movie and a character says they were going somewhere, then the film showed a map with an airplane moving and drawing a line to show the path, then the next scene showed them in the destination city. There is no plothole or hand wave, but merely a different, quicker way of showing that the trip happened. Ironically, your comment that the answer to Andromeda is just "technology" is the definition of a hand wave.

 

 

 

I'm amused you consider tvtropes laconic entry an authoritative definition- while ignoring the less laconic, but more relevant, definition of the same site's same article's main page.

 

A Hand Wave (also memetically called "Scotch Tape") is any explanation involving the backstory, a retcon, or a use of phlebotinum, which is noteworthy for its lack of detail or coherence.

 

Which would apply to Hawke's escape from Ferelden, as told by Varric. It is backstory, it utilizes a variation of phlebotinum (in this case, the plot device that is Flemeth), and it's remarkably lacking in detail. Handwave, as used by TVTropes.

 

 

I'm not inventing the problem. The problem was created by the title, setting, and premise of the new game.

 

 

 

Dudette, you just admitted that you wouldn't find a suddenly introduced wormhole contrived so long as you didn't know about it ahead of time. And you didn't so much as blush in suggesting that magical trees could dominate Andromedea so that milky way immigrants won't be hopelessly out-settled and out-teched as any milky-way equivalent species would have done.

 

The problem is pretty much on your end.
 

 

 

Why Reapers didn't go to Andromeda is only an issue if it were possible for them to do so, which only matters if "Reaper tech" is the answer to getting to Andromeda.

 

 

You probably want to back up a sec, because getting to Andromedea isn't the technological challenge. We could send something to Andromedea- it might take us way more time than we wanted, but Newton's Third Law makes crossing galaxies... well, the crossing's easy.

 

The Reaper tech angle is about getting to Andromedea quickly. As in, quickly enough for us to care and find plausible. The technological limitation Iakus is fond of point to is drive charge buildup from going FTL with a mass effect engine. Don't use mass effect FTL, and you won't get that limitation. It'll take longer- a lot longer- to go 2.5 million lightyears, but the Reapers have time. They've had, on the conservative end, a billion years.

 

 

 

 

As for why there isn't an all powerful Prothean-like empire ruling Andromeda, if there isn't, all you need are things we had in the Milky Way; either the most powerful race is like the Asari and focuses on collaboration and cooperation rather than domination or a galactic Tuchanka where everyone is constantly fighting and destroying for them to advance very much. There are other ways to do deal with that as well. Maybe a race like Tolkien's Ents that are so long lived that they do everything slowly and thus don't progress quickly. That would make an interesting contrast against short lived, get things done races like the Salarians and Humans.

 

 

 

So... contrivance. And/or space magic, to make humans more special in two galaxies in being so quick and adaptive and innovative.

[straykat]

 

So... contrivance. And/or space magic, to make humans more special in two galaxies in being so quick and adaptive and innovative.

 

I don't think humans are very adaptive or innovative here, when they are basically just scavenging (as I think I said before). That's my main gripe with the whole setting.. that I try to ignore as much as I can. Little of it revolves around evolution. It's kind of shameless even. Like the opening of ME1 with Anderson encouraging us to get the Eden Prime beacon, or Kahlee Sanders getting stoked about the Crucible, and how it'll "inform human evolution". All the races just borrow and steal crap in this setting.

 

Then we're forced to reckon with the owner in the end.

 

 

And lo and behold, this new game repeats the same pattern. At least if the rumors about the Remnants are true. I mean, they're called the ****** Remnants. Which shows how little the writers think about the future or human potential. They revert to the past instead. That's more typical of fairy tales and fantasy.. where the hero uncovers the "ancient sword of power".

[Ahglock]

As for the tech gap while there are dozens of reasons to make it small to non existent as I understand it andromeda is like 4 billion years younger. Were the reapers around 4 billion years, was it the leviathans? What tech level were they at 4 billion years ago, was it really more advanced than the current ME galactic communities? As we don't know the answer to any of that the races in andromeda can just be at our tech level or whatever the plot demands without any logical inconsistencies.

[Seraphim24]

Gosh.... all this discussion about the ending and I just can't even remember it... honestly started to lose track of ME somewhere in 2, by 1/4 of the way through 3 I was like all zoned out. It was like a 30th High School reunion or something like that where everyone is getting together again but when you get there and everyone starts revealing they're all dying and then they die, just kind of such a transparent downer ending you see in media everywhere.

 

I guess I don't get it because to me it was forgettable (although that analogized IRL situation would not be at all of course), not necessarily unfun and so requires outcry. I guess for that reason I'll never be able to understand the reaction to the ME3 ending.

[AlanC9]

I don't think humans are very adaptive or innovative here, when they are basically just scavenging (as I think I said before). That's my main gripe with the whole setting.. that I try to ignore as much as I can. Little of it revolves around evolution. It's kind of shameless even. Like the opening of ME1 with Anderson encouraging us to get the Eden Prime beacon, or Kahlee Sanders getting stoked about the Crucible, and how it'll "inform human evolution". All the races just borrow and steal crap in this setting.

Nothing wrong with that. It's not like Europeans invented gunpowder, or algebra, or...... etc.

Also, finding new techs instead of inventing them in a lab isn't a bad thing in a game where the PC is not a scientist.

[Natureguy85]

In my humble view, absolute lore consistency is just not the be-all end-all of storytelling it's often made out to be. Consequently it's often the case that retcons and handwave-y plot devices can be justified when they allow one to fulfill other storytelling goals. For example, the idea that the Borg want to assimilate other intelligent species is in fact a blatant retcon; in "Q Who?", the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode which introduced the Borg, it was pretty clearly established that they were only interested in the technology of other species. Even more extensive retcons were needed to resuscitate the Ferengi, whose early appearances in The Next Generation were nothing short of disastrous.

 

These changes worked because they opened up interesting story possibilities (i.e. Locutus, Quark, etc.), and because writers trusted that audiences would not be thinking about the precise details of lore that were being contradicted as they watched the show. These kinds of tradeoffs strike me as eminently sensible. And the same thing goes for ME as far as I'm concerned. To insist that ME:A will be a bust just because the required space travel isn't possible within the rules of the universe (assuming it is; honestly, I kinda don't care) would be like insisting that "Best of Both Worlds" must be a bad episode because it contradicts what was established in "Q Who."

 

This is very true. Some people only define something as a plot hole if it's actually story stopping . I acknowledge breaches in logic as plot holes even if I don't find them story breaking but I try and differentiate between major and minor ones Either way is probably fine. My guy Shamus Young wrote a great couple of posts on it.

 

 

Easy- you tried to use a late-plot plot device as a perjorative for backstory. It was a misuse of the deus ex machina.

 

Again, you can't criticize my use of a word you don't understand and your first post in this conversation showed that you do not. I also explained why I was viewing the journey as part of the plot, not backstory.

 

 

Unlike contrivances or 'meaningful' experiences, plot holes are objective. A plot hole is a logical incosenstency- not to be confused with 'doesn't make sense to me'- or an impossibility in the plot. They can be objectively identified and disected.

 

I tend to agree on the objectivity of plot holes, though a case can be made that they are subjective in that how reasonable an attempt to fill them is would be subjective.

 

 

If this is a problem, it sounds rather self-inflicted. If a sudden introduction of a wormhole for the purpose of intergalactic travel wouldn't strike you as just as odd or contrived, then there's really no basis for any writer to particularly worry.

 

It has to do with presentation. If it was introduced properly as something new and unknown and due caution was taken before just jumping in, etc, it might work.

Think of it this way; in the above example, we're at one end of a road that we don't know where it goes. However the way the it stands with Andromeda, we are on one side one side of a mile long canyon, able to see the other side where we just were and left wondering how the heck we got a cross it with the 3 ft pole in our hands.

 

 

 

I'm amused you consider tvtropes laconic entry an authoritative definition- while ignoring the less laconic, but more relevant, definition of the same site's same article's main page.

 

A Hand Wave (also memetically called "Scotch Tape") is any explanation involving the backstory, a retcon, or a use of phlebotinum, which is noteworthy for its lack of detail or coherence.

 

Which would apply to Hawke's escape from Ferelden, as told by Varric. It is backstory, it utilizes a variation of phlebotinum (in this case, the plot device that is Flemeth), and it's remarkably lacking in detail. Handwave, as used by TVTropes.

 

I used the laconic entry for it's simplicity, which you prove was necessary.  The boat trip was not backstory unless you call the entire game "backstory" since it's all really Varric telling a story to Cassandra. There was no retcon or use of phlebotinum. They got on a boat and crossed a body of water, which is what boats do. The next scene is them arriving in a port. No further explanation was necessary. You might make the argument for Flemeth getting them to the Ferelden port, but not only did you specifically mention the boat trip before, but we just saw that Flemeth can turn into a dragon, so we are clear on how they got from point A to point B.

 

 

 

Dudette, you just admitted that you wouldn't find a suddenly introduced wormhole contrived so long as you didn't know about it ahead of time. And you didn't so much as blush in suggesting that magical trees could dominate Andromedea so that milky way immigrants won't be hopelessly out-settled and out-teched as any milky-way equivalent species would have done.

 

The problem is pretty much on your end.

 

Hmm, is Dudette a petty insult or yet another word you don't understand? Whatever.

 

Anyway, everything depends on how it's done. Presentation matters. I only referenced the Ents in terms of their way of doing things to give a comparison.

 

 

 

You probably want to back up a sec, because getting to Andromedea isn't the technological challenge. We could send something to Andromedea- it might take us way more time than we wanted, but Newton's Third Law makes crossing galaxies... well, the crossing's easy.

 

The Reaper tech angle is about getting to Andromedea quickly. As in, quickly enough for us to care and find plausible. The technological limitation Iakus is fond of point to is drive charge buildup from going FTL with a mass effect engine. Don't use mass effect FTL, and you won't get that limitation. It'll take longer- a lot longer- to go 2.5 million lightyears, but the Reapers have time. They've had, on the conservative end, a billion years.

 

Great, but who cares? How do the people of the Milky Way Galaxy get there in time to survive and for us to care?

 

 

 

So... contrivance. And/or space magic, to make humans more special in two galaxies in being so quick and adaptive and innovative.

 

Woah, wait now, you said there was no room for "contrivance" in this conversation. Anyway, it doesn't have to be humans alone, but I suspect it might be.

[straykat]

Nothing wrong with that. It's not like Europeans invented gunpowder, or algebra, or...... etc.

Also, finding new techs instead of inventing them in a lab isn't a bad thing in a game where the PC is not a scientist.

 

It's bad when you're trying to represent a major path for a species.

 

Because that's not what humans are. They have scavengers. But they're not shaped by scavenging. Perhaps the Turians should've been. They look like vultures, after all And Europeans had many of their own strengths. Read Adam Smith, for example (the Wealth of Nations). Or better yet, a modern update on the idea. The Wealth and Poverty of Nations.

 

Besides that, scifi, generally speaking, is speculating about potential. Not correcting the past.

[AlanC9]

That's a little mystical for my tastes.

[straykat]

That's a little mystical for my tastes.

 

Mystical? I'm far from it. If I have any MO at this site, it's to represent people who live in their 5 senses, and don't spout wonky egghead-ish stuff.

 

Those books are just about economics and invention. Standard textbook almost. You don't have to read them.. that's going a bit far. I'm just throwing it out there, if you wish to know why the Europoeans got that way. Especially the Brits at first (and later Americans).

[AlanC9]

I meant "that's not what humans are." Surely we are that when the situation calls for being that. And " major path"?

[Ralfufigus]

I'd personally rather have one single ending that is well written, fleshed out, and fully realized, but is impacted by the decisions I've made throughout the game. I'm not asking for a million different endings that you just choose. I just want one ending that varies depending on your actions.

[Pasquale1234]

It's bad when you're trying to represent a major path for a species.
 
Because that's not what humans are. They have scavengers. But they're not shaped by scavenging.

The entire ME setting is based on found technology. Humanity finding the Mars Archives literally launched them into space exploration and colonization. The Protheans got much of their technology from the Inusannon, who came before them.

"Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays, our technology. By using it, your society develops along the paths we desire."

[DarthSliver]

The entire ME setting is based on found technology. Humanity finding the Mars Archives literally launched them into space exploration and colonization. The Protheans got much of their technology from the Inusannon, who came before them.

"Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays, our technology. By using it, your society develops along the paths we desire."

 

Than came ME3 to ruin the great Reapers and bring them down to just simple robots that follow orders. 

[AlanC9]

The greatest possible defeat for the Reapers. Worked for me.

[ACika011]

I feel that your decisions didn't make any difference at the end of ME3, with the lowest possible war assets everything stays the same, the only things that are different is the beginning cut scene when you assault Earth where you appear to be taking huge casualties and not destroying any Reapers, while if you have the max amount you appear to be winning and you get the Shepard breathing scene. That seems like a lot, but its only 2 minutes worth of cut scenes, there should be more to it, both in tearm of cut scenes (which were amazing) and gameplay.

 

I think Bio missed a huge opportunity at the end, i wanted to see all the assets i acquired in battle, i wished there were cut scenes that showed the Blood Pack, Eclipse and Blue Suns charging and fighting the Reapers, i wanted to see the Asari sniper team i acquired sniping Reaper troops and proving cover when the assault started, i wanted to see Salarian STG planting bombs and sabotaging Reaper supply lines and infrastructure, i wanted to see the Elchor charging with mini guns and cannons on their backs, i wanted to see a battalion of Geth fighting side by side with Quarian engineers who were helping with repairs, maybe it could show a Geth trooper sacrificing himself to save a injured Quarian which would be amazing and would show that they are friends now, and would reassure the player there won't be any more conflict between them. Maybe if we finished the Grissom Academy mission and save everybody we could perhaps have the ability to call in biotic strikes at the enemy, or if we acquired Asari commandos maybe we could call them in to assist us. I wanted to see Grunt in melee combat with a Banshee while Aralakh Company bravely and fearlessly charge at some Brutes and Cannibals.

 

ME2 did a great job in my opinion, everything i did mattered, if i didn't finish some loyalty missions my comrades would die, if i didn't pick the right people for the task they would die, and i thought that was amazing, it feels like everything i did mattered while in ME3 it wasn't the same sadly.

 

When it came to the ending of ME3 i believe in the IT and that there is more to it so i will wait and see.

 

In any case i hope the decision we make in Andromeda would have a mass effect (get it hahaha.. no, ok ) on the ending of that game, similar to what happened in Mass Effect 2.

[AlanC9]

I feel that your decisions didn't make any difference at the end of ME3, with the lowest possible war assets everything stays the same, the only things that are different is the beginning cut scene when you assault Earth where you appear to be taking huge casualties and not destroying any Reapers, while if you have the max amount you appear to be winning and you get the Shepard breathing scene. That seems like a lot, but its only 2 minutes worth of cut scenes, there should be more to it, both in tearm of cut scenes (which were amazing) and gameplay.

That's not completely true. At low EMS Earth is burned to a crisp. You also get fewer choices at low EMS, though that isn't important if the choice you get is the choice you wanted anyway.
 
As for a whole bunch more cutscenes -- yeah, would have been nice. Expensive, though. I'm not sure a boatload of this stuff would have been great for pacing, either.

[ACika011]

That's not completely true. At low EMS Earth is burned to a crisp. You also get fewer choices at low EMS, though that isn't important if the choice you get is the choice you wanted anyway.
 
As for a whole bunch more cutscenes -- yeah, would have been nice. Expensive, though. I'm not sure a boatload of this stuff would have been great for pacing, either.

Yes, i'm mistaken i forgot about that and your squad mates die too now that you mention it, but i think you get the point, if you choose control or merge its all the same the only difference is when you pick the destroy ending but it surely didn't have the impact you had in ME2 where your endings vary greatly depending on your choices.

[Applepie_Svk]

 
As for a whole bunch more cutscenes -- yeah, would have been nice. Expensive, though. I'm not sure a boatload of this stuff would have been great for pacing, either.

 

...Harbinger not shooting the Normandy, that one was a hilarious... aside from all the messed up stuff within the last convesation of trilogy, or some of the messed up stuff around the game, that scene was simply the worst of the trilogy, they had to be back at time in Bioware, like what could we possibly mess up even more ?

[Eryri]

...Harbinger not shooting the Normandy, that one was a hilarious...

Agreed, that pick-up scene was dreadful. I appreciated the potential sentimental goodbye scene with an L.I., but the absurd speed of the Normandy's arrival was almost as annoying as Harbinger's sudden utter gormlessness in watching it escape.