287 réponses à ce sujet

[Drone223]

<---Mordin.

 

<---Reapers/Collectors. 

 

And there it is. 

Unfortunately for mordin he's wrong since humans are a very low amount of genetic diversity IRL.

 

And note comments regarding how we were/are just about to receive a Council seat as of ME1's intro. Note that by ME1's ending, we either have received a Council seat or (prior to ME2's retcon) have taken over the entire Council altogether, indicating our ascension along side the other Council races. 

 

As before: that's irrelevant. We achieve in decades what other species can't achieve in thousands of years. If you don't think that's demonstrative of a humans  = super special story line, I don't think there's much hope of convincing you. 

Humanity wasn't the sole focus for ME1 because they didn't make the reaper's solely focused on humanity the series only gotten more human focused in ME2/3.

[straykat]

^I think that might be my favorite summary of the Mass Effect story-line that I've heard. 

 

Ha!

 

Well, we will probably see it again. The rumors of the "Remnants" (yet another thing from the past) is something about ancient mistakes too.

[Il Divo]

Unfortunately for mordin he's wrong since humans are a very low amount of genetic diversity IRL.

 

 

Note: this is why the argument is non-sensical. It doesn't matter what humans have been shown to be IRL. We're not comparing relative to IRL. We're comparing relative to fictional species, who are shown to be less genetically diverse than us. Do we have any real life Salarians to operate on? 

 

Even if everything is completely wrong by IRL standards, that wouldn't mean anything because all of the science employed in Mass Effect is faux-science. If we apply your standard consistently, then we may as well throw out the entire setting altogether, which I suspect you're not willing to do.  

 

Humanity wasn't the sole focus for ME1 because they didn't make the reaper's solely focused on humanity the series only gotten more human focused in ME2/3.

 

 

Note: the argument was whether "humans are special". Were the Reapers more focused on humanity as of ME2 and 3? Sure, but mostly as a result of the "humans being amazing" which was an ME1 plot point, not ME2/3. 

 

This is why I emphasize that if ME2 and 3 were guilty of humans are the best at everything, it's only because Mass Effect's premise, ending, and use of a human protagonist were all designed to emphasize that fact. 

 

Saying "but the Salarians/Asari/Turians are ahead of us" isn't a counter-point. ME1 constantly emphasize that we are about to reach their level, if not surpass them. 

[straykat]

Oddly, there was one element of "humans are special" that had an interesting bit futuristic storytelling to it.

 

Drew K mused that maybe human biotics were the key to resolving the dark energy problem. He wasn't commited to the idea, but I'll give it credit for it being about innovation and wonky sci-fi speculations about dark energy.

 

They dropped it and also dropped anything worth talking about human biotics in the process.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Well The Dark Knight was good (IMO), but that was mainly due to Heath Ledger's performance.

 

It certainly was better than that abomination called Man of Steel.

[Drone223]

Note: this is why the argument is non-sensical. It doesn't matter what humans have been shown to be IRL. We're not comparing relative to IRL. We're comparing relative to fictional species, who are shown to be less genetically diverse than us. Do we have any real life Salarians to operate on? 

 

Even if everything is completely wrong by IRL standards, that wouldn't mean anything because all of the science employed in Mass Effect is faux-science. If we apply your standard consistently, then we may as well throw out the entire setting altogether, which I suspect you're not willing to do.  

 

Fiction still needs some form of believablility, if Bioware wanted to go down the "humans are special" they should've at least gotten some things right.

 

Note: the argument was whether "humans are special". Were the Reapers more focused on humanity as of ME2 and 3? Sure, but mostly as a result of the "humans being amazing" which was an ME1 plot point, not ME2/3. 

 

This is why I emphasize that if ME2 and 3 were guilty of humans are the best at everything, it's only because Mass Effect's premise, ending, and use of a human protagonist were all designed to emphasize that fact. 

 

ME1 lacked a central human focused that could've easily carried on ME2/3. Sure ME1 had its share "humans are the best" moments but they weren't as prominent as they were when compared to ME2/3.

[Killroy]

It gets really irritating when people constantly complain about humans being powerful in sci-fi settings. What, we're supposed to be dimwitted lowlifes just because blue ladies made it to space first? In Mass Effect the other races are complacent and dismissive. Hell, the Asari are basically frauds. Humans have to work for everything. Why would it be absurd for the hungriest species to eventually make the biggest leaps? 

[Keitaro57]

I really doesn't understand HOW humanity would be able to reach the Asari, Salarian or Turian level. We are talking about space civilisations with  thousands years old colonies. Civilisations that faced two great threat (Rachni and Krogan) far more dangerous than Batarian slavers.

 

To make a big space fleet, having lot of colonies with mines and shipyard is a must. How come that humanity was able to reach the other guys level in a so short time? I mean, how long will it take to build a space cruiser with Garrus beloved big cannons? It's something like Switzerland beating both China, America and Russia in the fighter plane division...

[straykat]

It gets really irritating when people constantly complain about humans being powerful in sci-fi settings. What, we're supposed to be dimwitted lowlifes just because blue ladies made it to space first? In Mass Effect the other races are complacent and dismissive. Hell, the Asari are basically frauds. Humans have to work for everything. Why would it be absurd for the hungriest species to eventually make the biggest leaps? 

 

That's what it felt like in ME1. Not my favorite of the series, but I do like the setting more. "Just another gang of FNGs".

 

Even our Spectre status is written off as just giving us a bone so we can handle **** in the Traverse (where some of the biggest enemies are shithead human corps, screwing over humble colonists.. It felt like Aliens a bit).

[Killroy]

I really doesn't understand HOW humanity would be able to reach the Asari, Salarian or Turian level. We are talking about space civilisations with  thousands years old colonies. Civilisations that faced two great threat (Rachni and Krogan) far more dangerous than Batarian slavers.

 

To make a big space fleet, having lot of colonies with mines and shipyard is a must. How come that humanity was able to reach the other guys level in a so short time? I mean, how long will it take to build a space cruiser with Garrus beloved big cannons? It's something like Switzerland beating both China, America and Russia in the fighter plane division...

 

The Asari, Turians and Salarians all leaned on each other and used other races to save their asses. Humans didn't have that luxury.

[Il Divo]

Fiction still needs some form of believablility, if Bioware wanted to go down the "humans are special" they should've at least gotten some things right.

 

 

And if Bioware wanted to make a sci-fi series, they should've gotten the sci-fi right. But they didn't, by any stretch in regards to the Asari, the physics, or any of it. Instead, the entire premise of the universe is built on fake science. The only believability you need is with regards to human biology, which again shouldn't be a problem because what Mordin says (as I recall) is that we are more genetically diverse relative to other sapient species. 

 

As before: do you have a real life Salarian for us to compare to? If not, that shouldn't factor into the equation. You're not asking for "some believability". You're asking for one very specific instance of believability, but ignoring everything else that doesn't fit into your paradigm. This is inconsistent. 

 

ME1 lacked a central human focused that could've easily carried on ME2/3. Sure ME1 had its share "humans are the best" moments but they weren't as prominent as they were when compared to ME2/3.

 

 

Well, ignoring that it stars a human, a special human, the first human Spectre, which is important. And that one of the central themes is all about humanity's increasing presence in the galaxy, hence why we have the ability to either cooperate with everyone else in the ending, or allow the other species to be murdered and seize power for ourselves. But note that, no matter what we do, ME1 is all about how important we are, how we've done things that no other species could ever do, and how soon we're going to ascend past everyone in virtually no time at all.

 

The argument would work a lot better if the ME1 conclusion didn't throw humanity in front of every other species, in terms of importance, even just in terms of competence.  

[Keitaro57]

The Asari, Turians and Salarians all leaned on each other and used other races to save their asses. Humans didn't have that luxury.

For me the main problem lies with the timeline : 30 years between the First Contact and full fleet space cruiser with latest alien technology is too fast...

[straykat]

And if Bioware wanted to make a sci-fi series, they should've gotten the sci-fi right. But they didn't, by any stretch in regards to the Asari, the physics, or any of it. Instead, the entire premise of the universe is built on fake science. Apparently, the only believability you need is with regards to human biology, which again shouldn't be a problem because what Mordin says (as I recall) is that we are more genetically diverse relative to other sapient species. 

 

As before: do you have a real life Salarian for us to compare to? If not, your believability doesn't factor into the equation. You're not asking for "some believability". You're asking for one very specific instance of believability, but ignoring everything else that doesn't fit into your paradigm. This is inconsistent. 

 

 

Well, ignoring that it stars a human, a special human, the first human Spectre, which is important. And that one of the central themes is all about humanity's increasing presence in the galaxy, hence why we have the ability to either cooperate with everyone else in the ending, or allow the other species to be murdered and seize power for ourselves. But note that, no matter what we do, ME1 is all about how important we are, how we've done things that no other species could ever do, and how soon we're going to ascend past everyone.

 

The argument would work a lot better if the ME1 conclusion didn't throw humanity in front of every other species, in terms of importance.  

 

There's some of that "humans are special" stuff, but it's mostly left to Liara in dialogue. More specifically, "Shepard is special". Since I write off Liara, it doesn't resonate with me. I know it's just mainly there for cheesy romance reasons. Or for the player to vicariously stroke their ego. Not really sure.

 

The rest of the game makes humanity's role appear like an uphill journey.

[Killroy]

For me the main problem lies with the timeline : 30 years between the First Contact and full fleet space cruiser with latest alien technology is too fast...

 

Why? Look at what humans did in a fraction of that time during WWII.

[In Exile]

And even then, everyone's riding on the back of others. Especially riding on the backs of the Reapers.

In the end, this story isn't about progress at all, or humans boldly riding into the future, with innovation and big dreams. It's about the past... haunting everyone, and getting cockblocked. It's the one thing I hate about Bioware. They've got a thing for the past, in all of their games. And once you correct the past, they don't know how to talk about their settings.

And related to that, the main plot is very much about preserving, as much as possible, the status quo.

[Il Divo]

There's some of that "humans are special" stuff, but it's mostly left to Liara in dialogue. More specifically, "Shepard is special". Since I write off Liara, it doesn't resonate with me. I know it's just mainly there for cheesy romance reasons. Or for the player to vicariously stroke their ego. Not really sure.

 

The rest of the game makes humanity's role appear like an uphill journey.

 

There's definitely a good deal of Shepard being the protagonist having an infectious effect on everything around it. But I'd also argue that ME1  goes out of its way to emphasize the "Shepard as a face of humanity" angle. 

 

Ultimately though humanity is facing the same uphill journey everyone else is, but the difference is that we're winning at it, on every front. It's true that we get Udina (for example) bemoaning the lack of concern over human colonies, the lack of Council representation, etc. But at the end of the day, especially by ME1's conclusion, we're not facing the same struggles the other races, we're on equal footing (Paragon) if not completely surpassing them (Renegade). In general, everyone Anderson included straight up says it's only a matter of time before we get a Council seat. 

 

Let's look at an earlier example: you mentioned giving us the first human Spectre. At the end of the day though: why us? Spectre-status is pretty highly regarded and it's something most races would want, as a representation of greater acceptance. The Council ultimately doesn't have to give Spectre status out if they don't want to. As you said, humanity is facing an uphill journey, but our ultimate success is more or less portrayed as a foregone conclusion, in terms of dialogue. 

[straykat]

And related to that, the main plot is very much about preserving, as much as possible, the status quo.

 

DA seems to do just that too..

 

Although I made Leliana Divine, for whatever that's worth.

 

And lo and behold, Solas can't get over the past. And people hate Sera, unfortunately.

[In Exile]

It gets really irritating when people constantly complain about humans being powerful in sci-fi settings. What, we're supposed to be dimwitted lowlifes just because blue ladies made it to space first? In Mass Effect the other races are complacent and dismissive. Hell, the Asari are basically frauds. Humans have to work for everything. Why would it be absurd for the hungriest species to eventually make the biggest leaps?

People just apply IRL logic. It's been an invariable feature of human existence that dominant cultures don't decline, ever, and no country has, again ever, had a rapid rise to economic and political power.

[In Exile]

There's definitely a good deal of Shepard being the protagonist having an infectious effect on everything around it. But I'd also argue that ME1 goes out of its way to emphasize the "Shepard as a face of humanity" angle.

Ultimately though humanity is facing the same uphill journey everyone else is, but the difference is that we're winning at it, on every front. It's true that we get Udina (for example) bemoaning the lack of concern over human colonies, the lack of Council representation, etc. But at the end of the day, especially by ME1's conclusion, we're not facing the same struggles the other races, we're on equal footing (Paragon) if not completely surpassing them (Renegade). In general, everyone Anderson included straight up says it's only a matter of time before we get a Council seat.

Let's look at an earlier example: you mentioned giving us the first human Spectre. At the end of the day though: why us? Spectre-status is pretty highly regarded and it's something most races would want, as a representation of greater acceptance. The Council ultimately doesn't have to give Spectre status out if they don't want to. As you said, humanity is facing an uphill journey, but our ultimate success is more or less portrayed as a foregone conclusion, in terms of dialogue.

Humanity's weird-o whines about the Council in ME1 are all based on the generally insane politics that the writers seemed to want to adopt. If you - in the chat with Anderson about the Council - ask why we even need a seat on the Council, Anderson replies that we could just send the Citadel fleet into the Traverse to deal with the geth.

This is insane. One, it'll start a war. That's pretty much well-settled lore. Two, it's 4 person political body. A human councilor couldn't just up and order the Turians to do anything, and he or she would love a vote to get the Council to do anything 1-3.

[straykat]

There's definitely a good deal of Shepard being the protagonist having an infectious effect on everything around it. But I'd also argue that ME1  goes out of its way to emphasize the "Shepard as a face of humanity" angle. 

 

Ultimately though humanity is facing the same uphill journey everyone else is, but the difference is that we're winning at it, on every front. It's true that we get Udina (for example) bemoaning the lack of concern over human colonies, the lack of Council representation, etc. But at the end of the day, especially by ME1's conclusion, we're not facing the same struggles the other races, we're on equal footing (Paragon) if not completely surpassing them (Renegade). In general, everyone Anderson included straight up says it's only a matter of time before we get a Council seat. 

 

Let's look at an earlier example: you mentioned giving us the first human Spectre. At the end of the day though: why us? Spectre-status is pretty highly regarded and it's something most races would want, as a representation of greater acceptance. The Council ultimately doesn't have to give Spectre status out if they don't want to. As you said, humanity is facing an uphill journey, but our ultimate success is more or less portrayed as a foregone conclusion, in terms of dialogue. 

 

If anything, I saw Shepard identifying with the characters who survived the worst conditions, with nothing to depend on. Zaeed and Jack especially. A lot of the origin stories are like that (maybe Sole Survivor especially). If that's the "face" of humanity, then I'm down with that. But not for some mystical reason or "special-ness". If anything, that just sounds cheesy.

[Il Divo]

If anything, I saw Shepard identifying with the characters who survived the worst conditions, with nothing to depend on. Zaeed and Jack especially. A lot of the origin stories are like that (maybe Sole Survivor especially). If that's the "face" of humanity, then I'm down with that. But not for some mystical reason or "special-ness". If anything, that just sounds cheesy.

 

It could definitely be both. I just think that, from a narrative perspective, Mass Effect does seem to raise issues about humanity's role in the galaxy. And the direction of all those answers places humanity as gaining in prominence, not decreasing. As the first human Spectre, whether Shepard likes it or not, he's going to be seen as a political figure. We get traces of this (for example) with that reporter Al-Jilani, amongst other things and in bigger ways, in terms of how we get to decide whether to help the Council or not in the ending.  

 

But I agree with you on that point, it doesn't have to be special-ness. That seemed to be the OP's direction, but I think what he was going for was to criticize having another story that seems to place humans either at the top of the hill or on their way to the top of the hill. I don't think there's anything wrong with that as a premise for a story, but I don't necessarily think it's fair to say either that we're not being portrayed as more successful, at least relative to where the other races are at this time. That's why I emphasize with ME1's ending, we've either reached equality with the Council races, or surpassed them altogether, depending on the ending. 

[straykat]

 That seemed to be the OP's direction, but I think what he was going for was to criticize having another story that seems to place humans either at the top of the hill or on their way to the top of the hill.

 

Well.. from the looks (of the rumors), this just seems like the Reapers/pseudo-Protheans .. where the Remnants left scattered tech all over the place, and it's the key to humanity finding a foothold in the area. And there are others vying for the same power too. So it has nothing to do with them exactly. It's just about uncovering the past (again), instead of being particularly innovative.

[Killroy]

People just apply IRL logic. It's been an invariable feature of human existence that dominant cultures don't decline, ever, and no country has, again ever, had a rapid rise to economic and political power.

 

wat

[Drone223]

And if Bioware wanted to make a sci-fi series, they should've gotten the sci-fi right. But they didn't, by any stretch in regards to the Asari, the physics, or any of it. Instead, the entire premise of the universe is built on fake science. The only believability you need is with regards to human biology, which again shouldn't be a problem because what Mordin says (as I recall) is that we are more genetically diverse relative to other sapient species. 

 

As before: do you have a real life Salarian for us to compare to? If not, that shouldn't factor into the equation. You're not asking for "some believability". You're asking for one very specific instance of believability, but ignoring everything else that doesn't fit into your paradigm. This is inconsistent. 

 

 

Its hard to believe human's are genetically diverse compared to other species when we rather inbreed on Earth and know little about the genetics of other species. Its quite clear Bioware did some research when they were making the ME series e.g. asari reproduction are based on real life parthenogenesis, so they should've at least gotten some of the facts about humanity right including the lack of genetic diversity among humans.

 

Well, ignoring that it stars a human, a special human, the first human Spectre, which is important. And that one of the central themes is all about humanity's increasing presence in the galaxy, hence why we have the ability to either cooperate with everyone else in the ending, or allow the other species to be murdered and seize power for ourselves. But note that, no matter what we do, ME1 is all about how important we are, how we've done things that no other species could ever do, and how soon we're going to ascend past everyone in virtually no time at all.

 

The argument would work a lot better if the ME1 conclusion didn't throw humanity in front of every other species, in terms of importance, even just in terms of competence.  

 

ME1 didn't gave an impression of human's being the most important species in the galaxy and there's a a difference between playing as a human character and the story being human centered. 

[Ghost Gal]

Oh wow... another human-only story.

 

Because we haven't had enough of that for three games straight. 

 

Meh, I really hope it won't be so "human centric", like as if humans are "speshul". I'll be thoroughly annoyed.

 

I mean, I'm fine with a human story as long as it doesn't touch the humans are special overused trope.

 

Don't hold your breath.

 

No idea why they chose the boring option with new galaxy. Are humans really what makes Mass Effect interesting?

 

If that's what they call "interesting," no wonder the ME series bores me to tears.