736 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

I agree with you. The Andromeda Galaxy was obviously always a part of the Mass Effect Universe, but as I mentioned above the challenge will be to successfully transport us from the MWG to Andromeda and still make it feel like the Mass Effect we know and love.

 

There has to be a sense of continuity and that's the challenge for BioWare. I will reiterate what I said above: The MWG contains everything that defines Mass Effect. The many different species and cultures, the politics, lore, history, technology, organizations and more. I'm concerned that BioWare won't be able to succefully make this transition.. essentially they'd have to "transport" all of this information into Andromeda and then incorporate it in a way that makes sense.

The Mass Effect we know and love? That died a slow death starting with ME2, when lore, common sense and SFnal grounding were more and more abandoned in favor of a superhero-comic-book visual style, cheap drama and heavily hammered-through thematic messages. If they go go for something different with MEA, it can't be too soon.

 

In any case, what exactly is it that defines a setting? I'm having a hard time setting any hard criteria. If anything, they would be more abstract, such as: Key aspects of the ME setting are (1) the technology that gave it its name, (2) integrating political, technological, social and personal issues into its stories, (3) the existence of Earth and humans in a way we can relate to, and (4) a consistent history. Which means that none of the species or organizations need to be transferred to Andromeda to make ME a Mass Effect game, as long as it has humans and the applicable part of the history of the trilogy's Citadel Space and its species exists as a background. 

 

BTW, if the next ME game doesn't have any asari, that would be a big bonus. Bad enough that it isn't possible to edit them out of the setting.

[The Elder King]

The Mass Effect we know and love? That died a slow death starting with ME2, when lore, common sense and SFnal grounding were more and more abandoned in favor of a superhero-comic-book visual style, cheap drama and heavily hammered-through thematic messages. If they go go for something different with MEA, it can't be too soon.

 

In any case, what exactly is it that defines a setting? I'm having a hard time setting any hard criteria. If anything, they would be more abstract, such as: Key aspects of the ME setting are (1) the technology that gave it its name, (2) integrating political, technological, social and personal issues into its stories, (3) the existence of Earth and humans in a way we can relate to, and (4) a consistent history. Which means that none of the species or organizations need to be transferred to Andromeda to make ME a Mass Effect game, as long as it has humans and the applicable part of the history of the trilogy's Citadel Space and its species exists as a background. 

 

BTW, if the next ME game doesn't have any asari, that would be a big bonus. Bad enough that it isn't possible to edit them out of the setting.

I doubt they'd remove from the franchise the three Council species. And I kind of thought asari and salarian were unofficially confirmed to be in.

By the way, why do you dislike them? Is because of their role in the games, or for their appearance/biology?

[Spacepunk01]

The Mass Effect we know and love? That died a slow death starting with ME2, when lore, common sense and SFnal grounding were more and more abandoned in favor of a superhero-comic-book visual style, cheap drama and heavily hammered-through thematic messages. If they go go for something different with MEA, it can't be too soon.

 

In any case, what exactly is it that defines a setting? I'm having a hard time setting any hard criteria. If anything, they would be more abstract, such as: Key aspects of the ME setting are (1) the technology that gave it its name, (2) integrating political, technological, social and personal issues into its stories, (3) the existence of Earth and humans in a way we can relate to, and (4) a consistent history. Which means that none of the species or organizations need to be transferred to Andromeda to make ME a Mass Effect game, as long as it has humans and the applicable part of the history of the trilogy's Citadel Space and its species exists as a background. 

 

I certainly agree that Mass Effect changed course (and not for the better) after EA aquired BioWare. The original Mass Effect is really what I'm refering to in terms of what we know and love, and everything that is important was established there in the first game.

 

I just mentioned a few aspects of Mass Effect that when pieced together creates an immersive, coherent and familiar Universe. I'm not saying that we absolutely must have the same familiar organizations and species present in Andromeda for it to be Mass Effect. However, I really believe that the many species and cultures from the original trilogy are an important aspect of Mass Effect. They should certainly introduce new species in Andromeda, but it would be a mistake to leave the original species behind completely. The truth is that these species each represents specific archetypes. You have the wise and beautiful Asiri who lives for a thousand years and are primarily responsible for diplomacy. You have the strong and honorable Turians who constitute the military. You have the quick-witted, short lived and highly intelligent Salarians who constitute the intelligence branch.

 

These are only the council species, but we could go on and talk about the others as well and show how they are representations of particular archetypes. The point I'm making is that if BioWare were going to create all new species to replace the original ones, they would inevitably recycle these same archetypes. We would then have Asari, Turians and Salarians, but with a different name and design. I think this is one of the big challenges that BioWare face. They've established a beautiful and rich Universe, with a variety of fascinating species and cultures. This I think goes to the heart of the issue for many people who were disappointed with the move to Andromeda, because it could quickly just turn into something like a hard reboot and I think that would be a huge mistake.

[The Elder King]

EA might have something to do with the change in the gameplay (I'm not sure about it, but I can see the argument), but every problem a person might have with the writing is not their fault. That's more about the change in the lead writer between the games, as well as certain writers leaving/not writing themselves the plot they wrote in the previous games (the differences in the krogan and geth-quarian plot between ME2 and ME3).

Also, I don't think the reason most people don't like the Andromeda move is the hard reboot possibility, expecially since some of them directly said they'd want a reboot. For most of them the galaxy change effectively change the franchise.

[Ieldra]

By the way, why do you dislike them? Is because of their role in the games, or for their appearance/biology?

They are blue space babes and their biology and morphology makes no f****** sense.

[Ieldra]

The point I'm making is that if BioWare were going to create all new species to replace the original ones, they would inevitably recycle these same archetypes. We would then have Asari, Turians and Salarians, but with a different name and design.

I do not agree that we need those archetypes, and in fact, I prefer the species to be less archetypical overall. If you can describe a typical member of a species in one short sentence, something's gone wrong.

 

Apart from that, I certainly agree that continuity is well-served by including individuals of established non-human species in MEA. I just don't think that the important ones all need to be represented.

[in it for the lolz]

They are blue space babes and their biology and morphology makes no f****** sense.

And don't forget that they go around stalking people.

[Khrystyn]

I'm still trying to understand what a 'hard reboot of the franchise' really means. After reading through most of the posts in this thread, it seems that the concept of a reboot means different things to different people.

 

Q. Does the call for a 'hard reboot' of the ME Franchise rest on the desire to recapture the magic moment that is ME-1, with Its novel freshness in the area of ScI-fi rpg gameplay?

[Khrystyn]

I certainly agree that continuity is well-served by including individuals of established non-human species in MEA. I just don't think that the important ones all need to be represented.

 

I agree that not all species need to be represented, but bf certain MWG species do not make the trip to Andromeda, should the story explain why this happened?

[Ieldra]

And don't forget that they go around stalking people.

While that's an unpleasant trait, it doesn't break the world's plausibility.

[Spacepunk01]

I do not agree that we need those archetypes, and in fact, I prefer the species to be less archetypical overall. If you can describe a typical member of a species in one short sentence, something's gone wrong.

 

Well, I describe them in simple terms, but that was only to make a point. I personally think they're very interesting. My claim is that whenever you design characters you'll end up with certain archetypes. I encourage BioWare to discover and design new and interesting species that does not correspond to one of the already established species.

 

Of course, it's acceptable to create new species that are similar to the ones we already know. The only thing I'm saying is that it shouldn't be a replacement species, which would basically serve the exact same purpose/role, only with a different name and design.

[Ieldra]

I agree that not all species need to be represented, but bf certain MWG species do not make the trip to Andromeda, should the story explain why this happened?

The answer could be as simple as "no member of species XXX wanted to come". Most of Citadel Space's species appeared to me as being rather set in their ways, so I'd have no trouble believing that, of anyone but the salarians and the humans. So if salarians could've come and none did, that would be much harder to explain.

[themikefest]

BTW, if the next ME game doesn't have any asari, that would be a big bonus. Bad enough that it isn't possible to edit them out of the setting.

I agree with that.

 

If the asari are in the game, I would have one for the crew who would be the janitor. As the main character moves throughout the ship, a voice over the intercom will say clean up on deck 3. At that moment an asari will appear from her closet with a mop and bucket running to clean up the mess

[themikefest]

And don't forget that they go around stalking people.

And taking armor from dead corpses to have it displayed like its some kind of trophy

[in it for the lolz]

And taking armor from dead corpses to have it displayed like its some kind of trophy

That blue skin deserves a "chainsaw kiss."

 

Like so:

[The Elder King]

The answer could be as simple as "no member of species XXX wanted to come". Most of Citadel Space's species appeared to me as being rather set in their ways, so I'd have no trouble believing that, of anyone but the salarians and the humans. So if salarians could've come and none did, that would be much harder to explain.

It depends on when the voyage starts. It it's an escape plan between the games, I don't think any species wouldn't want to sent some of their members.

Anyway, it's a moot points, since Bioware isn't going to remove the asari from the setting.

[AlanC9]

The Mass Effect we know and love? That died a slow death starting with ME2, when lore, common sense and SFnal grounding were more and more abandoned in favor of a superhero-comic-book visual style,

Which comic books are you thinking of? I'm old enough that the phrase just calls John Byrne-era X-Men to mind. Actually, I always thought ME1 kinda looked like certain eras of the Legion of Super-Heroes.

BTW, if the next ME game doesn't have any asari, that would be a big bonus. Bad enough that it isn't possible to edit them out of the setting.

Heh. I don't know if that would go over too well. At some point you have to accept that the cheesy elements really are integral to the series.

[KaiserShep]

Aw man I love the asari. Some are straight up uppity biznitches you love to hate while others are pretty cool and give us Biower's take on twi'leks.

[Iakus]

You appear to think that a setting can't expand into the unknown.

 

I think an SF setting with elements of exploration absolutely should expand into the unknown. Also, since ME plays out in an imagined alternate future of our own world, any real place we know of is implicitly already part of the setting. Andromeda was always part of the MEU, we just didn't have anything to do with it. That's going to change, and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't.

Sure it can expand into the unknown.  But "expanion" means growth, not transferrence.  What connects these stories?  What makes this a "Mass Effect" story?  It's more than simply slapping "Mass Effect" on the box

 

Take Stargate Atlantis, which fits because it's a spinoff set in another galaxy and was initially supposed to replace Stargate SG-1 anyway.

 

Did that show simply dump the characters into the Pegasus galaxy and declare "it's a Stargate series"? No, they spent much of the seventh season setting up the move.  And it drew on elements going back a good five seasons to lay the groundwork for it.  So even as it explored new regions and introduced new elements, it still drew upon the familiar.  ME3, in contrast, spent much of it's time on "feels" and trashing the Milky Way.

 

Where's the setup here?  What already known elements will be expanded up?  How does this fit into universe?

[Laughing_Man]

they spent much of the seventh season setting up the move.  And it drew on elements going back a good five seasons to lay the groundwork for it.  So even as it explored new regions and introduced new elements, it still drew upon the familiar.  ME3, in contrast, spent much of it's time on "feels" and trashing the Milky Way.

 

Well yeah, but have mercy, they (likely) didn't know that they had to move galaxy until their perfect ending hit the fan and whole room was painted in chunky brown.

[Iakus]

We'll still know about Palaven in ME:A - and there will be Turians on the Ark, and it's pretty easy for us to meet characters who were from Palaven or have a history there - ME:A meets all the requirements you just allowed for ME1. 

 

If this is the argument,  "well, we might see Palaven in a different game", I'm not sure that would sway Bioware on any level.  If that's enough, then I propose Bioware could make Andromeda 2 - some arbitrary way down the line - which takes place far enough into the future for us to see Palaven again through regular Andromeda-Milky Way contact. And people may just as well be excited to see how Palaven changes in all that time. The point is you're employing a double standard. What you are applying to ME1 is not being applied equally to Andromeda. "We had the hope of seeing Palaven in the future" - but you didn't see it in ME1 and that was fine, ergo Andromeda will be fine without Palaven. 

 

You kinda hit it there.  Going to Andromeda is abandoning Palaven and all other places people might like to see.  It's cutting off ties to these locations, and even the potential to see them.

 

 

 

The Northern edge of Amn is the northern edge of Amn. I believe we spend the entire game in Athkatla. Regarding the second bit, Andromeda will meet that criteria if they throw a couple cameos on the Ark.

 

No, you start at Athkatla.  But you go all over Amn:  Trademeet, Windspear, the Umar Hills.  

 

And who is going to be the cameos in MEA?  Everyone can potentially be dead.  Of course, tehy appear to be sticking krogan on the Ark, despite their potential fate, so maybe "Your choices are important to us" is the joke I make it out to be and we'll see Thane and TIM on board.

 

 

 

^In that case, Andromeda can function as the story exploring the implications of the displaced Council races, forced to flee their home, friends, and family, in the face of genocide for the unknown - to essentially act as the new humans in their own First Contact War, while attempting to navigate their political hurdles and exploring new planets. Actually, that sounds extremely applicable for a Mass Effect spin off, given both ME1 and ME3, and matches your Bhaalspawn comparison fairly well.
 

As I said, all MW races are now quarians

 

 

Beyond the fact that we're taking the races, technology, history, political tension, with us? That we're potentially getting an "East meets West"-type setting? I'd really not like to explain what a spin off is again. Having no contact with the galaxy you're going to encounter for the first time is the entire idea behind "exploring the unknown".

Technology?  You have to make completely new technology just to justify the journey to begin with!  History?  We're in Andromeda because Bioware is RUNNING AWAY from the MW's (recent) history!   

[In Exile]

You need to let your obsession with the travel go. Apart from being completely wrong, there are modern scientific phenomenon - actual science, as opposed to made up argle-bargle - that account for travel to Andromeda.

[Laughing_Man]

You need to let your obsession with the travel go. Apart from being completely wrong, there are modern scientific phenomenon - actual science, as opposed to made up argle-bargle - that account for travel to Andromeda.

 

Do tell.

[Quarian Master Race]

In regards to EDI, I don't really care about after-the-fact word of god tweets and similar BS, but I do want to point out a few things:

-snip-

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with any of this. "Reaper Tech" ended up being ME3's means of handwaving the plot when it didn't make any sense (see everything about Cerberus), and we don't actually know what purpose it serves in how EDI is built. AI is also certainly useful, and attempting to stifle development of the technology is counterproductive, even dangerous (it just results in the worst types of people ignoring the restrictions and engaging in dangerous research, ala Cerberus).

Doesn't mean that I don't think that enabling EDI full access to every critical system on the ship for any longer than was necessary (i.e. when the Collectors attacked the Normandy due to the entire non-cripple cast of ME2 suddenly getting the idiot ball) simply due to sentiment wasn't science fiction idiocy. It's a suite of software, so it won't get "mad" , "upset" or "resentful" if we restrict its capabilities to what it is designed to do, as it is literally incapable of such things. Why does it need access to life support systems, navigation, propulsion, weapons and a ridiculously impractical sexbot platform with high heeled feet at all times to perform its cyberwarfare and information processing functions? You aren't really increasing its ability to carry out its utility function at all, and you are introducing all sorts of potential sources of problems.

Or right, because this is sci-fi action schlock that isn't actually trying to take the subject of Artificial Intelligence seriously. It's all disenfranchised Pinocchios and Commander Data 2.0 with a comic relief romance plot, aimed at generating cheap pathos and feelz rather than thought provoking questions. It doesn't even attempt to avoid nonsensical anthropomorphism. 

but that's all off topic.

[Laughing_Man]

Doesn't mean that I don't think that enabling EDI full access to every critical system on the ship for any longer than was necessary (i.e. when the Collectors attacked the Normandy due to the entire non-cripple cast of ME2 suddenly getting the idiot ball) simply due to sentiment wasn't science fiction idiocy. It's a suite of software, so it won't get "mad" , "upset" or "resentful" if we restrict its capabilities to what it is designed to do, as it is literally incapable of such things. Why does it need access to life support systems, navigation, propulsion, weapons and a ridiculously impractical sexbot platform with high heeled feet at all times to perform its cyberwarfare and information processing functions? You aren't really increasing its ability to carry out its utility function at all, and you are introducing all sorts of potential sources of problems.

 

There are upsides to a ship completely under the supervision of an AI, it is faster and much more precise than organics, and while working in conjunction with organics is able to cover for their inherent weaknesses, while still not losing processing power on technically complicated decisions which are easier for humans to solve, do to intuition, and other technically illogical methods of problem solving, which are still effective in some situations where simple accounting for every possibility might take too long in comparison even for an AI.

 

(like the legend that to stop a Vampire you throw a bag of rice on the ground, and it would be compelled to count the all the rice, I would imagine that an AI would approach many problems by being overly methodical and systematic about them, even when the answer seems obvious to a human)

 

In regards to emotions, I'm not really sure how AI are supposedly designed in the ME universe, but locking the "senses" of an AI might trigger the punishment-reward system EDI mentioned at some point, even if you do not mean to do so. And anyway, it has proven itself non-hostile, so I'm not sure what would be the point.

 

Dealing in "good faith" with the first non-hostile AI humanity has managed to create,

might be crucial to how it perceives humanity and organics in general.

 

After all, an overly suspicious response by the Quarians triggered the seeds of hostility in the Geth.

 

Not saying that someone shouldn't have an option B somewhere (They might even had manual overrides, who knows.), but for all intents and purposes, you should approach communication with a non-hostile AI with the same caution you would approach a first contact scenario.

It has a strong potential for both negative and positive actions.