52 réponses à ce sujet

[omgodzilla]

After all, we're the jerks who are invading the galaxy this time around. Whenever I think of MEA, I can't help but think of the US and its brutal/genocidal expansion into native american lands back in the early days. Or of all the European powers who subjugated and enslaved aboriginal people from across the world. Now I'm not saying that I want to turn into Admiral Douchebag and slaughter all the locals. But at the same time, I hope there is atleast some freedom in deciding the methods we use to colonize this new galaxy. Whether it be through diplomacy or through aggressive expansion. Such freedom could lead to alot of interesting role-playing possibilities. However, I would be really disappointed if they just portray us as being innocent vagrants who get attacked and victimized by the local barbarians.  

 

At the very least, there should be some faction within our group who favours violent expansion. The leader of this faction could end up being a major antagonist for you, if you decide to go the diplomatic way. On the flip side, you could even end up siding with them, which could cause tension with the people on the ark who would prefer diplomacy. A little bit of internal strife on the subject would be nice. 

[Archangel42]

That could play a massive role in the paragon/reneged side of the game should they choose to follow that kind of path with it. Diplomacy being easier with higher paragon and should that fail, if you choose to do a reneged play through, you must resort to violence. Wouldn't mind seeing a mechanic like that in the game.

[Han Shot First]

The big issue with having the player determine whether the Milky Way colonists are diplomatic and peaceful, or brutal expansionists, is that it would be impossible to craft a single sequel from epilogues that should greatly diverge. Andromeda would have the same problem as ME3's endings.

The only reason why this game is set in Andromeda is because ME3's lead writers effectively nuked the Milky Way setting with their greatly diverging endings. The last thing they should be doing is repeating the same mistake with Andromeda, otherwise they'll once again need to shift the setting to a new galaxy if Andromeda is going to have a sequel.

[omgodzilla]

The big issue with having the player determine whether the Milky Way colonists are diplomatic and peaceful, or brutal expansionists, is that it would be impossible to craft a single sequel from epilogues that should greatly diverge. Andromeda would have the same problem as ME3's endings.

The only reason why this game is set in Andromeda is because ME3's lead writers effectively nuked the Milky Way setting with their greatly diverging endings. The last thing they should be doing is repeating the same mistake with Andromeda, otherwise they'll once again need to shift the setting to a new galaxy if Andromeda is going to have a sequel.

 

Yeah, that's a problem but its not impossible to work around. As long as they don't give us the option to wipe out entire species to extinction or to utterly destroy their civilizations, then the main consequence of how the Milky Way colonists conduct themselves would be their diplomatic relations with the Andromeda species. So, acting like jerks could cause other species to hate us. But then again, this isn't something that a big time gap can't take care of. Even in real life, we've had examples of nations acting like complete asshats (ie - Germany and Japan in WW2) and have still managed to get accepted back into the international community. Its not unreasonable to think that after a regime change, and a few decades or a century later, peaceful or semi peaceful diplomatic relations could be reached between the milky way colonists and the andromeda civilizations. This would of course remove the possibility of having a trilogy with the same characters, but is it really necessary to do that again?

 

And even then, they still have room to show off the consequences of our behavior. If we acted like jerks in MEA, then relations with the andromeda species would be more tense and you would be mistrusted by many of the natives. Sort of like how humans were mistrusted in ME2 if you killed the council in ME1, but on a further level. You could still have some remnants of the old violent expansionist movement around too, if you sided with them, instead of going the diplomatic way in MEA. They could be a rogue terrorist group or radical political party or something. 

[Memset]

The big issue with having the player determine whether the Milky Way colonists are diplomatic and peaceful, or brutal expansionists, is that it would be impossible to craft a single sequel from epilogues that should greatly diverge. Andromeda would have the same problem as ME3's endings.

The only reason why this game is set in Andromeda is because ME3's lead writers effectively nuked the Milky Way setting with their greatly diverging endings. The last thing they should be doing is repeating the same mistake with Andromeda, otherwise they'll once again need to shift the setting to a new galaxy if Andromeda is going to have a sequel.

 

Is our protagonist a colonizer or the colonizer? I'm not convinced they can't make a story as interesting by scaling back the importance of the protagonist a bit. S/he doesn't have to be the arbiter of the fate of a whole galaxy. I would much rather have a story with a smaller scope and more agency than being a galactic savior with less.

[dreamgazer]

Maybe we'll infect entire species with foreign diseases.

 

... on purpose.

[The Elcor Spectre]

We should round them all up and hold them hostage, then shoot them until they give us what they want.

[omgodzilla]

Is our protagonist a colonizer or the colonizer? I'm not convinced they can't make a story as interesting by scaling back the importance of the protagonist a bit. S/he doesn't have to be the arbiter of the fate of a whole galaxy. I would much rather have a story with a smaller scope and more agency than being a galactic savior with less.

 

This would be preferable for me as well. Having less political significance with more freedom sounds alot more appealing than being Space Moses and being restricted in the things we can do. Although, earlier advertisements have stated that we would be "finding a new home for humanity". That makes it sound like we'll be a very significant character. At least when it comes to humanity. 

[Han Shot First]

Maybe we'll infect entire species with foreign diseases.
 
... on purpose.

Slightly O/T...but that one is a popular myth. European colonists and conquistadors did plenty of terrible things to the natives, but intentionally spreading disease was not one of them.

Diseases like small pox were spread accidentally through peaceful contact like trade, rather than through biological warfare. It also may have gone both ways. Syphilis may have been spread to Europeans by the natives.

[SNascimento]

We are not going to bring the Milk Way to them because of strength of our armies, but because we are right. 

[Draining Dragon]

We should round them all up and hold them hostage, then shoot them until they give us what they want.

Fixed.

[Xen]

Slightly O/T...but that one is a popular myth. European colonists and conquistadors did plenty of terrible things to the natives, but intentionally spreading disease was not one of them.

Diseases like small pox were spread accidentally through peaceful contact like trade, rather than through biological warfare. It also may have gone both ways. Syphilis may have been spread to Europeans by the natives.

Don't know about the Spanish doing it deliberately, but there is evidence to suggest at least some biological warfare going on with British colonies, smallpox in particular if the infamous exchange between Amherst and Bouquet is to go by.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...weapon_01.shtml

 

However, it's unlikely that such small scale acts against villages and such were really responsible for wiping out the majority of the Amerindian population even if they took place. The scale of death is simply too large. Disease just has a tendency to spread when people come into contact. Such incidences of deliberate infection may have slightly sped up the process, but the natives were by rights already dead when the Europeans arrived. The Aztec and Inca empires, for instance, had lost up to 25% of their populations of millions (Including Inca Emperor Huayna Capac) just in the few short years between encountering Cortez in 1519 and the beginning of his military conquests in 1521, despite there being no prior knowledge of Amerindian vulnerability to Old World diseasea.

[Vortex13]

Yes the narrative should focus on the darker aspects of colonization, and should not depict us "Milky Way-ians" as blameless white knights, but it should also not paint the locals as the blameless noble savages either.

 

If we are using the colonization of the Americas as an example to go by with how ME:Andromeda should play out, then we should not forget the atrocities committed by the natives against settlers. Neither side was 'in the right' and neither was completely justified in their actions; it was a morally grey situation.

[taglag]

1.   I figure it will be a dark side light side choice, and we will be liberating, { Heh,Heh,Heh! } the locals whom are being mistreated by the other guy's ( the ones we decided not to choose) and of course as we take the colonies we will plant out Inquisition  um Mass Effect Flag, and gain the support, and welcome of the existing creatures.

 

  As we gather power, we will be able to explore, and conqueror Colonize other worlds, I just hope they don't higher that same requisitions Officer from DAI

 

2.  I also hope it does not turn into some sort of Micromanagement mess, where you have to keep, power manufacturing, and military strength up on each conquered friendly ( we now Own ) planet or System. Keep that stuff in Starcrap. Star Craft

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Why? This isn't Earth where we are stuck here with only limited resources. This is the Andromeda galaxy, a place with up to a trillion stars and trillions of planets. There should be millions of habitable planets, so there would be plenty to choose from thus no need for conflict like what you're wanting.

 

Plus we wouldn't really have the numbers or infrastructure to be a militant expansionist power, at least not for a while. 

[The Elcor Spectre]

Why? This isn't Earth where we are stuck here with only limited resources. This is the Andromeda galaxy, a place with up to a trillion stars and trillions of planets. There should be millions of habitable planets, so there would be plenty to choose from thus no need for conflict like what you're wanting.

 

Plus we wouldn't really have the numbers or infrastructure to be a militant expansionist power, at least not for a while. 

 

But what if a certain planet has the resources we need that aren't found anywhere else? Then we have a problem D.va.

[slimgrin]

I'm fairly certain Bioware doesn't have the cajones to fully explore this topic. Most likely, we'll be eradicating some ancient evil race oppressing another. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

But what if a certain planet has the resources we need that aren't found anywhere else? Then we have a problem D.va.

Well Ambassador Calyn, in reality there is no such essential resource that would be exclusive to one planet. 

Fuel is harvested from Jovian planets so there is a lot to go around, Eezo exists in things like asteroids as well as planets, there are plenty of places that have exponentially more water than Earth in our own solar system so would be the case in others, and food can be grown on a ship.

Even if there is a planet that has something we need, there are other ways to get it than invading. In our position, invasion and colonization of an occupied planet should be the worst case scenario since that is a great way to get ourselves killed.

[Battlebloodmage]

I like the way it presents in Falout 4 Far Harbor. We found new colony, we could subjugate everyone (Institute for the win!!!), we could kill everyone or we could help them out. That DLC has a lot of choices, we could convince everyone to kill themselves even. I want more of those choices in the game, the practical evil choices. Bioware lacks evil options the more games they have. DAO, we could lead the werewolves back to slaughter everyone or side with the golem, in DA2 and DAI, it's all about saving one or the other (like between mages or templars), but they're all essentially good. 

 

Why would we invade everyone instead of finding a new planet? It's the same reason why bandits attack other villages, those places are already stable, forming, and have a lot of food, it removes us having to do it ourselves which may take hundreds of years. It's all about choices after all. For a game with choices, you can't just put good choices in the game. Yes, we should handle it peacefully for those who want peace among everyone, but for others who may want to skip all the hassle of spending hundreds of years making a place hospitable, invasion should be an option for them.

 

Knowing Bioware, it's probably just gonna be able helping everyone out yet again.  

[Dean_the_Young]

Maybe we'll infect entire species with foreign diseases.

 

... on purpose.

 

Damn Asari space herpes! Damn you!

[Battlebloodmage]

Damn Asari space herpes! Damn you!

Nah, those disease only comes out after 9 months, the symptom includes sleepless nights, mortgage, and loss of hair. 

[Sartoz]

After all, we're the jerks who are invading the galaxy this time around. Whenever I think of MEA, I can't help but think of the US and its brutal/genocidal expansion into native american lands back in the early days. Or of all the European powers who subjugated and enslaved aboriginal people from across the world. Now I'm not saying that I want to turn into Admiral Douchebag and slaughter all the locals.

 

Snip

                                                                                       <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Hu?

Where did you get the idea that a handful of MIlky Way refugees will invade a planet full of indigenous people? The cluster has anywhere from 100-300k solar systems and colonizing a habitable and empty planet is the right choice for immediate needs and for the future ( if you want to live peacefully among other star faring races).

[Dean_the_Young]

I like the way it presents in Falout 4 Far Harbor. We found new colony, we could subjugate everyone (Institute for the win!!!), we could kill everyone or we could help them out. That DLC has a lot of choices, we could convince everyone to kill themselves even. I want more of those choices in the game, the practical evil choices. Bioware lacks evil options the more games they have. DAO, we could lead the werewolves back to slaughter everyone or side with the golem, in DA2 and DAI, it's all about saving one or the other (like between mages or templars), but they're all essentially good. 

 

I agree about Fall Harbor. Having just finished it last night, Far Harbor was a refreshing take on what was effectively a land-conflict. It's mixed, ambiguous, and far from one-sided. It might actually be too subtle for some people, considering what the internet is calling the 'good' option, but it doesn't beat you about the head with a morality stick either. Add on that a plethora of end-states for the DLC, and it's probably the best RPG content in Fallout 4 bar none.

 

As for Bioware and evil, though... honestly, I'm glad they've gone away from the 'evil' choice options, because quite frankly Bioware was just plain bad at writing evil. Mass Effect had the problem of Paragon was always right, but even before then evil was hard to justify on it's own terms- it was generally short-sighted, pointlessly cruel, and objectively inferior to the rewards of a 'good' route. It was also often boring- lacking the follow-up, the reactions, or the nuance of less totally-evil actions. In the Dwarven arc, there was no 'good' King and the Anvil of the Void had a serious moral delimma behind it. By comparison, the werewolves pretty much had to be badgered into something they didn't want, in a dialogue chain that renounces elven support (the reason you're there) even before you can suggest the werewolves as an alternative. And that doesn't even touch on the 'evil' elements where the characters involved are complete caricatures.

 

In all honesty, I think DAI had the best moral choices/Big Decisions of the series. They lost the 'evil,' sure, but they also did away with the 'this is overwhelmingly good' route and so you had a lot more flexibility for moral arguments.
 

 

 

Why would we invade everyone instead of finding a new planet? It's the same reason why bandits attack other villages, those places are already stable, forming, and have a lot of food, it removes us having to do it ourselves which may take hundreds of years. It's all about choices after all. For a game with choices, you can't just put good choices in the game. Yes, we should handle it peacefully for those who want peace among everyone, but for others who may want to skip all the hassle of spending hundreds of years making a place hospitable, invasion should be an option for them.

 

 

And this is why the OP's angle is probably not going to happen. There is an answer to this, mind you- conquest can allow looting (quick and easy resources), taking over established infrastructure (exploiting capital), and exploiting the population as a labor force that you wouldn't have if you just colonized empty space yourself (bodies to use). It also can remove future competitors.

 

But that's (probably) not how we're going to go into the galaxy. We're probably going to be having disputes over 'terra nullis'- claimed but not-really-settled regions as we try to set up shop somewhere that we won't get killed. Proctorates are possible- but which side we're on is up for debate. Conquistadores, though- probably not.

 

 

Knowing Bioware, it's probably just gonna be able helping everyone out yet again.  

 

 

Trading favors and building an alliances to get a colony world, at least.

 

We know there's the evil-alien faction. It just remains to see what sort of polity or alliance opposes them.

[omgodzilla]

                                                                                       <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Hu?

Where did you get the idea that a handful of MIlky Way refugees will invade a planet full of indigenous people? The cluster has anywhere from 100-300k solar systems and colonizing a habitable and empty planet is the right choice for immediate needs and for the future ( if you want to live peacefully among other star faring races).

 

Well it depends on what you mean by "a handful of refugees". If there is to be any hope of successfully repopulating a species, then the starting population can't be too small, or else you'll just end up with inbreeding. Unless they're using sperm banks or something, I guess. But apart from that, we're talking about more than one species here as well. I'd expect a few thousand people at least. 

 

They must have also surely prepared for the possibility of encountering hostile alien life forms and taken precautions such as having soldiers, weapons, etc. And lets not ignore the possible gap in technology here either. Who's to say that the civilizations of Andromeda are anywhere near as advanced as us? Maybe, they're still primitive. Sure, some of them might have space travel and so on. But its still possible to imagine a scenario where we Milky way refugees can successfully colonize a planet, or at least a region within the planet, through violence, if those being invaded are primitive enough. If a technological gap is large enough, numbers won't mean much. 

 

Sure, you could say "Oh there's a bunch of planets out there! We don't need to invade anyone!". Which is possible. But what if there aren't? What if the only suitable planets we find for colonization are the ones that are already inhabited? What if the BEST planets for colonization are already inhabited? I just feel that giving us the freedom to decide how we interact with the natives of andromeda makes for a more interesting story than being forced to play nice. For example, you can choose to colonize an uninhabited, crappy, but life-bearing world, where life is extremely difficult, but you get the advantage of avoiding conflict. On the flip side, you can choose to invade an excellent, resource rich, life-bearing world that's already inhabited. The risks are the same as can come with any conflict, but the possible benefits are also immense. Some agency on the matter would be nice. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Well it depends on what you mean by "a handful of refugees". If there is to be any hope of successfully repopulating a species, then the starting population can't be too small, or else you'll just end up with inbreeding. Unless they're using sperm banks or something, I guess. But apart from that, we're talking about more than one species here as well. I'd expect a few thousand people at least. 

 

They must have also surely prepared for the possibility of encountering hostile alien life forms and taken precautions such as having soldiers, weapons, etc. And lets not ignore the possible gap in technology here either. Who's to say that the civilizations of Andromeda are anywhere near as advanced as us? Maybe, they're still primitive. Sure, some of them might have space travel and so on. But its still possible to imagine a scenario where we Milky way refugees can successfully colonize a planet, or at least a region within the planet, through violence, if those being invaded are primitive enough. If a technological gap is large enough, numbers won't mean much. 

 

Sure, you could say "Oh there's a bunch of planets out there! We don't need to invade anyone!". Which is possible. But what if there aren't? What if the only suitable planets we find for colonization are the ones that are already inhabited? What if the BEST planets for colonization are already inhabited? I just feel that giving us the freedom to decide how we interact with the natives of andromeda makes for a more interesting story than being forced to play nice. For example, you can choose to colonize an uninhabited, crappy, but life-bearing world, where life is extremely difficult, but you get the advantage of avoiding conflict. On the flip side, you can choose to invade an excellent, resource rich, life-bearing world that's already inhabited. The risks are the same as can come with any conflict, but the possible benefits are also immense. Some agency on the matter would be nice. 

 

If you want agency, why are you playing a Bioware game?

 

If the best planets for colonization are already colonized, then the milky way races are doomed in any meaningful conflict. A few thousand people, with far fewer ships, would be pitifully unsuited for any sort of interstellar warfare. The nature of the ME universe technology makes it really, really easy to break stuff, but much less so to hold it- and conquest requires holding.

 

One of the really nice things about colonizing empty lands rather than populations is that it requires a lot less people to do. No occupation army needed- or the countless costs associated with a colonial occupation. And that's on top of the culture of the would-be occupiers that might not like such.