Oh, and BTW, thinking Nova's back as well.
That scene where the guy is flying up in the air? Yah, watch his right hand when he comes down? Definitely punches the ground with biotic power. And there has gotta be something special about the ship @ 1:22.
This is the second time we've seen it, but here specifically.
The mass effect series needs less contrived plot devices not more of them, resorting to contrived plot devices to progress the story is just bad writing.
The whole series is based on nothing more than contrived plot devices. The actual start of the game is a contrived plot device, going right back to ME1. I mean, I agree that this is a crappy way to write - but it's really quintessentially ME at this point, and how it all worked in ME1.
Bloddymares has a point, he said cerberus was about humanity, not about humanity's competence. Mass effect 2 and 3 became even more human centric because cerberus represented the arrogance of humanity that wants to control and make his everything, even with the presence of the reapers the subthemes cerberus represented were all over the place, especially in me3
But my point is different. My point is that in ME1, the story was about how humanity was super-competent and "special" in that sense - we were just better than the aliens. ME2 and ME3 tear humanity down a lot, but then introduce weird nonsense things that make humans special, like being super awesome reaper slurry.
Hm...
Well:
- again: No space battles 
only farm-machinery (it's what the new Mako looks like IMHO...just don't like it!) to drive around on planets
- stupid consolised dialogue-wheel again...they'll never learn (or: Stop fixing what was never broken in RPGs)
- Ryder? Don't like the name, but I can probably live with it (as long as not everybody calls me that...got annoyed being called "Shepard" all the time, too)
- Ryder-Family? Stop copying from Bethesda (it's not working for them, what makes you guys think you can do better? What makes you think we WANT a family-story (well: I at least don't, I have a family (parents and sister - I won't get married and have children!) and to be honest I sometimes wish I did not)?)
- Good thing they fixed that relationship system (if - and I stress: IF - it works as advertised...remember they said ME3 has a ton of different endings and tons of player choices etc.!)
- Good thing they are - kind of - discarding ME3!
- hundreds of years? Was that damned Ark that slow (if so: trash that heap of junk ^^) or a generation ship even???
- what's the main characters family (parents, sister etc.) doing on the Ark? (in an desperate situation (as in: annihilation might be inevitable!) only the best an brightest would (and should) be sent/saved...which IMHO doesn't include giving their families a free boarding passes - call it "mean" but it's best for all the species involved to only send their best to make a fresh start!)
- oh, nice: Heroe's journey as method of story telling (I like that one - if they really let me shape my character and don't have AUTO-DIALOGUE and if they keep my decisions relevant (and don't discard them like in ME3 - Genophage data (why did Mordin have to die despite having kept the ****** DATA?), Quarians at war (told them not to damned!) etc.)
- re-explained is ok (as long as there's new tech-goodies (we've already seen that jump-pack (not: Jet-Pack, as it can't sustain flight for very long), so there's hope!)) as long as they don't force it on you 
- the Mako did "crazy stuff"? Not mine (it's got a damned-mass-effect-generator inside, so that explains why the laws of physics for it are bent a little IMHO!)...so they turned the vehicle that was at least partly cool into just a normal APC (no more Jump-Jets on the Mako? - Damned, I love to use them to dodge missiles etc.!)
- I'd like to know if the Ark is a hub (or if it was stripped...hope not, because that thing looks great and if it's armed and armored calling it in might make our job easier ^^)
- What? Race car "jokeys" helped make a TANK? (isn't that something above their weight class/outside of what they normally do?)
- "The Tempest has a lot to offer" - I'd hope so (more ship upgrades etc. would be nice...being able to name the ship would be something, too (as much as I liked the Normandy (SR2 - didn't like the first version as much!) itself, I could have done with another name!)
- sadly: Only human protagonist (despite the new scenario being PERFECT for having an alien protagonist (after all: We all, from humans, to turians, to asari, to krogans etc. are new in Andromeda, so we'd have to work together or face annihilation - AGAIN!))
- homosexual/lesbian-romance is fine, but what about say: A stable threesome (those do exist, they might be rare, but they exist...on the other hand: elite soldiers are also rare and we are one, again!) or an open relationship etc. (not the typical relationship)?
Well, all in all: Not bad 
Bioware already confirmed the use of stasis pods for the journey. We even see the protagonist wake up in one in the trailer.
Oh. Didn't know they've confirmed those as stasis pods. Then the Prothean route is most likely. Still It's a fantasy technology without a real world equivalent. As I've understood previous installments didn't establish too many details or rules for how those worked or what kind of limitations there were. Protheans apparently could be in stasis indefinitely, as long as there's energy to maintain them. But that was planetside, and it's Protheans. I mean, if Bioware wanted to use generation ships I am pretty sure they could come up with enough lore consistent and believable explanations, if they wanted to use that trope. Ryder having his family with him just reminded me of it.
Something like maybe the crew is periodically woke up as a failsafe system, if long-term effects of stasis were not well known on the Council races with a technology that is available to them. Although now when I heard that it's confirmed as stasis pods, then if I had to wager money on this, they are probably going to go with the Prothean route. But with such limited info, it's pretty speculative at this point. Then we'll probably going to see a Ryder wunder family, unless it's siblings only. I don't see much sense to take elderly on a journey like that, unless they are top ranking scientist, military officers or engineers, etc.
Okay - but I think there was more to it than just whatever dramatic value the tragedy would represent - because they were directly linked to the game's major themes.
Consider you're either playing as a mage or have this lovely, ultra-sweet BFF sister who is a mage. Either way, your father was an apostate, and unless you take her to the deep roads, Bethany willing and selflessly goes to the circle at the end of Chapter 1 to protect her family from any further involvement in hiding an apostate. In the end, supporting the templars would mean slaughtering that sister.
Regardless of Hawke's class, you came from a family fathered by an apostate that is currently harboring an apostate.
If Hawke is a mage, you have a brother with heavy rivalry who ends up joining the templars unless he's taken to the deep roads. In that case, Hawke can either be a hypocrite (an apostate mage who chooses to annul the circle) or slaughter the brother.
I don't honestly remember ever feeling so manipulated in a game.
I think what I'm trying to say here is that Hawke's family was not just there for some vanilla boo-hoo tragedy - they actively represented the 2 sides that were the major conflict in the game, and a decision the character needed to make.
- Mako won't be doing crazy stuff anymore, like in ME1
- Driving the Mako will be 'actually fun' (their words, not mine)
Pre-order cancelled, due to Bioware's pandering to casuals.
Okay - but I think there was more to it than just whatever dramatic value the tragedy would represent - because they were directly linked to the game's major themes.
Consider you're either playing as a mage or have this lovely, ultra-sweet BFF sister who is a mage. Either way, your father was an apostate, and unless you take her to the deep roads, Bethany willing and selflessly goes to the circle at the end of Chapter 1 to protect her family from any further involvement in hiding an apostate. In the end, supporting the templars would mean slaughtering that sister.
Regardless of Hawke's class, you came from a family fathered by an apostate that is currently harboring an apostate.
If Hawke is a mage, you have a brother with heavy rivalry who ends up joining the templars unless he's taken to the deep roads. In that case, Hawke can either be a hypocrite (an apostate mage who chooses to annul the circle) or slaughter the brother.
I don't honestly remember ever feeling so manipulated in a game.
I think what I'm trying to say here is that Hawke's family was not just there for some vanilla boo-hoo tragedy - they actively represented the 2 sides that were the major conflict in the game, and a decision the character needed to make.
but you can keep your sibling alive even if you side against them in the end chapter, so there's no real decision that needs to be made surrounding those characters. I would also say that Meredith and Orsino better represented the two sides of the major conflict because they're both always present and actively conflicting with each other in the game.
Even if your example you're noting my choice is "slaughtering the sibling" but what if we removed that? Keep everything else the exact same but say that Bethany/Carver aren't your sister or brother.
How much would you care about siding with the mages against Carver then?
but you can keep your sibling alive even if you side against them in the end chapter, so there's no real decision that needs to be made surrounding those characters. I would also say that Meredith and Orsino better represented the two sides of the major conflict because they're both always present and actively conflicting with each other in the game.
Even if your example you're noting my choice is "slaughtering the sibling" but what if we removed that? Keep everything else the exact same but say that Bethany/Carver aren't your sister or brother.
How much would you care about siding with the mages against Carver then?
Your sibling dies I'd you don't keep Anders. Also, you can either be your sibling's friend or rival.
Only if you take him/her down into the deep roads
Your sibling dies I'd you don't keep Anders. Also, you can either be your sibling's friend or rival.
I'm talking about the end if you didn't take them into the deep roads. Even if you side against them, you don't have to actually kill them.
Being able to fill up the friend or rival bar doesn't really change anything about my argument.
It's fine to have a sibling in a game, but the main reason to care about what happens to them shouldn't be "because they're my sibling" which is how I felt about Bethany and Carver.
but you can keep your sibling alive even if you side against them in the end chapter, so there's no real decision that needs to be made surrounding those characters. I would also say that Meredith and Orsino better represented the two sides of the major conflict because they're both always present and actively conflicting with each other in the game.
Even if your example you're noting my choice is "slaughtering the sibling" but what if we removed that? Keep everything else the exact same but say that Bethany/Carver aren't your sister or brother.
How much would you care about siding with the mages against Carver then?
doesnt your sibling die or no depending on diferents reason, like on 1 play i got my brother to be a Warden and he didnt die, but in another play he was a Templar and he die.
doesnt your sibling die or no depending on diferents reason, like on 1 play i got my brother to be a Warden and he didnt die, but in another play he was a Templar and he die.
One will always die at the start of the game. Bethany if you're playing a Mage or Carver if Warrior/Rogue.
The other one is a large "it depends", but you can still keep them alive even if Carver is a Templar or Bethany is a circle mage.
doesnt your sibling die or no depending on diferents reason, like on 1 play i got my brother to be a Warden and he didnt die, but in another play he was a Templar and he die.
You can have a Templar Carver survive the game even if you side against the Templars.
You can have a Templar Carver survive the game even if you side against the Templars.
hmmm really??? i guess i miss some dialogue choice =P well he die for me. (really like him dying he was a ******* as Templar)
It sounds good, I guess we will know more once people get to play the game.
Only if you take him/her down into the deep roads
..which is a choice.
..which is a choice.
plus there is steps involve about getting him to become a warden, isnt just taking him to the deep roads.
I'm talking about the end if you didn't take them into the deep roads. Even if you side against them, you don't have to actually kill them.
Being able to fill up the friend or rival bar doesn't really change anything about my argument.
It's fine to have a sibling in a game, but the main reason to care about what happens to them shouldn't be "because they're my sibling" which is how I felt about Bethany and Carver.
I seriously hate the automatic "just cuz they're my family, I have to protect and love them" trope (which is in most Hollywood movies, aka World War Z...or any movie with family ever), but the way the sibling was written didn't rub me this way. Yeah, you're stuck with your sibling and they tag along, but you never actively protect them or really have to be nice to them, ever. Pretty sure you don't throw around "I love you, sis" or "I will always love you, bro"..not that I can recall, anyways. Financially, like in a real family, they share your house for part of the game. Opportunities - limited by the kinds of opportunities in that city, and in that world - arise, and they take those opportunities to depart. There is always a bit of antagonism between you, so it's never mushy or forced friendly feels. But of course you do have to have at least one or two scenes with them to some extent since.... yeah, they're your sibling and you can't avoid that certain elements - shared house, shared mother (who is an important part of the plot) affect you both.
A few things make them strong characters on their own. First, they repeatedly observe and react to being in your shadow. When quests are completed, when Varric says that you're sought be name, but not so much your sibling - they react. So there is jealousy there, demonstrated. Then, they have their own motivations apart from you, which is one of the greatest things about Dragon Age 2. They're not sitting around at your beck and call. You come back from the Deep Roads and find out they got antsy and up and left, did their own thing. And in the third act, if they became a grey warden, you see they're still doing their own thing, with Stroud. They observe and react to the mother and the uncle, fighting. Why? It impacts the home both of you have to share. You're not some wandering RPG hero with massive resources and independence at the start of the game. You have valid reasons to be stuck together, whether you like it or not.
Character is defined by action. But story requires setting, not just character and action. Setting has constraints, and circumtances which limit the scope of action characters may take.
You lack one of those elements, you have a crappy story. Which is how I felt about Inquisition.
And this goes back to the whole tears I see about RPG's limiting choices.
RPG's should have choices. Those choices should also have impacts. However, I believe that in order to preserve suspension of disbelief and have a quality story, those choices - although clearly different from one another - should be rational (it follows the situation and has some opinion which you could headcanon behind it), and also should be limited because of the situation.
Here is an example:
Vivienne says: "Darling, the circle is missing some books."
Here are irrational choices:
1. "It's 8:00 PM," you respond.
2. You suddenly knit a scarf.
3. You run downstairs and make out with Solas.
4. You laugh and then dance around her.
Here are rational but not very interesting choices:
1. "Sure, Vivienne, I'll help with that."
2. "No, Vivienne, I'm not helping with that."
... okay. Yeah, great job. Two choices there, Inquisition.
Here are rational but more interesting choices:
1. You return 2 books and Vivienne gifts you a pair of boots.
2. You return 3 books and Vivienne gifts you an entire outfit for Halamshiral.
3. You refuse to help her.
4. You cheat and buy similar books. She can't tell the difference, and give you the clothes. Then she finds out and becomes really mad.
Really hope that the exploration part will be interesting and offer good incentives, considering they seem to be focusing on that a lot this time around. I'm diggin' the "alien races can be friendly/hostile based on player actions," part. Makes it sound like we'll get a couple choices in regards to how we choose to settle.
Really hope that the exploration part will be interesting and offer good incentives, considering they seem to be focusing on that a lot this time around. I'm diggin' the "alien races can be friendly/hostile based on player actions," part. Makes it sound like we'll get a couple choices in regards to how we choose to settle.
"Because Bioware used contrived plot devices in the trilogy" is not an excuse for them to continue using contrived plot devices in future games.But my point is different. My point is that in ME1, the story was about how humanity was super-competent and "special" in that sense - we were just better than the aliens. ME2 and ME3 tear humanity down a lot, but then introduce weird nonsense things that make humans special, like being super awesome reaper slurry.
I seriously hate the automatic "just cuz they're my family, I have to protect and love them" trope (which is in most Hollywood movies, aka World War Z...or any movie with family ever), but the way the sibling was written didn't rub me this way. Yeah, you're stuck with your sibling and they tag along, but you never actively protect them or really have to be nice to them, ever. Pretty sure you don't throw around "I love you, sis" or "I will always love you, bro"..not that I can recall, anyways. Financially, like in a real family, they share your house for part of the game. Opportunities - limited by the kinds of opportunities in that city, and in that world - arise, and they take those opportunities to depart. There is always a bit of antagonism between you, so it's never mushy or forced friendly feels. But of course you do have to have at least one or two scenes with them to some extent since.... yeah, they're your sibling and you can't avoid that certain elements - shared house, shared mother (who is an important part of the plot) affect you both.
A few things make them strong characters on their own. First, they repeatedly observe and react to being in your shadow. When quests are completed, when Varric says that you're sought be name, but not so much your sibling - they react. So there is jealousy there, demonstrated. Then, they have their own motivations apart from you, which is one of the greatest things about Dragon Age 2. They're not sitting around at your beck and call. You come back from the Deep Roads and find out they got antsy and up and left, did their own thing. And in the third act, if they became a grey warden, you see they're still doing their own thing, with Stroud. They observe and react to the mother and the uncle, fighting. Why? It impacts the home both of you have to share. You're not some wandering RPG hero with massive resources and independence at the start of the game. You have valid reasons to be stuck together, whether you like it or not.
Character is defined by action. But story requires setting, not just character and action. Setting has constraints, and circumtances which limit the scope of action characters may take.
You lack one of those elements, you have a crappy story. Which is how I felt about Inquisition.
Bethany doesn't up and leave, she gets caught by the Templars and taken away.
It's nice that Carver has his own motivations even if they are little more than just "stop being in PC's shadow", but there's not much else to him and I only really have 1 act to get attached to what little there is there for him before the game largely removes him from most of the rest of the game. Same goes for Bethany only with different motivations.
Between the little amount of time I have to get to know these characters and the fact that there isn't a whole lot there, it becomes hard for me to care about these people.
Then I end up feeling like "they're my sibling" is the main reason I have to care about them.
*snip*
Except the aliens did nothing to prepare for the reapers, and humanity were the only ones who were doing something to get ready for them even if it was Cerberus. ME2/3 has just as much if not more of the "human's are the best" trope since the reaper's view humans as the superior species worthy of being preserved and the "genetic diversity" with the experiments not to mention the reaper war and crucible project were lead by humans.
Retour en haut