You may get your spectre status back in ME2, but you probably lost it at the start of ME3 anyway, because reasons.
This is the logic of the situation...
You may get your spectre status back in ME2, but you probably lost it at the start of ME3 anyway, because reasons. Taking orders from Anderson and Hackett only makes sense after you got your military rank back and up until Shepard is reinstated as a spectre. Becoming a spectre again in ME3 breaks any military ties. Having a military rank is then useless and merely cosmetic. Military orders wouldn't have any meaning.
I'm not sure how well the Insubordinate Path would have worked here, but it seems to me that this at least made more sense than simply having zero choice but to work for Cerberus in ME2. Heck it was at the point where you were actively blocked from accessing the galaxy map because some jerk sipping bourbon in some space hideaway wanted to speak to you.
I'm not sure how well the Insubordinate Path would have worked here, but it seems to me that this at least made more sense than simply having zero choice but to work for Cerberus in ME2. Heck it was at the point where you were actively blocked from accessing the galaxy map because some jerk sipping bourbon in some space hideaway wanted to speak to you.
Yes. But it is also bad story telling.
A spectre's primary responsibility is to preserve galactic stability by whatever means necessary. Spectres only answer to the Council. The Council shares information with them to accomplish that task. The Council doesn't even don't want to know the details.
In ME1 the Council treats Shepard like that and repeatedly tells Shepard to act freely on that information. Shepard is free to ignore it. Anderson and Hackett cannot order Shepard anymore. Hackett often reminds Shepard that he/she is not under his control. So, instead Hackett presents his missions as requests.
ME3 simply had to return to that same mechanism. It didn't. Instead Shepard follows Hackett's orders. It feels just like ME2 were Shepard is following TIM's orders.
The writers have chosen not to, because reasons.
The Council makes it pretty clear that regranting you "Spectre Status" in ME2 is about as useful as an honorary doctorate degree: it's in name only.
Yes. And?
Edit: Note that you are reinstated as a spectre again in ME3 and are given access to any resources and information required. Full spectre status.
The Council makes it pretty clear that regranting you "Spectre Status" in ME2 is about as useful as an honorary doctorate degree: it's in name only.
It always sounded like that was more of a "You'll pretend you're not part of a racist anti-Council terrorist group," and "We'll pretend your completely illegitimate actions in non-Council space are notionally endorse." Which is to say, a completely insane proposition by the Council crafted by writers that absolutely do not understand the implications of seemingly sanctioned state covert operations outside of sovereign borders. The ME2 writers seem to think Shepard basically carrying out clandestine operations outside of Council space makes it better for the Council and not a big deal if they superficially endorse it, instead of a total disaster.
for me I am not expecting great things, but that is because I have not liked the last three BW games (DA2, ME3 and DAI) will still look into it, and see what the reactions are after launch.
Uh...
I wonder whether that massive estimation of the trilogy and the hype resulting from it will lead to a corresponding level of disappointment or make the game enjoyable no matter what?
As i said it depends of what they will do.
Continuity is the key. They have to kept all the aspects that made it great. And look to the errors and make it even better. That have everything to do it as good at least.
Going back to the OP: I've found the games gradually less fun. I've replayed ME3 a lot less than ME1&2, and didn't replay DA:I at all (matter of fact it took me several tries to even beat it).
Then I found GTAV which blew everything I played before out of the water (except on characterization, where Bioware is still the best for me). I don't believe Andromeda will be as vibrant and entertaining as Los Santos, so that dampens my enthusiasm. The game may prove me wrong and I'll be happy as a nug.
This is something i've noticed yet I don't necessarily know why.
The Mass Effect trilogy has been one of the more consistent trilogies in terms of quality (outside of ME3s hiccups) around in recent years yet for some reason the fanbase seems to have almost zero hope for Andromeda.
Franchises like Dark Souls, Final Fantasy, Witcher, Deus Ex still manage to conjure up hype yet they are way less consistent than the Mass Effect trilogy, what gives?
Is it modern Bioware or the game series itself? I would understand fears with Modern Bioware but not the game series itself, Mass Effect 1, 2 and 3 are all legitimately fantastic games.
It's 'modern' Bioware.
With the original Mass Effect game, we got a detail-oriented speculative science fiction setting that was mostly grounded in real-world physics with a touch of the fantastic; Element Zero, from which ALL the fantastic elements of the setting were derived. Actions had consequences; the consequences of background historical events were on display in the story, in the plot, in the interactions between characters. The fictional history mattered and Shepard suffered setbacks, there was always the feeling of not being entirely safe, of the whole thing collapsing around Shepard's ears. You see it in the number of ships that were attacked by pirates, in the derelict ships where all the crew were murdered because one of them went insane, in the frequency of dead bodies on isolated planets. THIS version of the Mass Effect universe did not feel safe. There were constant reminders of mortality. The Normandy was small and cramped, it felt cramped. Crowded. Like a destroyer or frigate in space should feel.
That changed when Drew left the writing team. Mac Walters took over even in Mass Effect 2, and suddenly it went from being inspired by Asimov and Heinlein to being inspired by Roddenberry and JJ Abrams. Dramatic speeches, philosophical sounding nonsense without any real meaning, and suddenly Shepard felt invincible. Like the commander *could not* fail. All deaths were in game-play or directly part of the story. Aiea could have been very different, with graves and skeletal remains and a few survivors huddling together. Instead.. not. Just as one major example that should have shown how hostile the universe is when you step onto alien worlds. The Normandy got larger, more decks, roomier passageways, single-function rooms that were not the infirmary or engineering. More like something you'd see on Star Trek: The Next Generation, DS 9, and Voyager.
The degeneration became complete by the end of Mass Effect 3. The ending was poorly set up pseudo-philosophical nonsense that should have been built up to throughout ALL three games, but instead Mass Effect 3 had to rehash the entire series into a single game. And the writing team was not up to that challenge. The moments with the big payoffs? Tuchanka and Rannoch? Those had been set up in Mass Effect, with the writers who knew what they were setting up FOR. And that early detail-oriented work paid off big time. Thessia? Not so much, the entire arc was dealt with in twenty or thirty minutes. There was no set up, and no real pay off. Horizon? Another chance to show off Mac Walter's love for Cerberus. The 'fight for Earth?' Almost completely irrelevant to Shepard's story except as a sound stage to play hero in.
Bioware's recent demonstrated history with Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3 are why people here hold few hopes for Andromeda to be anything more than yet another generic sci-fi story.
Well, except for asari mind magic, the "essence of a species," and various other non-rational elements.With the original Mass Effect game, we got a detail-oriented speculative science fiction setting that was mostly grounded in real-world physics with a touch of the fantastic; Element Zero, from which ALL the fantastic elements of the setting were derived.
Well, except for asari mind magic, the "essence of a species," and various other non-rational elements.
We should probably throw in the Thorian and Rachni for good measure.
Well, except for asari mind magic, the "essence of a species," and various other non-rational elements.
We should probably throw in the Thorian and Rachni for good measure.
Even those elements were mostly explained as various biological phenomena, it was was still rather fantastic, but the scientific fluff was mostly enough
to keep it from sounding like actual space magic. (connecting nerve systems, pheromones, spores, biological quantum entanglement, etc.)
Since ME2 however, those considerations to the theme and careful handling of the lore were mostly thrown out of the airlock and replaced by comic-book logic. (Dominate, Reave, "appropriate attire" for space walks, the thermal clip logic, etc. - in addition to the stuff mentioned above.)
ME3 was slightly better in this regard, but still not as good as ME1 when it came to the theme and feeling of the universe.
Not that I'm defending EA, but they "won" an internet poll that was heavily vote-bombed by 4chan's /v/.
It's a little laughable when you look at some of the other companies on the lists the two years they won, more than a few of which have actually ruined peoples' lives for profit.
I'm not disagreeing, but I will point out that EA has ruined some lives of employees. There is a reason they've had a lot of top management turn over. I just so damn tired of people defending EA. Honestly, as consumers we shouldn't be defending any big companies because as you and I'm sure others know they all ****** suck. We continue buying and eating up their bull. We need to demand better and stop buying ****** poor games. That goes for the whole industry. Just annoys me.
"Why so little faith in ME:A?"
Because the last game of the series was Mass Effect 3.
And I seem to recall several people not being overly pleased with how that ended up.
That game needed one more year of polishing. But I was pleased by it up until the ending. Ext cut helped. But that first ending made me want to puke. Wasn't a great end to the Trilogy but they did the best with what they had."Why so little faith in ME:A?"
Because the last game of the series was Mass Effect 3.
And I seem to recall several people not being overly pleased with how that ended up.
"Why so little faith in ME:A?"
Because the last game of the series was Mass Effect 3.
And I seem to recall several people not being overly pleased with how that ended up.
It's posts like this that I wish I could like twice
Like x2!"Why so little faith in ME:A?"
Because the last game of the series was Mass Effect 3.
And I seem to recall several people not being overly pleased with how that ended up.
The premise is wrong. The basic physical science underlying AI needn't be like brain architecture at all, because AI is a different kind of information processing problem. That's the very nature of AI, and the reason why we rely on it. It's not an attempt to clone the human mind: it's an attempt to solve discrete information processing problems. If the goal is to clone a human mind it might be that we use the same architecture - but that's only true if there is only one architecture that can support a mind we recognize as human. Even that is a leap at present.
On an analytical level this premise assumes that there's only one way to design minds - but that's an absolutely radical assumption. It may well be true - but there's no evidence for it (and our own information processing theories suggest the opposite).
As for Integrated Information Theory, there are a lot of issues. The basic analytical problem is that it takes consciousness for granted. It doesn't help us explain why conscious exist because it's an underlying premise of the system that it exists. This is helpful for humans - we know we are conscious (without jumping into solipsism or radical scepticism). This is not helpful for machine intelligence at all. Anyway, to discuss this further would be to launch into a fun intellectual debate that may be outside this thread but I'm game for it.
IIT theory doesn't predict consciousness - it assumes it and tries to create a theory around its existence. A lot of it is based on entrenched assumptions about human neural architecture. But AI is about information processing - it's an entirely different way of approaching human cognition. Just assuming phenomenology of consciousness leads to total gibberish.
Bioware built up interesting places - Ilium, Omega, Tchunka, the Citadel for example - which even if we only fly past serve as an emotional reminder of past experiences which tie us to the fiction more.
I agree emphatically
We need Faith in Andromeda.
*Sips Ryncol*
People outside the Bioware fandom i'm sure are excited, however most see Bioware fans to be loud, annoying and rather rude&radical. I mean...look at the BW fandom on Tumblr...
And maybe it's just me, but I think Bioware games have been going downhill since Dragon Age Origins, and lot of tactics and skill has been removed so everything plays like a super fast action shooter, Heck even the mages in Dragon Age play more like a Rocket Launcher. Plus I don't really like how Bioware does the same sex romances for men. Kaidan and Steve were good but that's literally one game out of a trilogy and one game out of...the countless other games they've made including the DA series.
Apart from that, I think people are just reserved about the game to avoid potential disappointment.
Retour en haut