It'll be a great game.
The first Mass Effect for the current gen consoles. Bioware will deliver its excellence
Then again I put little weight on dumb trivial crap like romance options
You be happy by expecting greatness in their areas of focus: exploration, characters, and story
It'll be a great game.
The first Mass Effect for the current gen consoles. Bioware will deliver its excellence
Then again I put little weight on dumb trivial crap like romance options
You be happy by expecting greatness in their areas of focus: exploration, characters, and story
I don't know one game they've made that actually has good exploration. That romance crap is funnily one of their more fleshed out features than that is.
I don't know one game they've made that actually has good exploration. That romance crap is funnily one of their more fleshed out features than that is.
BG2, for starters.
Nah, we need fewer Yes-Men inflating BioWare's ego.This is the attitude we need around here.
Do we ever get anywhere near Ilium again? And since I didn't buy the DLC I didn't revisit Omega.
BG2, for starters.
OK, fine.. but for starters? What else?
I'm playing through ME1 as we speak actually... and I like it, don't get me wrong.. but exploration was a slog. The idea is cool, but the planets were never interesting.
The scientific fluff kept it from sounding like space magic only if you didn't know anything about the words they picked at random during the rushed Wikipedia search they ran to add a science gloss to their space magic. It's tossed salad gibberish. And that's without getting into the actual science they didn't even need to butcher they they completely butchered anyway - like basically all of biology, or AI and machine learning, and so on.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.
The scientific fluff kept it from sounding like space magic only if you didn't know anything about the words they picked at random during the rushed Wikipedia search they ran to add a science gloss to their space magic. It's tossed salad gibberish. And that's without getting into the actual science they didn't even need to butcher they they completely butchered anyway - like basically all of biology, or AI and machine learning, and so on.
Mass Effect 1 is a combination of ignorance, Google, and space magic.
Sure, and most people don't know a lot about quantum physics or alien biology, I agree.
Could they have done it better? Most assuredly. But I still don't see how this excuses jumping face first into the logic-dumpster to search for ideas.
There are more shades of Sci-fi out there between the extremes of hard SF and pure fantasy rule-of-cool, ME1 at least tried to provide something in this regard.
If in ME1 you actually needed to stop and think about it for a moment (most of the time) to see the holes in the lore, ME2 slammed them into your face.
I would have preferred seeing a more "scientific" Sci-fi than even ME1 (such as it is), I certainly didn't want to see it becoming even more nonsensical.
Sarendidnothingwrong Yes he did.
Why so little faith in Mass Effect Andromeda?
Who says that i have little faith in Andromeda 
?
Sure. I'm just asking for intellectual honesty. ME1 was nonsense, but it sounded plausible if you didn't think about it too much, and the later games really were worse. StarcloudSWG's argument works fine without pretending that ME1 was something it wasn't.
Edit: more importantly, it's a mistake to ask for real SF. I don't think we really need that, and a lot of us wouldn't even want it.
Pretty much this in a nutshell. I buy into the idea that ME1 was more plausible than either of its follow-ups. That's not quite the same as believing that ME1 was carefully considered or scientifically plausible on its own merits.
As a nanoscientist, I run into this kind of thing all the time where if someone wants to justify some new piece of tech, the first phrase you'll see is some kind of reference to "nano-bots". It's not exactly an easy leap to go from pheromones to giant mind-controlling plants.
Another reason I am less than excited is because they are leaving the Milky Way.
I would prefer if the series continues in the Milky Way.
However they've deliberately junked that and so now have to rebuild it all again - by taking all of these races out of their setting and dumping them somewhere new, where they have no history or connection.
There could be another reason why they're going to Andromeda. They are working with a new engine. They aren't limited to anything in the Milky Way. They may also just want to give the Milky Way a rest for a bit. Its possible they want to go back to the Milky Way. Only time will answer that question.
It's a real shame for me as it could have been built upon, layer on layer, into something richer than each part.
It would not of been hard to continue in the Milky Way. As I've posted a few times before, just have the crucible fire its beam to destroy the reapers as soon as the Citadel arms are completely opened. It gets rid of all the stuff with the thing in the decision chamber.
The sequel can show the rebuilding of the galaxy. Deal with minor conflicts that will happen. Visit homeworld to help people. Explore new systems in the Milky Way. Also can be a mission to find out why the reapers did what they did.
If Shepard returns with the same characters, the game can be more on a personal level. Get to know the characters a little more. For example. If romancing Garrus, he and femshep are talking about whatever and femshep asks him what it was like for him when he first joined the turian military. At that point, the scene switches to Palaven with the player controlling Garrus. It shows him along with many other turians waiting to have their name called to be assigned to whatever platoon. The scene switches to having him on the firing range qualifying with his weapon. After a few moments, the scene comes back to the present.
It can the same for other characters. A private moment like that where the character goes back and talks about a certain event. The player controls that character.
I'm not sure they can pull it off again without us just having a lot of Not!Citadel and Not!Omega all over the place.
Only time will tell if the game does well. I believe it will.
The list goes on. Mass Effect 1 tried to get one thing right: a method of FTL travel that wasn't a complete farce on its face and a way of creating the force without calling it the force.
I think the reason ME1 comes across as more "sciency" than the sequels has less to do with how solid its science is than with the narrative approach. ME1 is a Trekkie's wet dream about going boldly where no one has gone before. The later entries in the series are action schlock. It's a weird transition.
I think the reason ME1 comes across as more "sciency" than the sequels has let to do with how solid its science is than with the narrative approach. ME1 is a Trekkie's wet dream about going boldly where no one has gone before. The later entries in the series are action schlock. It's a weird transition.
I think art and lighting and all of those little things somehow lend to it too. It's the difference between Citadel and Omega.
But ME3 is a different beast as well. I feel like it's defined by the Normandy than anything (even though the Normandy is in every game). That and a copious amount of despair.
The Prothean Beacons are pretty well explained in that they transmit images straight into the mind of the user. Such technology is not too far from what it is plausable today, the main difference is the lack of physcial connection between the transmitter and the reciever.
I think art and lighting and all of those little things somehow lend to it too. It's the difference between Citadel and Omega.
But ME3 is a different beast as well. I feel like it's defined by the Normandy than anything (even though the Normandy is in every game). That and a copious amount of despair.
ME3 also represents a tonal shift from ME2, I'd agree, but not as drastic as the one between ME1 and ME2. You could say ME1 is Star Trek, ME2 is Marvel and ME3 is DC.
I think the reason ME1 comes across as more "sciency" than the sequels has less to do with how solid its science is than with the narrative approach. ME1 is a Trekkie's wet dream about going boldly where no one has gone before. The later entries in the series are action schlock. It's a weird transition.
I tend to agree, but I also think some of it is just that ME1 was the first ME... people will tend to willingly make the "sci-fi" leaps of faith with the first... but then they tend start turning those sci-fi leaps into more and more of a "religion" with each sequel... It happened with Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Stargate... pretty much all of them... eventually, because the "science" in the first isn't really and doesn't really stand up anyways... the series just eventually chokes on its own as the writers have less and less "room" to come up with new ideas and new directions.
ME:A is not only about escaping the ME3 ending fiasco...but also about the writers trying to give themselves some creative room to take the series in new directions on several fronts. It would have certainly been easier for the to just start a new IP, but I suspect they also found there was enough of the "old sci-fi" in the ME Trilogy that they wanted to keep that they didn't want it said that the new IP was "just Mass Effect in sheep's clothing" either. They are really just caught between a rock and a hard place. To move forward, we players are going to have to make a few "leaps of faith" and be willing to let at least a little bit of the hard feelings of the past go. The ones that can't do that will just wind up not coming along for this new ride even if it does turn out to be a "good ride."
Nah, we need fewer Yes-Men inflating BioWare's ego.
What's the difference between Yes-Men and earnest fans?
Perhaps everyone who liked the Mass Effect franchise from the beginning are all Yes-Men.
I think earnest fans can still be honest about flaws.
BG2, for starters.
it's ability to clone sapient plant people (!!!),
Pretty much this in a nutshell. I buy into the idea that ME1 was more plausible than either of its follow-ups. That's not quite the same as believing that ME1 was carefully considered or scientifically plausible on its own merits.
As a nanoscientist, I run into this kind of thing all the time where if someone wants to justify some new piece of tech, the first phrase you'll see is some kind of reference to "nano-bots". It's not exactly an easy leap to go from pheromones to giant mind-controlling plants.
Plausibility isn't the problem. Consistency is.
I don't care if mass effect fields are caused by running an electric current through magic rocks. I just care that it behaves in a consistent manner throughout the series.
As long as you're paying the costs of having a canon ending anyway, why throw the additional cost of a retcon on top of that? Canonize Destroy and Rannoch is nearly solved, too.It would not of been hard to continue in the Milky Way. As I've posted a few times before, just have the crucible fire its beam to destroy the reapers as soon as the Citadel arms are completely opened. It gets rid of all the stuff with the thing in the decision chamber.
BG2 has exploration?
Yes. In the sense that DAI does, at least.
Retour en haut
