935 réponses à ce sujet

[GoldenGail3]

DAI - a ****** mess. Bad design choices; like the 8 slot limit in the ability bar; the loot system was (and still is) terrible; MMO style of play; actually forcing me to farm mob (by saving, killing, saving, etc etc) for drops to craft; bad hair; invisible walls, hills, doors - all designed to waste time (another MMP tactic); a TERRIBLE boss fight (the end battle was worthless... I just sat back and let my companion kill Cory); plot holes (though Trespasser helped); fetch quests; bad combat (no auto hit - though this was added by a DLC; and adding features and fixing bugs in paid DLC's.

And this is just off the top of my head. Since I haven't played the game in a year or so. Want more? Look in the DAI forums.

BW was taken off my auto-buy list when DAI hit. IMHO they destroyed the DA franchise. MEA, I will wait a few weeks to see players reviews and thoughts before I pay $60+. If it's bad, I'll still buy it, when it hits the $5.99 bin.

In short, I don't trust BW [anymore] and certainly not EA to produce a good RPG game. 

Wanna bet MEA will turn out to be just another shooter with a 20 min story? It'll be all about playing online. Just like all the other EA titles. So they can milk us to death with micro-payments.

Oh and the things in DA2, too. Like all of your choices in Awakening, taken away from you, It ain't matter what you did in DA:A to do something to Anders/Justice's fate; it doesn't matter for shite what you did in DA:A 

[AngryFrozenWater]

... and fixing bugs in paid DLC's.

 

...

I was part of the DAI beta patch test team. As far as I know no bugs were fixed in the main game that required payed DLCs.

[straykat]

Oh and the things in DA2, too. Like all of your choices in Awakening, taken away from you, It ain't matter what you did in DA:A to do something to Anders/Justice's fate; it doesn't matter for shite what you did in DA:A 

 

I agree. 

 

Although their story for Justice was a pretty natural followup. That was a disaster waiting to happen.

 

They had actually first planned it to be Velanna possessed, funnily.

[GoldenGail3]

I agree. 

 

Although their story for Justice was a pretty natural followup. That was a disaster waiting to happen.

 

They had actually first planned it to be Velanna possessed, funnily.

Yeah... Indeed. I actually would've petered it by this point if Valanna had be possessed. it would of made sense for her to blow up a chantry 

[straykat]

Yeah... Indeed. I actually would've petered it by this point if Valanna had be possessed. it would of made sense for her to blow up a chantry 

 

I think there might've been more elven reasons to it as well.

 

I get the feeling that the Crazed Elf that worked for Petrice was some recycled version of crazy Velanna. I love that character as it is though.

[Akka le Vil]

If anyone is interested, PM me and I can elaborate on why modern neuroscience predicts that something like the Geth is totally feasible, as it is too off topic for this discussion.

Granted, only one (IIT) of many modern theories on the mind predict that the Geth would be possible, and that theory may very well be wrong. But given that it has successfully predicted things like when someone was going to emerge from a coma, which patients had locked in syndrome, and given that it is the only mathematically specific theory on consciousness that we have...I say fat chance that it is wrong. Incomplete, maybe, but not wrong. Much like how Darwin's original model of evolutionary theory was incomplete, but not wrong.

So yeah, I will always stand by my view that L'Etoile is either a genius or accidentally so .

 

I'd say, it's not even a big deal if it's wrong in the end, as it was already extremely well done. SF, even "hard" SF, is by definition not based on what is "true" (because it would be contemporary science) but what is "plausible/believable/realistic". Obviously the closer it is to what we know, the "harder" it is, but a sufficiently thought-out guess is already pretty much the best we can get.

 

You say that like it's a bad thing. Wake up. It's been EA for years.

 

And Bioware has published only disappointing games since then. You're not really helping your case.

 

I can't parse your sentence at all. How can a setting be rife with "obvious BS" and yet achieve any degree of versimilitude. Let's take for granted your superior intelligence - just enlighten the peon.

 

Hint : it's not because you claim "it's rife with BS" that it actually is. I hope you can manage to find a working parser from then on.

[Akka le Vil]

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.

 

I disagree. ME1 wasn't "nonsense", it was "hardish SF with space opera conventions". The biggest nonsenses I've felt were the always-humanoid forms of Council races and the fact that biological beings could fight on equal terms with robotic ones, and it's obviously more to do with narrative imperative than science research failing.

 

ME1 had a few elements stretching the believability, but the overwhelming majority of the content was surprisingly realistic/believable. And it's exactly what was massively cut from ME3, THEN going full into "space magic" and "nonsense", and the very reason why ME3 was such shite.

[nfi42]

I disagree. ME1 wasn't "nonsense", it was "hardish SF with space opera conventions".

 

Hardish excepting element zero, the space magic that is biotics, space vampires that is Asari, omnitools, infinite ammo.

 

Really quite soft then.

 

Edit: forgot medigel and omnigel.

[Akka le Vil]

Hardish excepting element zero, the space magic that is biotics, space vampires that is Asari, omnitools, infinite ammo.

 

Really quite soft then.

 

Edit: forgot medigel and omnigel.

 

That's why I said "hardish" and not "hard".

Though the most important point is, nearly every example you list was actually treated and explained instead of handwaved - and even more, the consequences of their existence were also incorporated in the world. THAT is what makes it believable and considerably harden the setting.

Element Zero alone does most of the heavy lifting - you accept the premises that there is some substance which has this mass effect, and it manages to explain most of the rest in a very believable fashion.

Internal consistency and attention to details is what's important, not if the single one big lie is strictly speaking real or not.

 

The amount of realistic/believable stuff in ME is pretty huge, certainly much higher than any other popular SF franchise I've ever seen - the overwhelming majority of the stuff you encounter in game is actually detailed, explained and justified in the worldbuilding. There is details about military doctrine, how heat is one of the central point of space combat, how space fighting is done (even though it's sadly mostly ignored in the story to make room for Hollywood cutscenes), how weapons work and so on. That's certainly not something that can be even remotely compared to Star Wars or Star Trek or whatever.

[nfi42]

That's why I said "hardish" and not "hard".

Though the most important point is, nearly every point you list was actually treated and explained instead of handwaved, and even more, the consequences of their existence was also incorporated in the world - THAT is what makes it believable and harden the setting. Element Zero alone does most of the heavy lifting - you accept the premises that there is some substance which has this mass effect, and it manages to explain most of the rest. Internal consistency and attention to details is what's important, not if the single one big lie is strictly speaking real or not.

 

Fair enough,  I just would never use the term hard or hardish to  describe it though.  I agree that they did go to some effort to explain it all which was good.

[In Exile]

I'd say, it's not even a big deal if it's wrong in the end, as it was already extremely well done. SF, even "hard" SF, is by definition not based on what is "true" (because it would be contemporary science) but what is "plausible/believable/realistic". Obviously the closer it is to what we know, the "harder" it is, but a sufficiently thought-out guess is already pretty much the best we can get.


And Bioware has published only disappointing games since then. You're not really helping your case.


Hint : it's not because you claim "it's rife with BS" that it actually is. I hope you can manage to find a working parser from then on.

Yeah, it works. It turns out you have absolutely no idea what hard sci-fi is, as this most makes very clear. You certainly have no idea about what is plausible or realistic. Or rather, you get what the word means but clearly seem incapable of applying it.

[straykat]

It's too influenced by Star Wars for me to call it "hard sci-fi". Despite the wrapper looking fairly realistic (militaristic, alien paranoia/weariness).

[straykat]

I will just add, the only "hard sci-fi with space opera conventions" I know is Dune. This is still more fantastical than that.. despite Dune being weird as ****.

[Iakus]

I will just add, the only "hard sci-fi with space opera conventions" I know is Dune. This is still more fantastical than that.. despite Dune being weird as ****.

Try The Expanse series.  Harder sf than Dune and still has fantastical elements to it.

[Gwydden]

I disagree. ME1 wasn't "nonsense", it was "hardish SF with space opera conventions". The biggest nonsenses I've felt were the always-humanoid forms of Council races and the fact that biological beings could fight on equal terms with robotic ones, and it's obviously more to do with narrative imperative than science research failing.

 

ME1 had a few elements stretching the believability, but the overwhelming majority of the content was surprisingly realistic/believable. And it's exactly what was massively cut from ME3, THEN going full into "space magic" and "nonsense", and the very reason why ME3 was such shite.

That's actually one of the least nonsensical things in the trilogy. Nfi42 didn't mention such quaint little notions as the Thorian, the Cipher and the beacons and even the way FTL works. And I'm sure we're still forgetting a bunch of stuff.

 

ME1 isn't even remotely close to being hard sci fi. At most you could say it's harder than other science fiction video games, but even that is questionable.  It's worth remembering that the series started as a shameless collage of genre classics composed mostly of Star Wars (a cliche fantasy story... in spaaaaace!)  and Star Trek (for a side order of meaningless technobabble) and then later entries went into a more comic booky, Marvel/DC direction.

 

Meanwhile, ME owes very little to Foundation, or Dune, or Neuromancer, or any other science fiction classic that could be considered remotely hard.

[Akka le Vil]

Yeah, it works. It turns out you have absolutely no idea what hard sci-fi is, as this most makes very clear. You certainly have no idea about what is plausible or realistic. Or rather, you get what the word means but clearly seem incapable of applying it.

For someone who can't understand a simple sentence in english, is simplistic and binary enough to not see a difference between Star Wars and Mass Effect, and get pompous about IA before being schooled by someone who actually knows something, you sure talk big about intellectual abilites 

 

That's actually one of the least nonsensical things in the trilogy. Nfi42 didn't mention such quaint little notions as the Thorian, the Cipher and the beacons and even the way FTL works. And I'm sure we're still forgetting a bunch of stuff.

 

ME1 isn't even remotely close to being hard sci fi. At most you could say it's harder than other science fiction video games, but even that is questionable.  It's worth remembering that the series started as a shameless collage of genre classics composed mostly of Star Wars (a cliche fantasy story... in spaaaaace!)  and Star Trek (for a side order of meaningless technobabble) and then later entries went into a more comic booky, Marvel/DC direction.

 

Meanwhile, ME owes very little to Foundation, or Dune, or Neuromancer, or any other science fiction classic that could be considered remotely hard.

You DO realize you used Foundation (with psychohistory, psychic powers, space opera battles, FTL handwaving and 20 000 years of robotic progress unable to beat human brain) as a shining example of "hard" SF against ME ?

Except if it was supposed to be ironic, I'm not sure you could have got a worst example...

 

It seems there is quite a bit of jerking about trying to look down on ME about hardness, actively attempting to ignore the massive solid background to focus on the few space opera tropes or lazy handwaving, while doing the exact opposite on other works. Try to be consistent, people.

[Iakus]

 

Meanwhile, ME owes very little to Foundation,

Psychohistory (Asimov's take on it, at least).    Shepard being an "anomaly" (the Mule)

 

 

or Dune, 

Kinetic barriers.   Council of Matriarchs.  Synthetic uprisings.  Arguably thresher maws.

 

 

or Neuromancer,

 Grayboxes.  Arguably the geth and Project Overlord

[Gwydden]

For someone who can't understand a simple sentence in english, is simplistic and binary enough to not see a difference between Star Wars and Mass Effect, and get pompous about IA before being schooled by someone who actually knows something, you sure talk big about intellectual abilites 

 

You DO realize you used Foundation (with psychohistory, psychic powers, space opera battles, FTL handwaving and 20 000 years of robotic progress unable to beat human brain) as a shining example of "hard" SF against ME ?

Except if it was supposed to be ironic, I'm not sure you could have got a worst example...

 

It seems there is quite a bit of jerking about trying to look down on ME about hardness, actively attempting to ignore the massive solid background to focus on the few space opera tropes or lazy handwaving, while doing the exact opposite on other works. Try to be consistent, people.

Psychohistory (Asimov's take on it, at least).    Shepard being an "anomaly" (the Mule)

I admit I'm not well read in science fiction; I very much prefer fantasy and weird fiction. My point still stands, though. ME is hardly hard sci fi (ha!) and I'm not sure why it has to be, anymore than Dragon Age has to be authentically medieval (it isn't). The tag of soft sci fi is not an insult. In fact, I prefer it that way. Too much science and I feel like I'm back in that ninth circle of hell known as a physics lesson.

[Spectr61]

Hardish excepting element zero, the space magic that is biotics, space vampires that is Asari, omnitools, infinite ammo.
 
Really quite soft then.
 
Edit: forgot medigel and omnigel.

Hey, medigel exists right here on our good ol' Earth!

Ever seen a soccer match "injury" fixed by the "magic sponge and spray bottle"?

Happens every game, everywhere.

Obviously it's gotta be medigel, fixes anything instantly.

[Akka le Vil]

I admit I'm not well read in science fiction; I very much prefer fantasy and weird fiction. My point still stands, though. ME is hardly hard sci fi (ha!) 

 

Okay, wait. You make the claim that ME is "not hard SF, look at what IS hard SF" and then admit you don't know anything about your own examples ?

I'm sorry to say, but it makes it a bit hard to take your claims seriously there... 

 

and I'm not sure why it has to be, anymore than Dragon Age has to be authentically medieval (it isn't). The tag of soft sci fi is not an insult. In fact, I prefer it that way. Too much science and I feel like I'm back in that ninth circle of hell known as a physics lesson.

Dragon Age has no reason to be authentically medieval because it's a different culture (even if HEAVILY inspired by our own world). As such, DA can be totally consistent and believable without being a copy-paste of Earth.

ME has a good reason to be hard, because hardness in SF means, by definition, attention to details, consistency and good worldbuilding. That's the main draw of hard SF actually, the same difference as between a good plot and a bad plot (on this aspect, sadly, ME DOES fall short).

[Iakus]

Hey, medigel exists right here on our good ol' Earth!

Ever seen a soccer match "injury" fixed by the "magic sponge and spray bottle"?

Happens every game, everywhere.

Obviously it's gotta be medigel, fixes anything instantly.

In fact, medi-gel actually exists today, though it's still in animal testing.

 

Veti-gel

[Spectr61]

In fact, medi-gel actually exists today, though it's still in animal testing.

Veti-gel

Pfft.

This has nothing on our soccer's (OK - football for you hooligans) magic sponge and spray bottle.

Immediate and lasting goodness sure to get you back in the game no matter even if you were carted off the field of battle only moments before on a stretcher.

One spray, one rub, and viola - healed perfectly and ready to go.

[Shechinah]

Dragon Age has no reason to be authentically medieval because it's a different culture (even if HEAVILY inspired by our own world). As such, DA can be totally consistent and believable without being a copy-paste of Earth.

ME has a good reason to be hard, because hardness in SF means, by definition, attention to details, consistency and good worldbuilding. That's the main draw of hard SF actually, the same difference as between a good plot and a bad plot (on this aspect, sadly, ME DOES fall short).
 
As far as I know, hard science fiction is a category of science fiction characterized by an emphasis on scientific accuracy or technical detail or both. As in, it is about being accurate to real science and basically; "a story should try to be accurate, logical, credible and rigorous in its use of current scientific and technical knowledge about which technology, phenomena, scenarios and situations that are practically and/or theoretically possible."
 
Science fiction in the soft or fantasy category can have attention to detail, consistency and good worldbuilding. These tend to be the mark of fictional works.
 
Also, Mass Effect has never belonged in the category of hard science fiction since I do not think biotic, amongst other things, are developed or derived from anything currently in existence in the real world.

[AlanC9]

I disagree. ME1 wasn't "nonsense", it was "hardish SF with space opera conventions". The biggest nonsenses I've felt were the always-humanoid forms of Council races and the fact that biological beings could fight on equal terms with robotic ones, and it's obviously more to do with narrative imperative than science research failing.

ME1 had a few elements stretching the believability, but the overwhelming majority of the content was surprisingly realistic/believable. And it's exactly what was massively cut from ME3, THEN going full into "space magic" and "nonsense", and the very reason why ME3 was such shite.

Well, there doesn't seem to be any point going on with this, since we're looking at the same data and interpreting it differently.

The only thing I'll add is that I'm luckier than you. Since I always thought that ME was science fantasy, having the fantasy elements foregrounded in the later games couldn't hurt my experience.

[Gwydden]

Okay, wait. You make the claim that ME is "not hard SF, look at what IS hard SF" and then admit you don't know anything about your own examples ?

I'm sorry to say, but it makes it a bit hard to take your claims seriously there... 

I never claimed they were hard sci fi, but rather listed them among classics that could be considered at least "remotely hard." My main point was that those were seminal works in science fiction and yet ME takes very little after them, in spite of it shamelessly imitating Star Wars, Star Trek and Marvel, none of which are even "remotely hard" (and yes, I am familiar with those three universes even if I'm not much of a fan, hence why they made up the core of my argument and I introduced them earlier).

 

Not to mention that not having read some particular work is not the same as not knowing anything about it. I don't need to have read the Epic of Gilgamesh to know it's a foundational example of the Hero's Journey.

 

Dragon Age has no reason to be authentically medieval because it's a different culture (even if HEAVILY inspired by our own world). As such, DA can be totally consistent and believable without being a copy-paste of Earth.

I would argue against that thesis, since DA does have a self-evident reason to be authentically medieval: authenticity. Placing characters with modern values and ways of thinking in a pre-modern setting, like some glorified Renaissance faire, is one of the most annoying tendencies of contemporary fantasy. It makes the setting feel fake, by copying all of the set dressing and yet none of the substance; in real life, our current moral system has a very intricate historical context.

 

ME has a good reason to be hard, because hardness in SF means, by definition, attention to details, consistency and good worldbuilding. That's the main draw of hard SF actually, the same difference as between a good plot and a bad plot (on this aspect, sadly, ME DOES fall short).

Attention to details, consistency and good worlbuilding can be present not only in soft sci fi but also in fantasy. It's not at all exclusive to hard sci fi. In fact, it would surprise me if there were many works of even the hardest science fiction that could match The Lord of the Rings in attention to detail, consistency and worldbuilding. And that works to its detriment as a literary work, in my opinion. My interest rests firmly in good storytelling, not in good science.