Mass Effect 3
- Thread starter Ghengis_John
- Start date
Jaxel
Administrator
What I mean by typical tropes of bad sci-fi... I mean bullshit mythos. Bad sci-fi tends to have overly complicated plots, with political twist after political twist that simply don't make sense. And in order to shoehorn those "twists" in, they make characters do unrealistic or uncharacteristic actions. The best sci-fi stories actually have very simple plots... Battlestar Galactica, very simple. Stargate Atlantis, very simple. The original Star Wars trilogy, very simple.
Ghengis_John
[13] Hero
Nah. I loved mass effect from the first. Going back to create my infiltrator's play through though the combat was definitely better in mass effect 2. In that regard number one felt like a slog. But you can't beat the original for an introduction to the mass effect universe. For that matter... I don't even know if you talk to any Hanar in mass effect 2.
Some of us like things complicated. Looking at the real world from current events to human history, nothing is ever simple. While simple parables of good and evil make nice fables, sometimes you want something to sink your intellectual teeth into. For that matter, you shouldn't confuse mythos with plot. Bladerunner had a really simple plot, but between new technologies, future wars, a replicant uprising and the explanation of the societal structure a complicated enough mythos to fill up a series of novels.
The Landslide
[13] Hero
Yeah, I understand that too. That is also improved greatly in ME2, but of course it's still there. It is hard to find good writing anywhere, and nearly impossible to find good writing in the brutal combination of sci-fi and action/shooter video game. It's the kiss of death.
Just take my word that not only is ME2 an immense improvement on ME1, it's also one of the best WRPGs I've played in a while.
Jaxel
Administrator
I think you misunderstand. I LOVE intellectual plots; in fact most of my friends think I'm a little too stuck up about senseless movies without them (such as the shit Expendables or Inglorius Basterds). The problem is that complicated =/= intellectual. More often than not, complicated is at the EXPENSE of intellect; they are artificially made complicated through the stupid actions of characters. Characters that don't act human, don't follow their "character", or straight up have ambiguous motives that make little to no sense. This is the problem with most sci-fi.
For example, lets take a look at Stargate Universe (I hated the first half of the first season because of these very issues, but they cleaned it up very well after the 10th episode). In an episode, their ship is out of control and flying into a sun. So because they see their inevitable end, they put a few of their most important people (and a few more, through lottery) onto a space pod with supplies and stuff to colonize a planet and survive on their own, while everyone else heads to their doom, including a character named Dr. Rush. As it turns out, the ship was flying into the sun on purpose, and it uses the sun's power to refuel.
So at the end of the episode, they are talking about the result and how Dr. Rush excluded himself from the lottery and that was an act of benevolence. So someone says "maybe Dr. Rush knew the ship was going to refuel from the start?". And of course, everyone looks around at each other thinking to themselves, "yeah, that could be true, he is a dick after all". And you can tell from the way the show is directed, that the creators of the show wanted the viewer to think this too. But WTF? What is the motivation of this? Dr. Rush sacrifices some of the most important people on the ship, including some scientists and the ship's medic, as well as a ton of supplies... for what? Spite?
Shit like that doesn't make sense, and the creators of these shitty stories expect the viewers to just take it at face value thinking, "yeah, he's a dick". But myself, who likes to judge genuine actions you expect from normal people just could not accept it. Dr. Rush is the ONLY realist on the show, and its the reason why everyone thinks he's a dick. Because he's logical and he's always looking out for himself. Everything Dr. Rush does on the show is to extend his OWN life. And sacrificing the people on this space pod is totally against that basic ideal of this character. The sad part is, I feel that almost no one except myself questioned this... and people like this shitty sci-fi.
Another thing I hate about sci-fi is leadership. You guys have heard this from me for many years now, ever since the SC3 days... but what makes a good leader? Do you think Captain Janeway from Star Trek Voyager was a good leader? Ask a female Star Trek fan who they think the best captain was, and most of them will say Janeway. Why? Because she's female? She was a terrible leader, who flip flopped her ideals and couldn't make the hard decisions. It's her fault the Voyager was in such a shit predicament in the first place, because she couldn't do what needed to be done.
Colonel Young from Stargate Universe is another example of an extremely poor leader (at least during the first season). I mean to the point where MacGuyver is yelling at him during one episode for being a shitty leader. A leader makes the hard decisions; it doesn't even have to be the right/moral decision, but a decision must be made. By the end of the series, every episode starts with a subordinate saying to him "You are a good leader"; as if the creators of the show are trying to convince the viewer that its true. Say it enough, and people will believe it.
This is a fundamental problem with the sci-fi genre, writers and directors believe they can do anything because its "science fiction" and the viewers will accept it. Overly complicated plots, and political intrigue that don't actually have any logical merit tend to bog down even the more simple of sci-fi stories. They can simply create mythos and people are forces to accept them as fact. Just look at Star Wars... a senate would never WILLINGLY give up it's power to supreme dictator (emperor). Political power corrupts, and trying to shoehorn something different into your story is just bad sci-fi.
Jrasta111
[11] Champion
I remember you saying this sort of thing on the stream at some point, you have peaked my interest...
Now first
You're not alone, I thought this too, and I agree, but only if you assume the writers don't expect/want you to make your own interpretation of the event.
Colonel Young is clearly not smart like Rush, he is also shown to be unwilling to be the leader (unlike Rush), however he is forced into the position as it is. People tell him he is a great leader simply to reassure him (although at one point they do doubt their trust in him after he takes matters into his own hands), he represents one side; the military, while Rush represents the others; the civilians, make your own interpretation as to what that all means.
I'm not arguing Star Trek: Voyager; that series would have been over before it began by your version of events anyway and as for Star Wars, don't narc on my favourite parts (how much power do you really think the senate had left by then, it was about greed; throughout a galaxy not the White House) and I won't narc on yours (who am I kidding, I loved those teddy bears when I was a kid; loved watching them get blasted that is)
Now back to how this all applies to Mass Effect 3, a series I admittedly have little interest in.
Credits to Bioware for trying, but I don't buy into the game (I prefer games like Freelancer in terms of space games), let alone the story.
Jaxel
Administrator
Have you ever heard of a politician willingly giving up their power? Yes, politicians have stepped down, but thats because they are forced out of office for some reason or another, scandal, failure or whatever. There are many times where american citizens have given up their rights during "times of war", such as the patriot act. The idea is that onces the "war" is over, the government will return things to normal; but not ONCE in all of American history has our government every returned our sacrificed rights... be aware that Martial Law is not political power, it is military power, which is different. The idea of senate politicians surrendering their political power to an emperor who promises military power is just plain ludicrous. Now if he had used that military power to say "give me your political power, or else..." that would be different.
There is a reason why so much of the world hates our government. The US constitution protects Americans, in order to prevent our politicians from violating the rights of the citizens. So essentially the idea of the US constitution was to leave the government powerless against it's citizens. Unfortunately, it does not protect non-Americans. Since politicians cant abuse their power against Americans, they abuse their power against foreigners. Political power corrupts as absolutely as absolute power. This is pretty much a universal constant, and to pretend that a governing power in a sci-fi universe is any different is just hogwash.
That being said... I don't believe the powers in Mass Effect fall under this sci-fi tropes... they are just as corrupt as they should be.
Jrasta111
[11] Champion
Of course, I think you're taking this far too seriously, and I did try to point out that the general politics of a galaxy are going to go a bit (understatement of course, but I have no way to verify) different to what you're saying about our little world. We are still talking about sci-fi aren't we? The dark side of the force must be clouding my vision...
JAGTHEGEMINI
[12] Conqueror
@Jaxel
I hate it when story´s are complicated just for THE SAKE! of complexity. Well written story´s that are not over the top,with one or two twists, that´s what i like.
And totally agreed on the Captain Janeway part. She was a bad Captain. Not because she was to much like a mother instead of a leader for the crew, but because she changed her own ideals and those of Star Trek/Federation for her very own sake and for a few crewmembers(Endgame).
I hate it when story´s are complicated just for THE SAKE! of complexity. Well written story´s that are not over the top,with one or two twists, that´s what i like.
And totally agreed on the Captain Janeway part. She was a bad Captain. Not because she was to much like a mother instead of a leader for the crew, but because she changed her own ideals and those of Star Trek/Federation for her very own sake and for a few crewmembers(Endgame).
lobo
Luminario
Dullyanna
[10] Knight
Fucking awesome.
RT0wn
[10] Knight
I think ME1 had better character interaction, in that I didn't have to talk to my party members at certain times. No Miranda, I don't feel like talking to you about your Michael Jackson face right now. No Thane, I don't feel like talking to you about your alien cancer right now. No Grunt, stop headbutting that window.
I felt like a babysitter. So I'm wary about ME3.
I felt like a babysitter. So I'm wary about ME3.
Ghengis_John
[13] Hero
Nothing wrong so far. Totally agree with you.
Actually Jaxel, this is all a part of your own interpretation of events. Nobody shares Young's opinion when he says this, and while Rush does not accept the congratulations nobody but Young seems to hold it against him. I think the comment was more made to display the fact that Young absolutely does not trust Rush. I cannot claim to be an expert on the show. I only watched a few episodes because you brought it up. But it sounds like you really like Rush and hate Young and you may be letting that sway your opinion.
You also have to remember though that Rush is a person. He cries over a picture of his wife, who's death he was not even present for due to his obsession with the project he was working on. He may have felt that dying with the ship could serve as some measure of atonement to her. Or perhaps because the ship would be lost in this instance he saw no reason to continue. I have no idea why he is obsessed with his own survival, but it doesn't seem to be for the sake of life itself. Sometimes people defy your conceptions of them. You can't tell me people you know have never done things that confuse or surprise you. If he always acted a particular way, then there would be no depth to his character. He would be two dimensional, a cartoon character.
It sounds to me like you simply have a problem with humanist leaders. You commended Rush earlier for his pragmatism, but the fact of the matter is leaders take on all shapes and sizes. Nobody ever says "You know why Mahatmas Gandhi was a great leader? Because he wasn't afraid to get his hands dirty!" "Yeah, John Paul II, he made the decisions that got people killed!" Sometimes what "needs to be done" is just what you think "needs to be done", usually to be followed by the unspoken parenthesis "as long as it isn't done to me". You can't tell me smashing the way back home was not a "hard decision". What you mean to say is "it wouldn't have been my decision and I never forgave that". Would it have been mine? No. I would have went back through the gate and sent a photon torpedo through it on a timer if I really wanted to blow it up. But now I'm arguing about star trek on the internet and I've reached an all-time low.
Actually they voted to give the chancellor emergency powers. He then seized authority. Which has actually happened from Rome to France to Berlin. It wasn't really a stretch of the imagination that a senate might do that. It has before.
Ghengis_John
[13] Hero
So what? Now we're going to be pumping the Scissor Sisters on every deck of the Normandy?
"Battlemaster, there is a problem. No... I have a problem."
"Oh Grunt, don't tell me you're a homophobe?!"
"No battlemaster, it is simply... I ... I do not know how to dance!"
"Oh honey, no!"
"There was never anyone to teach me... Warlord Okeer... he taught me many things in the tank. How to find my enemies and then where to strike them where it hurts most! And yet... He told me nothing of how to move to music!"
"Or how to co-ordinate!"
"Hey!"
"Relax sweetie, just move like I do... And let the healing begin."
MrGruntsworthy
[10] Knight
Fox news is going to LOVE this.
Ghengis_John
[13] Hero
Derk Watts, art director for mass effect 3, walks us through the process of creating and evolving Garrus throughout the mass effect series:
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2011/04/22/mass-effect-3-creating-garrus.aspx
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2011/04/22/mass-effect-3-creating-garrus.aspx
LP
Premium Member
Wtfux! I expected to come here and they're be a pool of nerdgasm at the ME3 E3 stuff! You people disappoint me!
Ghengis_John
[13] Hero
Well, why don't you post some up amigo?
Koompbala
[09] Warrior
There is a lot of posts with a massive wall of text so I was to lazy to read everything and not sure if anyone brought this up but. Am I the only one disappointed with Shephard being chased by the Reaper and it stumbled after being hit by a little fire? That's one of the machines that took out the protheans really? That is what threatens the galaxy? Compared to Sovereign in the first one which took out 20,000 Alliance and 10-20,000 Turians too. One ship alone causes approximately 40,000 casualties and a different one stumbles from turret fire? I would like an explanation for the inconsistency going on here.
LP
Premium Member
No! That's exacty what I said! I mean, it got back up, but still, Sovereign took ay more than tht