DevilDog
Member
You're probably not that underleveled, it's just that Benezia is very hard unless you break line of sight of her, so that she can't hit you.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Mass Effect Community Thread
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
- Status
DeadlyParasite
Member
My strat for that fight is always go for the geth snipers first, then the commandos, and mop up the rest of the geth afterwards.
The whole fight becomes really easy though if you do Liara's mission, Feros, a bunch of sidequests, and then Noveria. You reach such a high level that even on higher difficulties you can just tank through the damage. The rachni poison is always ass to deal with though.
The whole fight becomes really easy though if you do Liara's mission, Feros, a bunch of sidequests, and then Noveria. You reach such a high level that even on higher difficulties you can just tank through the damage. The rachni poison is always ass to deal with though.
It was essentially impossible without my characters leveled. I tried the running down the stair and taking out her commandos tactic but I would get wiped out within 10-20 seconds.
It wasn't till I finished Virmire and all of the other main missions that I went back and handled that Benezia fight pretty easily.
DeadlyParasite
Member
What difficulty were you playing on?
Soldier on Normal. I'm level 30 right now but when I first fought her I would guess I was around level 14 or so? I just overpower with my Pistol using Marksmen and occasionally use Biotecs with other characters in my party
Even when I checked Google the complaints about the Benezia boss fight were there.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
It's important in all cases to have open discourse that allows the full spectrum of praise and criticisms. Certain threads can absolutely be borderline intolerable when it's nothing but posters piling shit on BioWare to the point where it stifles discussion, but I find the other extreme of echo chamber praise just as obnoxious and frustrating. For example, as much as I adore the Mass Effect series, I absolutely have numerous major complaints and criticisms with some key choices BioWare have made throughout the franchise, both in narrative in gameplay, and if I felt I couldn't discuss these in full I'd probably stop vising the threads or forum entire.
I wouldn't even call myself a big BioWare fan. I don't really like Dragon Age as a franchise very much and find all three games within that arc massively flawed. And by and large, even including Mass Effect, I don't feel BioWare's writers are as consistently high quality as some other developers out there. BioWare's worst writing is just awful or, if I want to be subjective, exactly what I personally don't want in my games. On top of that I don't even really count BioWare games as fully fledged role playing titles in the way that I personally like role playing titles. They're a great example of a diluted abstraction of the genre that merges with other genres. And I'm not arguing that they need to change this, I just find it amusing when they're praised as the fantastic "role playing game developers" when I constantly think they don't actually make role playing games to the strengths I prefer in the genre.
Even with Andromeda, a game I am very, very excited for, I still have a number of concerns about how the final product will turn out. I'm sure I'll enjoy it plenty (I enjoyed Inquisition too), but yeah. I can't say with absolute faith that BioWare will product a fantastic story. Or more importantly a consistent story. I can't say the game won't have bunk, filler game design. Because they stumble with all these facets quite regularly even if I still enjoy the end result.
I wouldn't even call myself a big BioWare fan. I don't really like Dragon Age as a franchise very much and find all three games within that arc massively flawed. And by and large, even including Mass Effect, I don't feel BioWare's writers are as consistently high quality as some other developers out there. BioWare's worst writing is just awful or, if I want to be subjective, exactly what I personally don't want in my games. On top of that I don't even really count BioWare games as fully fledged role playing titles in the way that I personally like role playing titles. They're a great example of a diluted abstraction of the genre that merges with other genres. And I'm not arguing that they need to change this, I just find it amusing when they're praised as the fantastic "role playing game developers" when I constantly think they don't actually make role playing games to the strengths I prefer in the genre.
Even with Andromeda, a game I am very, very excited for, I still have a number of concerns about how the final product will turn out. I'm sure I'll enjoy it plenty (I enjoyed Inquisition too), but yeah. I can't say with absolute faith that BioWare will product a fantastic story. Or more importantly a consistent story. I can't say the game won't have bunk, filler game design. Because they stumble with all these facets quite regularly even if I still enjoy the end result.
I am curious then, in the spirit of discussion, to ask what games you DO think have great narratives compared to the games Bioware was putting out at that time of their releases.
I think back to almost every story-driven video game - even ones I adore - and I find similar criticisms can be applied to practically every single one.
DevilDog
Member
I admit, I never played Role playing games when I was younger. I do believe I have a good idea of what they are though. And Bioware games come the closest to that formula.
The Mass Effect series has been the most personal games I've ever played. Like the RPG games, they allowed you to make choices and decide where to go, what you will level up, how the story will unfold in certain places. By making it so personal, with the quality bar set so high, it became my favorite series of all time and my favorite RPG.
Frankly, in this industry, I struggle to find games with better writing overall, RPG or not. And yeah, Bioware can fuck up big time, but there are just so many elements going into these games, it's hard to blame them.
Who has done better though? I'm starving for good writing in video games right now.
As for Andromeda, even though I'm positive, my expectations are non existant, especially when we have the person responsible for the worst flaws of ME2 and 3 directing the game. Though I'm wishing him the best of luck.
I'm curious as well, because I'm having a hard time even finding videogames that are even comparable to Mass Effect. What other studio has had such a huge supply of choices in their games, transfer across titles?
I mean, we can go back to an era of 2D and walls of text, but it's not fair to compare them, right?
Sub_Level
wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Yeah she can be tough. I still feel like you could have beaten her on your original attempt though haha. Sometimes its just a matter of finding the right spot or using your squad mates more.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
My issue with BioWare writing is consistency of the narrative beats and how some of their characters are written. I'm not saying they're shit at their job, but I personally find their tackling of stronger themes sometimes exceedingly amateurish and banal, like they're unwilling to commit to depths and nuances of complex ideas and character traits. Sometimes I find characters presented and performed with a comic-book-like juvenilit. Which is fun and fine, but also comes across almost like the people writing particular lines and sequences have a poor understanding of how real world people actually act and behave in similar situations. The romance dialogue in Inquisition is a perfect example; so much of it is fucking terribly hammy and unconvincing.
Thematically BioWare is a hit and miss. They take fascinating ideas and often fumble with them, again in a way that I personally consider amateurish. Mass Effect, as a series, personifies this. Its strengths are fucking incredible, but as the three game arc progresses it regresses both the Geth and EDI to Pinocchio stories, fucks up the Reapers, and generally undermines its own potential.
And I think that's my concern as a whole; undermining potential. BioWare's strengths are fucking phenomenal but I'm not going to pretend I have confidence that they can see that stuff through to the standard I'd prefer, and to where my personal taste lies. I don't read a lot of comic books and I don't find myself engaged with most of the comic book and Marvel films for the same reason; often it's not a case of good/bad, but the authors teetering around complex themes and unwilling to give them the love they deserve.
By comparison, I personally feel Troika (namely writers like Tim Cain) eclipse BioWare's work in character writing, handling of complex themes, and developing narrative alongside quests. Troika remains one of my favourite (if short lived) RPG developers ever for this reason, and they're not without flaw either (hello Bloodlines sewer grinds).
As for "role playing", I dont consider it a criticism, the direction BioWare go, because they've got their own more cinematic production driven thing going on and they do that very well. The concept of "role playing" in video games is a bit weird anyway since it can mean a thousand different things.
Thematically BioWare is a hit and miss. They take fascinating ideas and often fumble with them, again in a way that I personally consider amateurish. Mass Effect, as a series, personifies this. Its strengths are fucking incredible, but as the three game arc progresses it regresses both the Geth and EDI to Pinocchio stories, fucks up the Reapers, and generally undermines its own potential.
And I think that's my concern as a whole; undermining potential. BioWare's strengths are fucking phenomenal but I'm not going to pretend I have confidence that they can see that stuff through to the standard I'd prefer, and to where my personal taste lies. I don't read a lot of comic books and I don't find myself engaged with most of the comic book and Marvel films for the same reason; often it's not a case of good/bad, but the authors teetering around complex themes and unwilling to give them the love they deserve.
By comparison, I personally feel Troika (namely writers like Tim Cain) eclipse BioWare's work in character writing, handling of complex themes, and developing narrative alongside quests. Troika remains one of my favourite (if short lived) RPG developers ever for this reason, and they're not without flaw either (hello Bloodlines sewer grinds).
As for "role playing", I dont consider it a criticism, the direction BioWare go, because they've got their own more cinematic production driven thing going on and they do that very well. The concept of "role playing" in video games is a bit weird anyway since it can mean a thousand different things.
I agree with you particularly about the part about not really connecting to the Marvel movies or things like that. It's part of the reason why I like the Netflix shows so much better - the interactions don't feel so manufactured. There are times in BioWare's writing where I feel like situations come off as a joke or are written as a sarcastic quip when it's unnecessary. People don't constantly talk back and forth bouncing sarcasm at one another on a daily basis. When I'm talking with my friends, sure I can joke, but a way I know I'm close with someone is if I'm comfortable talking about difficult things. It's not a problem with BioWare specifically, because I see it a lot in movie and other game dialogue as well. I didn't like DA2 very much because of the three emotions you could portray. I know some people like playing "purple" Hawke, but I guess I'm just not a fan that style of dialogue. Even in Mass Effect, there were some instances where a dialogue option should be more renegade than it is, but it just comes off as jokey asshole. If I'm role-playing a character as a renegade, I don't want to feel like I have to take the paragon options because everything is going to be more leveled and neutral with that response versus some renegade option that is overblown or trigger-happy.
DevilDog
Member
Vampire bloodlines has some good and consistent writing, but the game is a broken mess.
And what does it matter if the game has good writing if you can't finish it due to gamebreaking bugs? Or bad gameplay?
Thing is that studios need to put gameplay and presentation first, then build up on the writing. Whatever you do, comes at a cost. If you focus too much on one thing, you HAVE to skip out on other things.
What worries me the most is that BioWare has realized that having good gameplay and graphics can sell their games without good writing. Most people who I've talked to have no idea what the faults of the story/plot over the course of the trilogy. I mean, I've heard people say that the story and plot of ME2 is perfect.
I hope I'm wrong, I skipped DA:I because of how uninteresting the writing was, and I seriously doubt that Andromeda will have anything over mediocre writing.
I was hoping that the ME3 ending could shake them up a bit, but all it did is make them so scared they barely left their comfort zone.
And what does it matter if the game has good writing if you can't finish it due to gamebreaking bugs? Or bad gameplay?
Thing is that studios need to put gameplay and presentation first, then build up on the writing. Whatever you do, comes at a cost. If you focus too much on one thing, you HAVE to skip out on other things.
What worries me the most is that BioWare has realized that having good gameplay and graphics can sell their games without good writing. Most people who I've talked to have no idea what the faults of the story/plot over the course of the trilogy. I mean, I've heard people say that the story and plot of ME2 is perfect.
I hope I'm wrong, I skipped DA:I because of how uninteresting the writing was, and I seriously doubt that Andromeda will have anything over mediocre writing.
I was hoping that the ME3 ending could shake them up a bit, but all it did is make them so scared they barely left their comfort zone.
I think the individual stories and plot of ME2 are fantastic.
I think the issue is it's the middle part of a trilogy that doesn't actually do anything in the trilogy, and that creates huge issues over the course of the trilogy.
In terms of the self-contained plot of ME2, I think it's one of their strongest individual game storylines and has probably the best ending sequence of any game I've played.
I think the issue is it's the middle part of a trilogy that doesn't actually do anything in the trilogy, and that creates huge issues over the course of the trilogy.
In terms of the self-contained plot of ME2, I think it's one of their strongest individual game storylines and has probably the best ending sequence of any game I've played.
That's why I don't like the banter in Dragon Age Origins (I played it a few months ago). It feels so forced, blah. It's even worse in Awakening.
I fully agree. To me ME2 is a masterpiece, but it kinda screws up the trilogy.
DeadlyParasite
Member
I've always been curious if BioWare had other plans for what the Terminus Systems were supposed to be. In the first game the Council was shitting in their knickers about the prospect of having to go to war with them. But then you get to ME2 and you find out the Terminus systems are just a bunch of isolated, barely habitable planets with no governments or fleets outside of Omega and everything is just controlled by slavers and mercenary companies.
What exactly were they afraid of?
What exactly were they afraid of?
The Batarian Hegemony is located there/nearby I thought.
But they retreated there because they couldn't even stand up to the Alliance by itself.
DeadlyParasite
Member
For all intents and purposes the Batarian Hegemony is located within the lower Earth Systems Alliance territory on this map of the Milky Way Galaxy [The small blue outlined area lower right]. That's why they were so pissed off about humans, we were colonizing outward into their territory. Since the Council ignored Batarian claims on all this territory they boycotted the citadel Council, ceasing to have an embassy. A lot of them gravitated towards the Terminus Systems and Omega because that's about the only place they could get away with criminal activity like slavery and raiding.
The closest thing to actual civilization bordering the Terminus systems is Illium which is sandwiched between Terminus space and the Attican Traverse.
It's a real shame the ending of Mass Effect 3 made BioWare unwilling to move the story forward in the Milky Way because there's so much cool world building they never really got to expand on.
DeadlyParasite
Member
To be fair the map is incredibly misleading in terms of population density and relative control. Just because we may have claim to an area of space doesn't mean we have a substantial presence there. Most of the first wave colonization planets like Eden Prime and Elysium barely have a population of 2-10 million. Pretty much all of the human controlled systems we explored in ME1 were devoid of any settled planets or habitable worlds. Noveria barely had a population of around 350k.
Humans basically emerged from the charon relay, fought a quick war with the Turians and preceded to stake a claim on a tonne of unused systems. Aliens on the Citadel are quick to point out that Humanity is ascending faster than council races are used to.
I don't think it's unreasonable to believe humanity to have spread as fast as they have in 30 years when Earth in 2183 has a population of 11 billion. Imagine it like it's the United States dashing westward across North America during the 1800's under their great manifest destiny expansion.
Humans basically emerged from the charon relay, fought a quick war with the Turians and preceded to stake a claim on a tonne of unused systems. Aliens on the Citadel are quick to point out that Humanity is ascending faster than council races are used to.
I don't think it's unreasonable to believe humanity to have spread as fast as they have in 30 years when Earth in 2183 has a population of 11 billion. Imagine it like it's the United States dashing westward across North America during the 1800's under their great manifest destiny expansion.
It's a big suspension of disbelief. I take it with a bit of a grain of salt. Technology and expansion isn't so much the problem for me. The opening moments of ME1 have Anderson saying that discovering just one Prothean artifact on Mars jumped their technology forward two hundred years, and that was just a fragment.
Looking at even the United States, we went from the first aircraft ever to landing on the moon in 50 years. I like to think the other races, particularly Asari and Salarians, helped humanity "ascend" so they could be viable trade and military partners.
Still, though... I mentally make the time between the first contact war and ME1 about 70 years or so, regardless of actual canon, if only because humanity is living well into the mid-100s at this point and 70 yrs old would be more middle-aged (that and Prescott looks ancient, yet his grandfather fought in the Contact War... it's weird).
It's sort of like how I always mentally age the teen Gundam Wing pilots a few more years than their canon ages. I know it's not "official", but it makes more sense to me that way and I can roll with it easier.
Heckler456
Banned
I don't really have any issue with suspending my disbelief regarding the timeline. A lot of big shit can happen in 30 years time, especially when you have magical doodads and aliens to help you along. Plus, I don't think you can underestimate the scale at which you can "do shit" when you don't have to constrain yourself to resources gathered on earth with 20th century means.
Plus, I feel like there's something to be said for the notion that maybe the reapers engineered it to be this way. They've supposedly done this a few times before, but maybe they've made it so that this kind of progress happens on a logarithmic scale once a species has found their "Prothean" cache, and that it really quickly tops out at some predetermined hard limit.
Plus, I feel like there's something to be said for the notion that maybe the reapers engineered it to be this way. They've supposedly done this a few times before, but maybe they've made it so that this kind of progress happens on a logarithmic scale once a species has found their "Prothean" cache, and that it really quickly tops out at some predetermined hard limit.
DeadlyParasite
Member
One thing I think people get hung up on is the First Contact War which is really not the starting point of the Alliances foray into the galaxy. There's eight whole years between the activation of the charon relay and the Turians finally noticing the humans expansion and attempts to activate more dormant mass relays.
When you look at the timeline of galactic events it all seems to flow normally and the sequence of growth for humanity seems typical.
I personally just think that if our biggest qualms about the the lore is a minor inconsistency about Ashley's grandfather then things can be forgiven. A lot of developers would kill to have such a detailed in-game universe work in just one game, it's one of the reasons I fell in love for the first game.
The fact that we as the player get to shape the beginning of time and recorded history for humanity and most advanced species in Andromeda has me all sorts of excited.
When you look at the timeline of galactic events it all seems to flow normally and the sequence of growth for humanity seems typical.
I personally just think that if our biggest qualms about the the lore is a minor inconsistency about Ashley's grandfather then things can be forgiven. A lot of developers would kill to have such a detailed in-game universe work in just one game, it's one of the reasons I fell in love for the first game.
The fact that we as the player get to shape the beginning of time and recorded history for humanity and most advanced species in Andromeda has me all sorts of excited.
I'll continue to defend the geth storyline as I have in the past, because I think in the context of the series it makes sense.
The geth in ME1 can essentially be thrown out. Little to no thought appears to have been put into their workings, they are generally undeveloped and nothing but minions to shoot at.
Starting with ME2 and Legion the geth become interesting. We get an inside perspective into the workings of their hivemind and why they believe their mode of being is superior to organics. But we also, in the very same game, get key developments and insights that call into question and even undermine Legion's position on his own race. We start with new insights into the ME1 geth, namely that they were comprised of a heretic schism that the main contingent willingly let go so that they could maintain their own consensus. It isn't until Legion's loyalty mission that we are introduced to the possibility that divergent opinion based on divergent experience is inescapable, and this is something Legion fears and even comments on being afraid of. The geth pin their hopes on one giant server to host all geth as a means of escaping divergent experience.
Fast forward to ME3 and the geth are in a crisis. Due to quarian aggression they side with the Reapers to survive and are fitted with Reaper code as a result. Now, recall our earlier ME2 dilemma where the geth as a species were at a crossroads. Either accept divergent experience leading to divergent opinion, aka individuality, or close the race as one entity. In ME3 Legion has changed his opinion, namely after experiencing the power and uniqueness of the Reaper code which he finds superior to the workings of a geth server. That combined with the necessity of the dire situation on Rannoch leads to the Reaper code permanently separating geth units into individuals.
I find the resistance to this development extremely strange, because to me it feels analogous to asking BioWare's writers to not have an opinion on the central themes that their characters represent. It's asking BioWare to pretend that the idea of a united consensus is something they see as equal in concept to individuality, which they clearly don't. I also appreciate this because I agree. I can see the argument that as an RPG Shepard should decide that for himself, but I suspect that's why BioWare couched the philosophical question within a desperate situation, so that Shepard's best option was to follow Legion's plan regardless of his personal feelings.
The geth's situation is also not really related to EDI's in the specific, and I think reducing both to the status of "Pinnochio stories" is exactly the sort of loss of nuance that you lament exists in BioWare writing to begin with. EDI's story isn't about individuality, first and foremost. EDI's story is about human emotion and understanding morality, as evidenced by virtually all her dialogues in ME3. When she asks Shepard why organics would willingly sacrifice themselves for others even knowing something to be a lost cause, we have insight into the central dilemma of her evolution over the game, and it isn't really all that similar to the geth dilemma except insofar as it highlights different aspects of the "synthetic vs. organic mind" subplot that carries much of the second half of the series (and, to a more shallow extent, Saren and Sovereign). That topic is so broad that it deserves different angles exploring it, which both EDI and the geth fill. That BioWare's writers, in both cases, assert that the benefits of individuality and organic existence outweigh the negatives is in my mind no deficiency in writing at all.
I also question the insistence that characters "behave and act like real human beings" which I take to largely be issues with dialogue but also perhaps with the malleability of the characters. To the latter I think it's fair to say that characters should be more independent of the PC and form their own decisions more often without the PC's input. On the other hand I think the Mass Effect series is a special case insofar as Shepard was almost literally a force of nature who got his way and time and again came out on top of impossible situations. To ask characters in the game to not follow his lead, and even his opinion, would be like asking actual humans in history to not follow historically great leaders despite being given many reasons for doing so. In games outside of the ME series (and KOTOR, too I suppose) you do see that resistance to the PC when it's appropriate. You see your party stand up to you in Jade Empire if you choose the Closed Fist to the point of needing to enslave their minds. You see characters turn against your PC in DAO and DA2 if you do something they strongly disagree with. You see characters leave the Inquisition or even turn against it in DAI, and the degree to which your PC is looked up to and even worshipped in DAI is a central component of the plot's main themes, explored and then subverted (I can't help but feel those who think DAI's main plot has weak writing haven't particularly thought much about the events of the game and much of the discussions within. It's the best debate and conversation about the role of religion in personal faith and society that you'll ever see in a game).
As for the dialogue, I find the realism argument to be only conditionally relevant. If you were to ask for a list of the great writers of dialogue for movies (the closest analogue to games), I think you'd find most of the dialogue to be unrealistic and and stylized to a high degree. I'm thinking here of Kubrick, Tarantino, the Coen Brothers. It's one thing when writers write in a way that's intentionally unrealistic, such as BioWare, and another when someone is trying to emulate real-life discussion and fails because they don't understand people, such as David Cage. Now, that doesn't mean BioWare always has a ticket out of people saying something is bad writing. There are ways to identify bad writing outside of the method in which it's conveyed. Incoherent character development is a pretty good one here, something that they haven't always been able to escape. Cliche lines are probably their biggest failing at the moment. I'm infinitely forgiving of quirky/odd character writing such as Sera because I think it represents originality and creativeness, but when they literally have characters saying "I have a bad feeling about this" then they simply aren't trying.
Anyway, to tie this back to the original paragraph about the discussion surrounding BioWare games, I don't think I've seen much if any resistance to your style of posting, EatChildren. Your posts are respected because you take the time to explain your PoV even if it's disagreed with and you always add something to the discussion. Unfortunately one of the biggest failings of internet discussion is the inability to differentiate negativity from criticism. They are totally different and have virtually nothing to do with each other. Negativity is about tone. Criticism is about content.
TC McQueen
Member
People don't like it because it takes an interesting approach on AI interacting with each other that isn't a hivemind and then basically does "individuality is the best!" thing that scifi tends to do, which makes the Geth a lot like other depictions of AI.
It doesn't help that one of the writers who worked on the Geth in ME2 left and later put out some stuff complaining about how the remaining writers ruined them.
Exactly. The Geth were more interesting when they were trying to be their own thing, but the series has to switch it around to say that being like us is the better, evolved state. Hence why EatChildren called it a Pinnochio story: it literally turns into a story about them wanting to become like us.
The geth are a hivemind, and the ways in which they aren't (mobile platforms) are exactly the reason why individuality was brought into their story.
There also isn't a game in the series where the geth are 1. interesting and 2. completely divorced from the question of burgeoning individuality. In ME1 the geth are boring, in 2 Legion is introduced and then their concept of consensus is immediately undermined by his loyalty mission.
There also isn't a game in the series where the geth are 1. interesting and 2. completely divorced from the question of burgeoning individuality. In ME1 the geth are boring, in 2 Legion is introduced and then their concept of consensus is immediately undermined by his loyalty mission.
The Artisan
Member
has anybody bought a 4KTV for the Ps4 pro/xbone S? I figure it'd make Me4 more worth playing with the 4K graphics. they certainly hyped it up at that playstation premier or whatever
I'll disagree slightly. While, yeah, it has a "Pinocchio" vibe (same as EDI), this wasn't some sudden left-turn in later games.
It's pointed out in ME1 that the Geth are developing "culture" of their own, and even at one point you see some Geth worshiping Reaper artifacts like a cult, beginning a conversation of whether the Geth are developing religion.
Through design and lore, it was apparent that the Quarians made the Geth to be similar to themselves, in "biology" as well as thought, just as other cultures were creating their own VIs and AIs. And it's important to differentiate that the Geth are not VIs but galactically recognized AIs, with an evolving and frightening brand of sentience and agency that served as a warning to the rest of the galaxy.
And a huge part of "agency" (or "humanity") is the existence of individual choice and will. While the Geth are still machines and a "hive mind", we learn they are not all of the same mind and will, and there are "platforms" that have come to different conclusions than others through logic and consensus, which is explored further in ME2 with Legion.
I don't think they so much become "like us" in the "becoming human" way so much as they are simply becoming... alive. To comprehend that there is something beyond the logical. To understand and comprehend irrationality, fear, ethics, death, belief, etc. Complicated issues that humanity itself is still struggling to understand the Geth ultimately and simply come to encounter over their existence.
It's something I enjoy, both with Legion and EDI. Their logical struggle to understand the reason to do something for no reason than just because of a "want" and not a "need". To dance. To spend time with someone else. To put someone else above another and defy basic self-preservation.
Those aren't just questions the synthetics struggle with. Organic civilizations were still figuring it out through the series too, and that gray area just grew until the Geth were caught up in it too.
JeffG
Member
I did (xbone s) and I made sure to get hdr for my tv. I was happy to hear md:a will have hdr
Poodlestrike
Banned
Pinocchio story is, I feel, a bit harsh and reductive, especially since we don't really see the fallout (afair, I'm still working on my playthrough). It's really more that the Geth acquire... validation? They're still unique and, in a lot of ways, inhuman- but now, they've gained the complexity to operate as individuals. I don't think there was anything about them no longer using the Consensus, just that now, it's a choice.
But like I said, it's been a while
(ME3 stays winning as best game, btw. ME2 had a lot of issues I'd forgotten about).
But like I said, it's been a while
(ME3 stays winning as best game, btw. ME2 had a lot of issues I'd forgotten about).
Pinocchio story is, I feel, a bit harsh and reductive, especially since we don't really see the fallout (afair, I'm still working on my playthrough). It's really more that the Geth acquire... validation? They're still unique and, in a lot of ways, inhuman- but now, they've gained the complexity to operate as individuals. I don't think there was anything about them no longer using the Consensus, just that now, it's a choice.
But like I said, it's been a while
(ME3 stays winning as best game, btw. ME2 had a lot of issues I'd forgotten about).
But that's still arguing that being an individual is more complex and better than what they were before.
I still think the Geth, as portrayed in ME2, were more interesting.
DeadlyParasite
Member
Won't there have to be a canon ending to ME1 in order to explain relations between humans and the other races in Andromeda? There is a great animosity between the other council races and humans in Mass Effect 2 if you sacrifice the council in Mass Effect 1. I would assume this is a pretty big deal in terms of how everyone cooperates once they reach Andromeda.
How did they differ in ME2 and ME3? ME3 just felt like a natural evolution of the ideas introduced in ME2.
"Individuality", in this case, was something brought up by Legion in ME2, where Geth were beginning to disagree and consensus could not be built. Not because they were "wrong", but because they came to equally true, yet different, conclusions. Something like "you say one plus one equals two; we say two plus two equals four".
And the biggest sign of them developing PREFERENCE is with Legion wearing Shepard's old armor. "Why are you wearing my armor?" "... There was a hole." "But you could fix it. Why are you still wearing it?" "... No data found."
JeffG
Member
Naw...If you were in a different Galaxy, would you really care about politicians millions of light years away?
DevilDog
Member
There is already great animosity between races on board of the arks. I try not to think about it too much.
If they ever mention it, it will be along the lines of, relations strengthen thanks to <saving the council>, or despite <not saving the council>, everyone cooperates happily due to <contrived reason>, something like "we/re all equals, man". "Humanity saved us all in the end, yo, don't be upset", and then everyone was like "ok".
Yeah I agree. Nice point about the geth developing a cultish worship of Sovereign in ME1, btw, I hadn't considered that angle and how it relates to their surprising irrationality as a synthetic species.
I will say, though, that the whole Shepard's armor piece thing is a known sore spot for Chris L'Etoile, Legion's ME2 writer. He didn't want Legion showing any preference for Shepard, and the N7 armor thing was a higher up's idea to show Legion as being particularly interested/obsessed with Shepard. So for those who more prefer L'Etoile's ideas about the geth truly being without emotion/irrationality, I think that's worth noting as a way to explain the apparent incoherence of Legion's character.
Personally? I think higher ups had it right. Legion being unable to explain why he chose Shepard's armor to mend itself gave some mystery to the character that wouldn't have existed otherwise. if the geth had truly only been represented as a cold, calculating machine race, then that feels like a narrative developmental dead end to me. There's nothing more to interest me about their race once Legion tells me of its workings. The N7 armor suggested something else was developing under the hood between typical synthetic and organic thought processes and made me more invested in how the geth were to develop.
This is why I was so receptive to the Rannoch conclusion in ME3. The geth evolving into something that wasn't quite synthetic but certainly not organic imbued them with novelty, and I also felt it made sense given their apparent irrationality previously in the series re: the N7 armor and branching consensus. Had they stuck with their giant server idea it would have been supremely boring to me.
The one big issue I have with Rannoch is how much changes between the end of ME2 and the beginning of ME3. It's totally jarring and confusing. At the end of ME2 you might guess Rannoch would be set up as: Legion goes back to the consensus, Tali is with her people, and together they start negotiating for peace on Rannoch. But the Reapers (or Cerberus, indoctrination in general) undermine the treaty and get them at each other's throats instead, which you have to solve. Instead the second Morning War begins between games and I found it difficult to orient myself regarding the geth and Legion's current status.
DeadlyParasite
Member
So a retcon. Doesn't that just further invalidate player choice in the original trilogy? Why should the actions in 1 matter if there's no implicated effect on Andromeda despite there being a clear one in 2?
DevilDog
Member
There is a clear one in 2? What is that? Because last time I checked whether you saved the council or not means pretty much nothing.
DeadlyParasite
Member
People are openly hostile to you in 2 if you let the council die. There is specifically a turian shopkeeper on the citadel in 2 (Rodam Expeditions) that hates humans and Shepard if you let the council die. There's also the two asari trying to get off the station that also have even more hostile dialogue towards you if you let the council die.
Then there's this specific Codex entry for the renegade outcome of the council dying:
So yes, I do think it matters canonically whether or not the council was sacrificed in Andromeda. You can't write away deep mistrust and anger towards humanity, whether or not the species are working together 600 years later for the initiative, unless you make the Save Council ending canon to Andromeda.
It causes some animosity towards humans... but I think they overstated it.
The Council remains, regardless, and it's still composed of Asari, Turians, and Salarians.
Even if we want to blame the loss of the original council on Shepard, he was in the company of an Asari, Turian, Quarian, and Krogan at the same time and they had their input.
The Andromeda intiative is a volunteer effort headed by a private human corporation, right? I think it's likely that any aliens that sign up for the Arks don't share that extra deep-seated animosity that might admittedly exist at large elsewhere. Or else they wouldn't have signed on in the first place.
DevilDog
Member
I think that the changes in ME2 are pitiful, and their insignificance is kind of insulting when the choice was so huge in ME1. I'd rather have them leave it all behind and start new.
If they start bringing baggage back from the original trilogy I'll just end up enjoying the game less. I'd rather have them move on, but that's just me.
I'm pretty sure they won't bother bringing any elements from the original trilogy other than the alien races of course. I'm expecting some mentions of the Citadel or even some of the alien homeworlds like Palaven or Thessia, maybe the Genophage when we meet Krogans, but nothing more than things like that. There's no point in trying to bring any of the player decisions of the original trilogy in Andromeda, it will just complicate things.
- Status