I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite thread on Obsidian

[RPGmasterBoo]

Because its childishly simplistic and unimaginative. The alien/fantasy race is usually a human society frozen in some sort of pre-defined characteristics. Star Trek is the worst example.

 

Its also often anthropocentric with humans being capable of everything, and the most reasonable and sensible of the lot.

 

I think the Geth are a cool invention, the only really alien race in ME. Of course the self aware AI hive mind has been done before, but this is a well thought out idea nonetheless. Particularily the convincing hardware software deal, which just proves that personal experience (of the devs in this case) nets the best ideas.

Edited February 17, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Raithe]

To be fair.. sort of to JJ Abrahms.. the whole "Red Matter" was half meant to be an in-joke to the fans from Alias.. even if it was a rather crappy sci-fi thing.

 

 

"JJ Abrahms - Makes a career of showing us a box.. and then spending 3 years not telling us whats inside it."

[Orogun01]

Dunno why its such a horrible thing that many races in sci if (and fantasy) are like humans. That's a GOOD thing. It be boring otherwise. On top of this, ME and other scfi/fantasy stuff have their share of nonn human like aliens/races to be satisfying. In ME, you got the hanar, and the reapers as just two examples of non humanoids. *shrug* There's enough variety amongst the aliens anyways. Same with SW, ST, and any other scifi stuff.

The writers are human therefor there must be a humane element to every fictional alien race, the only thing that I can accuse them of is of oversimplifying the aliens. You can summarize all races in three words or less. This is fine as a generalization of their culture but I would really enjoy to see more deviations from the established archetypes for each race.

 

Boo@: to be fair to the writers a lot of the characteristics of the aliens are woven into their culture and biology, so even when they can be equated to humans there is a tie in inside the ME universe to explain their behavior.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Orogun01

[Enoch]

Because its childishly simplistic and unimaginative. The alien/fantasy race is usually a human society frozen in some sort of pre-defined characteristics. Star Trek is the worst example.

Simplistic and unimaginative is probably a better result than creating characters that the audience has no frame of reference upon which to base any empathy. if you make the aliens too inhuman, they're just isn't going to be any emotional connection with the audience. Granted, some ways of adapting human elements into alien races are more creative and original than others, but the lack of an emotional connection makes for stories that are a lot more boring than ones that use re-hashed space-[elves/Spartans/buddhists/druids/whatever].

[Niten_Ryu]

The next step is to talk to an actual scientist and get some interesting ideas how the physiology would affect their culture, instead of using what you saw in the latest Sci-Fi blockbuster or dream up when you were 10.

 

Based on few TV documentaries with real scientists, they are even worse then sci-fi writers. They take some complex environment, like Wolf-Rayet star or variable star in general, or maybe binary star system and then start to create new critters that might survive on habitable zone. Even with biologists, evolutionary scientists, astrophysicists and anthropologist can't seem to get it anywhere near right and they skip really major things like "would such planet even have atmosphere" or "how did this planet avoid venus type greenhouse effect". After that they skip all but 3-4 species and somehow build working biosphere out of those critters. We couldn't get Biosphere 2 working here on earth, with all our knowledge of native (and real) species. Pure garbage.

[RPGmasterBoo]

@Enoch:

True, the best "alien" I've ever seen in a visual medium (that being the xenomorph) is freakishly frightening.

Excluding Gigers otherworldly morbidity, almost all other aliens have human characteristics, probably because its extremely hard to imagine something truly alien (because that's the entire point of the word).

 

Anyway it depends on what we're talking about. As a space opera Mass Effect depends on those very conventions and cant stray too far from them. The geth were cool but sadly under utilized except as stock baddies.

Legion added a bit of depth to them but I presume the geth will just be another faction that joins Shepard on the final fight against the reapers.

 

Amusingly enough the supposedly alien Reapers seem to possess entirely human characteristics, particularily vindictiveness. Not very mature for the ultimate race in the universe but whatever.

 

So in depth sci fi stuff doesn't belong in ME, but future games would be more cool with it than without.

Edited February 17, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Purkake]

I actually thought I was asking for better character design. You can have interesting character design and still write them like you usually do. I'm not asking for Elder Gods with incomprehensible minds here, just something imaginative.

 

While the geth are cool, they are pretty much the standard hive mind/collective consciousness, except that they are linked in groups and not to everyone. The whole hive mind and being a frickin AI is pretty downplayed though, Legion might just as well be another human.

 

What I proposed before was just off the top of my head, I don't consider myself to be a great designer, I would just like more variety and unique designs instead of a mish mash of existing stuff.

 

@Niten_Ryu: Oh you don't let them anywhere NEAR the writing, you just get cool ideas from them. Another problem might be that game writers are still too much of fanboys and want to do homages instead of going all out and making something truly unique.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Purkake

[~Di]

Because it's Bioware.

Bingo.

 

Seriously, it's what Bioware always has done. The fans just couldn't handle a depressing and devastating end.

 

 

I know I couldn't. I don't play games to fail and die at the end. I'll leave that to real life. I play games to "do" things that matter in my little game universe, things that make me feel exhilarated, needed, valiant... and heroic. I don't want a game to mirror life; I want a game to give me an adventure I could never otherwise have, and I want the satisfaction of accomplishment when it's over.

 

I'm glad BioWare doesn't do "emo" games. I'm well past the age where I want to wear black lipstick and get a skeleton tatooed on my ass.

[Purkake]

Can't we have a neutral ending, where you do what you have to and don't feel bad for all the people that died in the process because they knew what they signed up for?

 

 

Then the media makes you a hero, but really you are dead inside because you know that in war there are no victors, only survivors. You pick up drinking and eventually die

 

 

 

Too emo?

 

Edited February 17, 2010 by Purkake

[~Di]

Can't we have a neutral ending, where you do what you have to and don't feel bad for all the people that died in the process because they knew what they signed up for?

 

Sure. Most Bio games have more than one possible ending, and not all are happy-happy joy-joy. Seeing myself in my coffin wasn't an upper, but it was a choice my character made. Thing is, the choice wasn't made for me by the developer. A guaranteed everyone dies, no way around it, the world has ended, you lose bunky ending would displease me immensely.

 

Then the media makes you a hero, but really you are dead inside because you know that in war there are no victors, only survivors. You pick up drinking and eventually die

 

 

 

Too emo?

 

 

Yes.

 

[Purkake]

I can't think of a single game that only has a "everybody dies" ending.

 

I wouldn't have anything against such an ending, however, granted that it was done in an interesting way. I'm tired of the happy, no consequences ending(not that Bioware has too many of those).

 

And where did you end up in a coffin?

Edited February 17, 2010 by Purkake

[~Di]

I can't think of a single game that only has a "everybody dies" ending.

 

I can't either. And I don't want one. Some here seem to be craving this kind of epic tragedy!

 

And where did you end up in a coffin?

 

Okay, okay, I was laid out on a slab like the carcass of a slaughtered goat. Coffin sounded better.

[Enoch]

Because it's Bioware.

Bingo.

 

Seriously, it's what Bioware always has done. The fans just couldn't handle a depressing and devastating end.

I know I couldn't. I don't play games to fail and die at the end. I'll leave that to real life. I play games to "do" things that matter in my little game universe, things that make me feel exhilarated, needed, valiant... and heroic. I don't want a game to mirror life; I want a game to give me an adventure I could never otherwise have, and I want the satisfaction of accomplishment when it's over.

 

I'm glad BioWare doesn't do "emo" games. I'm well past the age where I want to wear black lipstick and get a skeleton tatooed on my ass.

I understand that point of view-- the heroic power fantasy is a rather core element of the appeal of a lot of escapist media (in games and elsewhere), and I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy that aspect of the experience on some level.

 

But I think that developers can get away with more in what is clearly a middle chapter. We all know that the heroic ending is coming in ME3, so it's easier for fans to enjoy a setback or sacrifice of some sort at the close of ME2. You can make an ending a little bittersweet and still make the player feel as if he/she has accomplished something non-trivial.

[~Di]

Because it's Bioware.

Bingo.

 

Seriously, it's what Bioware always has done. The fans just couldn't handle a depressing and devastating end.

I know I couldn't. I don't play games to fail and die at the end. I'll leave that to real life. I play games to "do" things that matter in my little game universe, things that make me feel exhilarated, needed, valiant... and heroic. I don't want a game to mirror life; I want a game to give me an adventure I could never otherwise have, and I want the satisfaction of accomplishment when it's over.

 

I'm glad BioWare doesn't do "emo" games. I'm well past the age where I want to wear black lipstick and get a skeleton tatooed on my ass.

I understand that point of view-- the heroic power fantasy is a rather core element of the appeal of a lot of escapist media (in games and elsewhere), and I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy that aspect of the experience on some level.

 

But I think that developers can get away with more in what is clearly a middle chapter. We all know that the heroic ending is coming in ME3, so it's easier for fans to enjoy a setback or sacrifice of some sort at the close of ME2. You can make an ending a little bittersweet and still make the player feel as if he/she has accomplished something non-trivial.

 

Absolutely. Planescape: Torment comes to mind. And no real choice of any other ending. However, it certainly fit the game, the character, the setting. It wasn't depressing or devastating... it was necessary for the cycle to continue. Fallout 3 was just stupid, a deliberate attempt to shock and dismay the gamer. I was very disappointed by it.

 

Depressing and devasting for the sake or the shock of it... uh-uh, not if they want my gaming dollars.

[Purkake]

The ending will also have a stronger impact if you actually lose people along the way and don't make everything perfect.

 

Here's a tvtrope for everyone craving their emo fix: Downer Ending(spoilerific)

 

@Di: Umm, they actually closed the cycle at the end of Torment...

Edited February 17, 2010 by Purkake

[Gromnir]

Because it's Bioware.

Bingo.

 

Seriously, it's what Bioware always has done. The fans just couldn't handle a depressing and devastating end.

 

 

I know I couldn't. I don't play games to fail and die at the end. I'll leave that to real life. I play games to "do" things that matter in my little game universe, things that make me feel exhilarated, needed, valiant... and heroic. I don't want a game to mirror life; I want a game to give me an adventure I could never otherwise have, and I want the satisfaction of accomplishment when it's over.

 

I'm glad BioWare doesn't do "emo" games. I'm well past the age where I want to wear black lipstick and get a skeleton tatooed on my ass.

 

bio makes heroic stories for their games, and they is unapologetic 'bout it. they is also believing that the vast majority o' their customers want happily ever after.

 

fine.

 

even so, we thinks that bio missed a great opportunity with game 2. not only does we have less heroic sacrifice than in game 1, but there is no genuine cliff-hanger to build up anticipation for game 3. shepard always wins. virtual every hero story worth mentioning has the hero lose at some point, but not shepard... or any other crpg protagonist. is a flaw. end o' game 2 woulda' been the ideal spot to inject a little heroic failure into the mass effect epic, but bio predictably passed on such an option.

 

*shrug*

 

not need emo, but heroic ain't particular heroic if there ain't without obstacles and sacrifice. if the hero always wins the obstacles will seems small... and without sacrifice a hero is a bit cartoony, no? getting spaced and dying at the start o' the me2 story is a nice enough way to start, but the player ain't genuine part o' that, is he/she... is all happening remote and the emotional impact is relative small. have an empire strikes back ending for me2? why the heck not? the fans who not like such an ending would hardly boycott me3, and am betting you would get overwhelming positive critical feedback for breaking the typical crpg mold.

 

in any event, is terrible that we see less sacrifice in me2 than we saw in me1... bio backsliding when they had an ideal opportunity to go to next step and possibly incorporate personal sacrifice.

 

oh well.

 

not need emo to be heroic... but heroic without loss and sacrifice? lame.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps when we says "personal sacrifice" we ain't asking for player death. death is actual kinda easy. a minor but genuine personal disability v. permanent loss o' crew member? am betting that such a choice would makes more than a few folks stare blank at screen for a minute or two as they ponder the ramifications.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Gromnir

[Enoch]

Then again...

 

I am never going to do an Empire Strikes Back ending again in a game, even if they put branding irons to my feet.

 

Who are we to question?

[Gromnir]

Then again...

 

I am never going to do an Empire Strikes Back ending again in a game, even if they put branding irons to my feet.

 

Who are we to question?

 

 

we has questioned many o' chrisA's choices and characters... why not this one? me2 would be an ideal place to do such a thing. a sequel is essentially guaranteed and your following is established. do at end of kotor2? perhaps not... especially in retrospect. without no kotor3 you would have eternal wails o' anguish. nevertheless, is there anybody that were honest satisfied with chrisA's kotor2 ending? horrible. maybe branding irons woulda' helped inspire something better than what we eventual got.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps it is worth noting that chrisA's Winner ending didn't seem to help the franchise. no kotor3 in spite of somewhat silly ending.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Gromnir

[Magnum Opus]

****Rampant Spoilers to follow... sometimes. Most times, even, maybe. ****

 

 

 

 

Found the main plot ultimately unfinished, personally. Maybe it's because I wasn't really paying all that much attention (was all caught up in the epic actionyness of the collector base blowing up an' all, so I'm certain I missed much of the detail), but I think there are still some unanswered question regarding the Collectors.

 

Am not convinced, for instance, that they were simply Reaper-tools out to destroydestroydestroy. We know the keepers on the Citadel were a Reaper-repurposed race. We know the Protheans altered them enough to "emancipate" them from Reaper control (at least, enough to make them ignore the Reapers' signal to open the gates of hell, so to speak). We know the Collectors have had peaceful dealings with other sapient races, even going so far as to exchange technologies. We even know that the Collectors were experimenting on their own people as well as humans, looking for similarities. Why? Don't think that was ever really answered in the game, was it?

 

Personal speculation leads me to wonder whether the Collectors were, with their Shepard-fetish, really trying to destroy the Reapers on their own terms, and that when Shep blew up the Collector base, he wasn't already shooting himself in the foot. A group of re-purposed Protheans who had regained their own sense of autonomy from the Reapers -- enough to want to see the Reapers destroyed, anyway -- could have been a pretty big boost to Shep's Crusade. Harbinger's final words might be interpreted as suggesting such, anyway: base is about to blow up, Harbinger says "you have failed."

 

Failed at what? Not at blowing up the collectors, obviously. What then? Shooting self in foot with larger Reaper picture, maybe? If Harbinger believes that Harbinger is key to Reaper's ultimate defeat, then yeah... makes sense. If such failure, turning the feel-good victory at the end of ME2 into an "oops, shouldn't have done that" moment in ME3, is still a possibility in the overall story (which I think they've laid enough groundwork for), it can't be a very compelling failure, since it'll have to be both revealed and overcome in the final heroically victorious chapter, but maybe Bio simply needed part two to end happy. Save wild roller coaster ride from despair to salvation all for third game. Don't know that I'd have done the same in planning a trilogy, but... *shrugs*

 

Then again, maybe the Collectors were just... there, and there's nothing more to it. I can see that happening too.

 

Basically, is a few too many finer points of speculation that were never answered once introduced, one way or the other (or that I failed to notice being answered... that's a possibility, too). Is very much a "middle game of a trilogy" sort of plot. A placeholder plot, almost, something to tide player over while those elements that will actually mean something in the last part are introduced off the side all sneaky-like. Just wish they would have made it more compelling, is all. Is very few elements in main plot, after all: we got Normandy 1 being blowed up real good: introduction. Got Horizon. Got disabled Collector ship. Got derelict Reaper. Got final battle. Not a lot to chew on there, not when you consider all the companions and loyalty missions. Want to know more about the collectors/Protheans, dangit!

 

ME2 is kinda like BG2 in that regard. Irenicus were a fine villain, one of Bio's best, but in terms of Bhaalspawn saga he was a sidelight. Only thing of note regarding Bhaalspawn saga for Our Hero was the introduction of the Slayer transformation, and even that didn't turn out to mean much in the end. ME2, though, doesn't have an Irenicus to bolster its story.

 

Am quite curious about where they'll go in ME3 regarding the crew, though. Spent a LOT of effort in training and acquiring this crew in ME2: was whole point of game, in fact, so far as I'm aware (see caveat regarding finers points of detail that remain unanswered). But there's also room for one or more of those characters to be removed from the picture. What sort of crew will ME3 give us? Stick with ME2 crew if they survived, sure, but if not... fall back to ME1 stragglers like Alenko/Williams and Liara and Wrex? Still in picture if not in party, after all. Convince Alenko/Williams that you're not typical Cerberus schill to get him/her back on side, resolve Liara's personal difficulties with Shadow broker to get her back, cure genophage to get Wrex? Or maybe recruit Aria from Omega and use her to bring Wrex back on board, since they "had a thing" a few centuries back? (speculation, that, but possibly not far off the mark: many interlocking hooks with the stories of those two. And for a while, I was almost sure that Aria would be recruitable in ME2, because she had the exact same kind of "badass reputation" that everyone else Shep was recruiting had). Even if they only write a couple new characters, there's still going to be a healthy complement of familiar faces floating around, I think. Maybe even give Anderson one last hurrah, since he got screwed over by the Alliance when they stole his hsip and gave it to Shep and then never really settled into his council role. He's a little creaky, but I think he's still got enough in him for one more battle, and I think he's the type who'd rather burn out than fade away.... would be good side-plot material, that. Anderson in the vanguard against the Reapers, old hero... DOOOM.

 

 

 

 

***** Ok. Is safe now. *****

 

 

 

** I think **

 

Overall, am more impressed with the saga of the ME series than the game play; am even rather glad that it doesn't quite measure up to a "normal shooter", since I don't much like normal shooters. Had more fun with the mako than the planet scanning; was disappointed that they didn't make the mako environments at least a little bit interesting/relevant, but rather scrapped the whole idea to introduce something even more tedious. Would have liked a real inventory. Would have liked a real antagonist (this assumes that TIM doesn't count as the antagonist of the game, too, a point of which I'm not convinced). Would have liked a less predictable area design (see lots of low cover, you know there's a fight what's gonna happen; telegraphing ambushes is what it is; enemy ought to take a little time to move crates off to the side). Would have liked a few more RPG leanings, instead of Shooter/adventure (the adventure part is fine, BTW). Would have liked a whole bunch of things in an ideal world.

 

Am still having fun with the game, and will be picking up the third sooner rather than later when it finally comes along.

 

Good game.

[mr insomniac]

****Rampant Spoilers to follow... sometimes. Most times, even, maybe. ****

Harbinger's final words might be interpreted as suggesting such, anyway: base is about to blow up, Harbinger says "you have failed."

Just finished playing the game a second time last night, and

I thought harbinger was a reaper who had taken control of the collector "leader", in the same way we'd seen other collectors taken control of throughout the game, and the, "You have failed," was directed at this leader, not at Shepard - as in, they failed to stop Shepard. Looking at the end sequence just before the base is either blown up/cleaned out, it appears the collector leader is conversing with a holographic projection of a reaper.

 

 

perhaps I'm mistaken but that's how it looked to me.

[Gorth]

Personal speculation leads me to wonder whether the Collectors were, with their Shepard-fetish, really trying to destroy the Reapers on their own terms, and that when Shep blew up the Collector base, he wasn't already shooting himself in the foot. A group of re-purposed Protheans who had regained their own sense of autonomy from the Reapers -- enough to want to see the Reapers destroyed, anyway -- could have been a pretty big boost to Shep's Crusade. Harbinger's final words might be interpreted as suggesting such, anyway: base is about to blow up, Harbinger says "you have failed."

 

 

Would have liked a real antagonist (this assumes that TIM doesn't count as the antagonist of the game, too, a point of which I'm not convinced).

 

Big plot twist... TIM = Harbinger

Yeah, I love a good conspiracy theory

[Nepenthe]

Am not convinced, for instance, that they were simply Reaper-tools out to destroydestroydestroy. We know the keepers on the Citadel were a Reaper-repurposed race. We know the Protheans altered them enough to "emancipate" them from Reaper control (at least, enough to make them ignore the Reapers' signal to open the gates of hell, so to speak). We know the Collectors have had peaceful dealings with other sapient races, even going so far as to exchange technologies. We even know that the Collectors were experimenting on their own people as well as humans, looking for similarities. Why? Don't think that was ever really answered in the game, was it?

 

Well, I believe that their purpose wasn't to so much to "destroydestroydestroy" as to create the new Reaper. The reason for their "peaceful" dealings was that they were buying up individuals with (genetic) particularities (a dozen humans with heterochromia, 15 pairs of batarian twins etc.) and paying for these with super-advanced tech. Supposedly they were testing the suitableness of the genetic material with a view to creating the new Reaper - the comparisons to their own race might be to find out why they failed, or to make sure they wouldn't fail again. They were not "exchanging" technologies, they were just paying outrageous prices to slavers for some very esoteric shopping lists.

 

Not all of this was answered in the game, indeed, Mass Effect: Ascension provided more background info on collectors. And Cerberus.

[Oner]

Also, apparently Elcors are powerful and large enough to carry weapons used on Alliance military vehicles. Now *that* is something I want to see in Mass Effect 3. Blasto the Hanar can go cry in a corner - an Elcor Spectre would just keep a tank cannon on him, much more badass.

Blasto could ride him. It.

 

 

I wasn't aware Hanar could wear clothes. I'd post a Drell/Vorcha to make this even worse, but I can't find a picture, and whatever naked Asari pictures I find are probably NSFW.

Asari are the Space Drow.

Normal (blue) elves.

 

 

Amusingly enough the supposedly alien Reapers seem to possess entirely human characteristics, particularily vindictiveness. Not very mature for the ultimate race in the universe but whatever.

I still can't decide wether Sovereign was brilliantly ("Yeah my superior species BS and all? Utter hypocrisy, I make up for my inferiority complex by constantly insulting you.") written or not.

 

 

Then again...

 

I am never going to do an Empire Strikes Back ending again in a game, even if they put branding irons to my feet.

 

Who are we to question?

NwN 2?

[mr insomniac]

Amusingly enough the supposedly alien Reapers seem to possess entirely human characteristics, particularily vindictiveness. Not very mature for the ultimate race in the universe but whatever.

It's like TIM told Shepard, "I don't know if the reapers feel fear or not... but you killed one." There's only evidence this has been done once before, and that was pre-prothean (i think), and again TIM describes it as the last gasp of a dying civilization.

 

Vindictive? Maybe. Afraid, perhaps. At least aware that the civilized galaxy isn't going to be as easy to harvest this time around, thanks to Shepard and humanity. Killing Sovereign certainly wasn't the last gasp of a dying civilization.

[HoonDing]

I actually thought I was asking for better character design. You can have interesting character design and still write them like you usually do. I'm not asking for Elder Gods with incomprehensible minds here, just something imaginative.

Yithians are pretty much the best aliens ever.

 

 

In ME all spacefaring species apparently developed themselves by discovering & using Reaper technology (mass relays), save perhaps the Krogan who got lifted up by Salarians, and this is supposed to explain that all aliens are on equal foot. It's similar to Star Wars where the hyperdrive was reverse engineered from Rakata designs.

 

But considering Salarians & Asari were already colonizing the galaxy thousands of years before humanity made First Contact, it's almost as if technological progress stood still during this time... for instance shortly after First Contact the newbie race of humanity managed to fight off the Turians (a species that had been travelling the galaxy for thousands of years) right off the bat. That doesn't really make sense.