thesapien Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 I would had been happier with just one ending. Boring reasons below: Seems like they introduced the talking Catalysts to explain needless branching at the last moment. But, really, did any of us feel the need for multiple resolutions to the Reaper problem? I don't feel the need for closure, like many others, so would had been totally happy with just a few minutes removed from the game's ending and nothing else added in. Okay, while I'm cutting things, I'd also remove the kid entirely. No space winter prologue. No KL assassin.
GSBmodders Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 I would had been happier with just one ending. Boring reasons below: Seems like they introduced the talking Catalysts to explain needless branching at the last moment. But' date=' really, did any of us feel the need for multiple resolutions to the Reaper problem? I don't feel the need for closure, like many others, so would had been totally happy with just a few minutes removed from the game's ending and nothing else added in. Okay, while I'm cutting things, I'd also remove the kid entirely. No space winter prologue. No KL assassin. [/quote'] I would have been happy with one ending to, destroying the reapers. Afterwards a short epilogue that informs us of the fates of our friends and companions would have been more then enough the fairygodstarchild never should have been, he needs to give tinker belle back her pixie dust and get the fucking hell out of my mass effect. KL - he is a great addition to the books but in the game he is nothing more then a super emo buffoon that looks so god damn out of place it's comical. the only way my shepard could lose to kl is because he fell over laughing at the fucking idiot.
gregathit Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 Found an interesting food for thought post over at BSN...it isn't the usual "end sucks" post: The Catalyst presents us with a bunch of nonsense philosophy and bad logic, and I'd like to take a moment to address one particular piece today. The Catalyst informs Shepard that synthesis is the final step in evolution. Why the heck does he think that this is a good thing? The final step is bad. From any perspective. From Mass Effect 2: "What is it about the Collector's modifications that bothers you so much?" "Disrupts socio-technological balance. All scientific advancement due to intelligence overcoming, compensating for limitations. Can't carry load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations. No limitations, no advancement. No advancement, culture stagnates. Works other way too. Advancement before culture is ready, disasterous. Saw it with Krogan. Uplifted by Salarians. Disasterous." The "final" stage of evolution is the ultimate stagnation of culture and life, and the game itself provides countless examples. For the best, look at the Reapers themselves. When was the last time they evolved? When did they last create great art, vast cities, or just look to the horizon and say "I wonder what's beyond?". There is no growth, no advancement, no limitations to overcome. It's not just limited to the Reapers, though, or even the franchise. Look at any "perfect" culture in almost any media. How many of them are still advancing? Take elves, for example. A great, glorious culture, that exists in a state of eternal stagnation. Never growing, never advancing, never moving on. Look now at Mass Effect's organic life. Broken apart and destroyed every fifty thousand years. Yet organics never stop growing and evolving. Even under incredibly strict control, organics manage to find a way to survive, grow, and thrive. And this is the entire cause of the failure of the cycle. The Reapers cannot change, cannot adapt. When the Protheans alter the Citadel, Sovereign cannot adjust to the new situation, and is wiped out. And the organics, finally completing the Crucible, suddenly become more than the Reapers can handle. So much so that the controlling mastermind suddenly says "well, crap, I can't do anything else, I guess I better just give up and leave the future to this Shepard bloke". The entire basis of the cycle, in fact, is built on this flawed logic. Synthetics will never wipe out organics. Why? Because the synthetics are just as stagnant. The geth, after 300 years of conflict with the quarians, are suddenly crippled by the development of a single weapon, and would have been completely wiped out were it not for the interference of an outside force. Having had such a superior advantage in position and armament, they never need to grow, to advance, or to experiment. They cannot adapt, because they have nothing to adapt to. No limitations, no growth. In short, organic life has a massive advantage because of how imperfect it is. Organics face constant limitations, and constantly move to surpass them. And they succeed. If they didn't, the cycle itself would never have ended. And now the Catalyst asks Shepard to throw all of that away. To turn all life into more Reapers. An end point, reached without a journey or development, and with no future in sight. To do what the Reapers have always tried to do to organics: To cut off their development, to make organics just as stagnant as the Reapers are themselves. "Technology is not a straight line. There are many paths to the same end. Accepting another's path blinds you to alternatives. Nazara--Sovereign--said this itself. 'Your civilization is based on the technology of the Mass Relays: our technology. By using it, your society develops along the paths we desire.'" This argument is used by the pro-enders to argue for the necessity of the destruction of the Mass Relays. Yet it also argues against accepting the Catalyst's options at all, and most of all about taking Synthesis. Why would you force yourself right back along the Reaper's paths, skipping the growth of the journey, and reaching a point which precludes further progress? Technology is not a straight line. Nor is evolution. And the journey is just as important as the destination. Reject synthesis, or you really are dooming the entire galaxy to just be mindless robots, going through the motions, but with no growth or glory to look forward to. "No soul, replaced by tech." Link to OP: http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10704911
GSBmodders Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 Found an interesting food for thought post over at BSN...it isn't the usual "end sucks" post: The Catalyst presents us with a bunch of nonsense philosophy and bad logic' date=' and I'd like to take a moment to address one particular piece today. The Catalyst informs Shepard that synthesis is the final step in evolution. Why the heck does he think that this is a good thing? The final step is bad. From any perspective. From Mass Effect 2: "What is it about the Collector's modifications that bothers you so much?" "Disrupts socio-technological balance. All scientific advancement due to intelligence overcoming, compensating for limitations. Can't carry load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations. No limitations, no advancement. No advancement, culture stagnates. Works other way too. Advancement before culture is ready, disasterous. Saw it with Krogan. Uplifted by Salarians. Disasterous." The "final" stage of evolution is the ultimate stagnation of culture and life, and the game itself provides countless examples. For the best, look at the Reapers themselves. When was the last time they evolved? When did they last create great art, vast cities, or just look to the horizon and say "I wonder what's beyond?". There is no growth, no advancement, no limitations to overcome. It's not just limited to the Reapers, though, or even the franchise. Look at any "perfect" culture in almost any media. How many of them are still advancing? Take elves, for example. A great, glorious culture, that exists in a state of eternal stagnation. Never growing, never advancing, never moving on. Look now at Mass Effect's organic life. Broken apart and destroyed every fifty thousand years. Yet organics never stop growing and evolving. Even under incredibly strict control, organics manage to find a way to survive, grow, and thrive. And this is the entire cause of the failure of the cycle. The Reapers cannot change, cannot adapt. When the Protheans alter the Citadel, Sovereign cannot adjust to the new situation, and is wiped out. And the organics, finally completing the Crucible, suddenly become more than the Reapers can handle. So much so that the controlling mastermind suddenly says "well, crap, I can't do anything else, I guess I better just give up and leave the future to this Shepard bloke". The entire basis of the cycle, in fact, is built on this flawed logic. Synthetics will never wipe out organics. Why? Because the synthetics are just as stagnant. The geth, after 300 years of conflict with the quarians, are suddenly crippled by the development of a single weapon, and would have been completely wiped out were it not for the interference of an outside force. Having had such a superior advantage in position and armament, they never need to grow, to advance, or to experiment. They cannot adapt, because they have nothing to adapt to. No limitations, no growth. In short, organic life has a massive advantage because of how imperfect it is. Organics face constant limitations, and constantly move to surpass them. And they succeed. If they didn't, the cycle itself would never have ended. And now the Catalyst asks Shepard to throw all of that away. To turn all life into more Reapers. An end point, reached without a journey or development, and with no future in sight. To do what the Reapers have always tried to do to organics: To cut off their development, to make organics just as stagnant as the Reapers are themselves. "Technology is not a straight line. There are many paths to the same end. Accepting another's path blinds you to alternatives. Nazara--Sovereign--said this itself. 'Your civilization is based on the technology of the Mass Relays: our technology. By using it, your society develops along the paths we desire.'" This argument is used by the pro-enders to argue for the necessity of the destruction of the Mass Relays. Yet it also argues against accepting the Catalyst's options at all, and most of all about taking Synthesis. Why would you force yourself right back along the Reaper's paths, skipping the growth of the journey, and reaching a point which precludes further progress? Technology is not a straight line. Nor is evolution. And the journey is just as important as the destination. Reject synthesis, or you really are dooming the entire galaxy to just be mindless robots, going through the motions, but with no growth or glory to look forward to. "No soul, replaced by tech." Link to OP: http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10704911 [/quote'] yeah, thats the primary reason I simply opt to destroy. Even if it was not for that there is still the fairygodstarchild telling us that synthesis is the final form of our evolution So if this is true and we are to eventually evolve into synthetic hybrids then reapers entire purpose for reaping is voided out for this cycle so apparently they are simply now reaping for sake of reaping, oh and because the fairygodstarchild said they could
thesapien Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Found an interesting food for thought post over at BSN...it isn't the usual "end sucks" post: The Catalyst presents us with a bunch of nonsense philosophy and bad logic' date=' and I'd like to take a moment to address one particular piece today. The Catalyst informs Shepard that synthesis is the final step in evolution. Why the heck does he think that this is a good thing? The final step is bad. From any perspective. From Mass Effect 2: "What is it about the Collector's modifications that bothers you so much?" "Disrupts socio-technological balance. All scientific advancement due to intelligence overcoming, compensating for limitations. Can't carry load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations. No limitations, no advancement. No advancement, culture stagnates. Works other way too. Advancement before culture is ready, disasterous. Saw it with Krogan. Uplifted by Salarians. Disasterous." The "final" stage of evolution is the ultimate stagnation of culture and life, and the game itself provides countless examples. For the best, look at the Reapers themselves. When was the last time they evolved? When did they last create great art, vast cities, or just look to the horizon and say "I wonder what's beyond?". There is no growth, no advancement, no limitations to overcome. It's not just limited to the Reapers, though, or even the franchise. Look at any "perfect" culture in almost any media. How many of them are still advancing? Take elves, for example. A great, glorious culture, that exists in a state of eternal stagnation. Never growing, never advancing, never moving on. Look now at Mass Effect's organic life. Broken apart and destroyed every fifty thousand years. Yet organics never stop growing and evolving. Even under incredibly strict control, organics manage to find a way to survive, grow, and thrive. And this is the entire cause of the failure of the cycle. The Reapers cannot change, cannot adapt. When the Protheans alter the Citadel, Sovereign cannot adjust to the new situation, and is wiped out. And the organics, finally completing the Crucible, suddenly become more than the Reapers can handle. So much so that the controlling mastermind suddenly says "well, crap, I can't do anything else, I guess I better just give up and leave the future to this Shepard bloke". The entire basis of the cycle, in fact, is built on this flawed logic. Synthetics will never wipe out organics. Why? Because the synthetics are just as stagnant. The geth, after 300 years of conflict with the quarians, are suddenly crippled by the development of a single weapon, and would have been completely wiped out were it not for the interference of an outside force. Having had such a superior advantage in position and armament, they never need to grow, to advance, or to experiment. They cannot adapt, because they have nothing to adapt to. No limitations, no growth. In short, organic life has a massive advantage because of how imperfect it is. Organics face constant limitations, and constantly move to surpass them. And they succeed. If they didn't, the cycle itself would never have ended. And now the Catalyst asks Shepard to throw all of that away. To turn all life into more Reapers. An end point, reached without a journey or development, and with no future in sight. To do what the Reapers have always tried to do to organics: To cut off their development, to make organics just as stagnant as the Reapers are themselves. "Technology is not a straight line. There are many paths to the same end. Accepting another's path blinds you to alternatives. Nazara--Sovereign--said this itself. 'Your civilization is based on the technology of the Mass Relays: our technology. By using it, your society develops along the paths we desire.'" This argument is used by the pro-enders to argue for the necessity of the destruction of the Mass Relays. Yet it also argues against accepting the Catalyst's options at all, and most of all about taking Synthesis. Why would you force yourself right back along the Reaper's paths, skipping the growth of the journey, and reaching a point which precludes further progress? Technology is not a straight line. Nor is evolution. And the journey is just as important as the destination. Reject synthesis, or you really are dooming the entire galaxy to just be mindless robots, going through the motions, but with no growth or glory to look forward to. "No soul, replaced by tech." Link to OP: http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10704911 [/quote'] 1) I think the OP is wrong to expect some sort of reasoning that is convincing from the villain. The Reaper/Catalyst reasoning ought to be seen as flawed. Otherwise, in the end, you'd agree to had been wasting your whole time fighting on the wrong side. I made this point earlier in this thread. Does anyone object to it? Plus, the villain admits to being wrong here in the end. Well, not fully, because the Catalyst still doesn't seem to get that it's one error brings the whole thing down, now voiding any validity it thinks it still has, but doesn't. Silly Catalyst. Personally, I was hoping for it to NOT be about something that is debatable between two sides. I was hoping Reapers actually harvested us as some sort of food for them, perhaps feeding off advanced civilizations like we feed on advanced chemical compounds. It would then be something we couldn't quite understand, nor need to. It would simply be against our own interest, no matter their reasons. Thus, not up for debate; an inherent conflict of interests. 2) I disagree with the OP's description of synthetic life as being something that is stagnate. I can't think of one good reason to assume that. Even non-living technology only comes to be via evolution and never just stops. Putting aside the real world of how everything evolves into being, even in the ME universe, we see EDI go through changes, Legion, as well. If anything, I would argue that by not being carbon based, they may be able to evolve faster. The OP's example of non-adapting Reapers is actually a counter example. The Reapers did adapt to the obstacles, otherwise there wouldn't had been a ME2 and then again a ME3. Edit: #2 made me also come up with an explanation as to why maybe Reapers all look alike (at least to us they do, but probably not to each other). Initially, a new Reaper probably looks like a certain species, like the Human Reaper did, but after thousands of years of doing whatever is it they do between cycles, they evolve together and share traits. A young Reaper may continue growing, so it can quickly learn to space travel (trying to imagine a giant human shaped ship... LOL, some traits probably vanish quickly. No wonder they look like deep sea creatures since they travel in deep space).
gregathit Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 I would disagree that EDI and the Geth would not have changed without some outside stimuli forcing things. Organic life's struggle to exist in ever changing conditions is what helps guarantee evolution. EDI changes as a result of her interactions with the crew and being attacked by the collectors and then the reapers. The Geth have heavy input from their creators and you get to see a bunch of this during the geth mission in ME3 (I will hand it to bioware on that mission - it was touching). Sovereign and Harbinger maintain to the end that things are fixed and the conclusion is inevitable, which is exactly opposite of what both the Geth and EDI come to believe. The reapers aren't really evolving per say IMHO as they are simply being forced to do things slightly different due to the protheans meddling with the keepers. I say this because I am discounting a slight behavior change as evolving. As to them adapting....if option a fails they move to b, IMHO that isn't so much a sign of true adaption but instead the result of clever programing. They (the reapers) never stop to consider what they are doing. They never have any regrets or doubts. Sure I realize that this is putting a human spin on things but it just seems to machine like. As to why their shapes are the same? For countless cycles that shape with the weapons they had was sufficient to get the job done. Why change? This type of reasoning is the what both Sovereign and Harbinger constantly bring up. They strike me as ai's with program blocks that make them unable to consider any option other than they one that was given to them so many cycles ago. This makes them more robot like and seem less sentient to me IMHO. Now all of the above is not because I agree with any of it in the game, it is just trying to logically wrap my arms around what we have been presented with. All and all, I still maintain that the whole organic vs synthetic should have stayed a minor theme that was resolved with EDI and the Geth/Quarians. It should never have seen the light of day in its current form as the primary theme.
thesapien Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 I would disagree that EDI and the Geth would not have changed without some outside stimuli forcing things. Organic life's struggle to exist in ever changing conditions is what helps guarantee evolution. EDI changes as a result of her interactions with the crew and being attacked by the collectors and then the reapers. The Geth have heavy input from their creators and you get to see a bunch of this during the geth mission in ME3 (I will hand it to bioware on that mission - it was touching). It's no different for anything that evolves. Adaption requires an environment. Outside stimuli is a necessary ingredient' date=' according to evolutionary theory. So you're not really making any sense here, sorry. Sovereign and Harbinger maintain to the end that things are fixed and the conclusion is inevitable, which is exactly opposite of what both the Geth and EDI come to believe. I take their words as ego and superiority and "resistance is futile" sort of thing. Otherwise, they're saying that they knew before hand that their first and second attempts would all fail, maybe their last, as well. The reapers aren't really evolving per say IMHO as they are simply being forced to do things slightly different due to the protheans meddling with the keepers. I say this because I am discounting a slight behavior change as evolving. As to them adapting....if option a fails they move to b' date=' IMHO that isn't so much a sign of true adaption but instead the result of clever programing. They (the reapers) never stop to consider what they are doing. They never have any regrets or doubts. Sure I realize that this is putting a human spin on things but it just seems to machine like.[/quote'] Evolutionary theory is ALL about tiny changes that add up. "Clever programming"? That defines evolution. Evolutionary theory is basically an algorithm. As to why their shapes are the same? For countless cycles that shape with the weapons they had was sufficient to get the job done. Why change? This type of reasoning is the what both Sovereign and Harbinger constantly bring up. They strike me as ai's with program blocks that make them unable to consider any option other than they one that was given to them so many cycles ago. This makes them more robot like and seem less sentient to me IMHO. Ignores what we just discussed a few posts back. Remember the human Reaper? Every Reaper should resemble the race it harvested and preserved. Thus' date=' they should all look unique by default. We assumed they all looked alike because of a BioWare design decision to simply their work. So I was just having fun explaining maybe why they don't all look different. Now all of the above is not because I agree with any of it in the game, it is just trying to logically wrap my arms around what we have been presented with. I just now played the mission and acquired the Prothean, Javik. Talk to him and you'll discover that the Reapers were very adaptive during their war, more so than the Protheans. All and all' date=' I still maintain that the whole organic vs synthetic should have stayed a minor theme that was resolved with EDI and the Geth/Quarians. It should never have seen the light of day in its current form as the primary theme.[/quote'] I can now see better why it is a theme now. Probably for people maybe kind of like yourself.
gregathit Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 It's no different for anything that evolves. Adaption requires an environment. Outside stimuli is a necessary ingredient' date=' according to evolutionary theory. So you're not really making any sense here, sorry. [/quote'] The exception is that I don't see the reapers adapting. Every cycle had been the same. No new technology was being invented. They had basically stagnated until the current cycle as a result of the protheans tampering with the keepers and being unable to invade via the citadel and then turn off the mass relays. How many cycles had it been same ole, same ole for them? Organic life is always struggling to do things better, faster, cheaper. The reapers only change when forced to and are quite slow in doing so. I take their words as ego and superiority and "resistance is futile" sort of thing. Otherwise' date=' they're saying that they knew before hand that their first and second attempts would all fail, maybe their last, as well. [/quote'] I think it goes back to what I said above in that they never look to evolve unless forced. They were stagnant. For countless cycles they had succeed and never faced anything that could stop them. Arrogance perhaps but based on past successes. Again, I take this as another sign of stagnation in that they never considered that someone could come up with a counter to them. They thought they had stacked the deck and never considered anyone might get wise to it. Perhaps reading to much into it....... Evolutionary theory is ALL about tiny changes that add up. "Clever programming"? That defines evolution. Evolutionary theory is basically an algorithm. For sure' date=' evolution is indeed a series of tiny changes. That is beyond any question. Yes, you can argue that their moving from option a to b to c is that sort of change. However I am saying that it is more akin to the mouse in the maze that just keeps trying different paths until he gets his cheese. They never once (that I can ever find) question "why". I think that the "why" question is perhaps the most important question that the human race can ever ask. When we stop asking "why" I think that we too will stagnate. Course that is just my opinion........... Ignores what we just discussed a few posts back. Remember the human Reaper? Every Reaper should resemble the race it harvested and preserved. Thus, they should all look unique by default. We assumed they all looked alike because of a BioWare design decision to simply their work. So I was just having fun explaining maybe why they don't all look different. The human reaper again I think ties back to the "dark energy" plot line, or perhaps was just done for dramatic effect. Both are plausible. More information as to why it is the only unique reaper while all others are the same is something we can only speculate on. Could be as you said just a design decision or any number of other things (like the theory I put forth). We can only speculate at this point. I just now played the mission and acquired the Prothean' date=' Javik. Talk to him and you'll discover that the Reapers were very adaptive during their war, more so than the Protheans. [/quote'] I had the dlc from day one so Javik was part of my play through. The reapers were NOT adaptive at all. They followed the same pattern that they had for countless cycles. The vanguard activated the citadel allowing the reapers to jump in from darkspace and then turned off all the mass relays. This left the prothean fleets/armies scattered and stranded allowing the reapers to mass themselves and take each system one by one with overwhelming force. You find out in ME2 from vigil that the prothean scientists made a new mass relay (since the reapers had turned all of theirs off) that went directly to the citadel, after it had already been taken and then did their tampering with the keepers to give the next cycle a chance. Unfortunately that gate was an unfinished prototype that only worked in one direction so the scientists died on the citadel. I can now see better why it is a theme now. Probably for people maybe kind of like yourself. What, another "you just don't understand" attempted dig? How droll. We don't agree so let's stop kicking the dead horse already.
GSBmodders Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 Ignores what we just discussed a few posts back. Remember the human Reaper? Every Reaper should resemble the race it harvested and preserved. Thus' date=' they should all look unique by default. We assumed they all looked alike because of a BioWare design decision to simply their work. So I was just having fun explaining maybe why they don't all look different. [/quote'] The human reaper again I think ties back to the "dark energy" plot line, or perhaps was just done for dramatic effect. Both are plausible. More information as to why it is the only unique reaper while all others are the same is something we can only speculate on. Could be as you said just a design decision or any number of other things (like the theory I put forth). We can only speculate at this point. The human reaper is indeed a DE plot throw back, the reapers needed to create a Human reaper so they would have a diverse input into how to stop Dark Energy from destroying the universe. This is also the reason why shepard is so important to the reapers I just now played the mission and acquired the Prothean' date=' Javik. Talk to him and you'll discover that the Reapers were very adaptive during their war, more so than the Protheans. [/quote'] I had the dlc from day one so Javik was part of my play through. The reapers were NOT adaptive at all. They followed the same pattern that they had for countless cycles. The vanguard activated the citadel allowing the reapers to jump in from darkspace and then turned off all the mass relays. This left the prothean fleets/armies scattered and stranded allowing the reapers to mass themselves and take each system one by one with overwhelming force. You find out in ME2 from vigil that the prothean scientists made a new mass relay (since the reapers had turned all of theirs off) that went directly to the citadel, after it had already been taken and then did their tampering with the keepers to give the next cycle a chance. Unfortunately that gate was an unfinished prototype that only worked in one direction so the scientists died on the citadel. Yeah Javik states they lost to the reaper's because his race being the dominant imposed it's own ideals on society and as a result they lacked diversity in thinking and so they wre unable to adapt to the reapers. The reapers themselves are at there own final form of evolution
thesapien Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 I just now played the mission and acquired the Prothean' date=' Javik. Talk to him and you'll discover that the Reapers were very adaptive during their war, more so than the Protheans. [/quote'] I had the dlc from day one so Javik was part of my play through. The reapers were NOT adaptive at all. They followed the same pattern that they had for countless cycles. The vanguard activated the citadel allowing the reapers to jump in from darkspace and then turned off all the mass relays. This left the prothean fleets/armies scattered and stranded allowing the reapers to mass themselves and take each system one by one with overwhelming force. You find out in ME2 from vigil that the prothean scientists made a new mass relay (since the reapers had turned all of theirs off) that went directly to the citadel, after it had already been taken and then did their tampering with the keepers to give the next cycle a chance. Unfortunately that gate was an unfinished prototype that only worked in one direction so the scientists died on the citadel. Yeah Javik states they lost to the reaper's because his race being the dominant imposed it's own ideals on society and as a result they lacked diversity in thinking and so they wre unable to adapt to the reapers. This is one those cases where we can exclaim to Gregathit, "Did you even play the game!" Javik is quite clear. The Reapers were more adaptive than the Protheans during their war against one another.
thesapien Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 What' date=' another "you just don't understand" attempted dig? How droll. We don't agree so let's stop kicking the dead horse already. [/quote'] No, I meant it another way. Saying maybe it was there for you to think about isn't the same as saying you wouldn't understand no matter how much you studied it. The difference is subtle yet hugely different. The former is more like saying, "Try studying it." The later is more like those who give up on something like higher mathematics. The latter would be like BioWare including a treatise on Kuhn that many people would then forever be stuck on because it would actually be beyond their intellectual abilities. I do get the impression you don't have a good understanding of evolutionary theory, but I'm not sure it's beyond you. I've also changed my mind about BioWare in any way aiming high with this game when it comes to philosophy, science, etc. It's more of an emotional ride with lots of cool action than anything else. The sci-fi gives it a neat style and all, but it's the character development and story telling that make it shine for the most part, IMHO.
gregathit Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 I just now played the mission and acquired the Prothean' date=' Javik. Talk to him and you'll discover that the Reapers were very adaptive during their war, more so than the Protheans. [/quote'] I had the dlc from day one so Javik was part of my play through. The reapers were NOT adaptive at all. They followed the same pattern that they had for countless cycles. The vanguard activated the citadel allowing the reapers to jump in from darkspace and then turned off all the mass relays. This left the prothean fleets/armies scattered and stranded allowing the reapers to mass themselves and take each system one by one with overwhelming force. You find out in ME2 from vigil that the prothean scientists made a new mass relay (since the reapers had turned all of theirs off) that went directly to the citadel, after it had already been taken and then did their tampering with the keepers to give the next cycle a chance. Unfortunately that gate was an unfinished prototype that only worked in one direction so the scientists died on the citadel. Yeah Javik states they lost to the reaper's because his race being the dominant imposed it's own ideals on society and as a result they lacked diversity in thinking and so they wre unable to adapt to the reapers. This is one those cases where we can exclaim to Gregathit, "Did you even play the game!" Javik is quite clear. The Reapers were more adaptive than the Protheans during their war against one another. Once again you are "hung up" on the meaning of one word and loosing context of the whole. The reapers DID NOTHING THAT THEY HADN'T DONE FOR COUNTLESS CYCLES. That is NOT ADAPTING, it is doing the same DAMN thing over and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over - starting to get it yet?. The protheans realized too late what the reapers intended and suffered the same fate as the previous cycles. Thus it would be appropriate to say the protheans failed to "anticipate" the reapers plan/trap and fell victim to it as had all the other civilizations before them. I am starting to wonder if that is your method of sidetracking debates.......
gregathit Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 What' date=' another "you just don't understand" attempted dig? How droll. We don't agree so let's stop kicking the dead horse already. [/quote'] No, I meant it another way. Saying maybe it was there for you to think about isn't the same as saying you wouldn't understand no matter how much you studied it. The difference is subtle yet hugely different. The former is more like saying, "Try studying it." The later is more like those who give up on something like higher mathematics. The latter would be like BioWare including a treatise on Kuhn that many people would then forever be stuck on because it would actually be beyond their intellectual abilities. I do get the impression you don't have a good understanding of evolutionary theory, but I'm not sure it's beyond you. It was a dig and you know it. Dance a jig around it all you like but it doesn't change anything. Your impression of my knowledge is as meaningless to me as your opinions are. What I have a firm grasp on that you seemingly do not, is that I realize opinions only carry any weight....for the individual that has them. We have not argued on evolutionary theory as a whole only whether a rat nosing his way thru a maze can be interpreted as "evolving" (my comparison to the reapers trying option b and c after failing in ME1/ME2). Their goal was still to get the cheese (wipe out all advanced civies) so in my view nothing really changed. The fact that we disagree over this one "interpretation" of whether that indicates evolution can hardly be used to affirm/deny any knowledge I may/may not have on the given subject. As far as I am concerned there is nothing to "think about" as the premise of synthetics killing organics, to prevent organics from creating synthetics, who would kill all organics is STUPID! That is my opinion. Clearly you do not share it, so lets move on. I've also changed my mind about BioWare in any way aiming high with this game when it comes to philosophy' date=' science, etc. It's more of an emotional ride with lots of cool action than anything else. The sci-fi gives it a neat style and all, but it's the character development and story telling that make it shine for the most part, IMHO. [/quote'] I would agree that bioware is better than the vast majority of other gaming companies at the story telling/character development aspects. Minus the story & characters the games are sub-par at best. Holy Sh@t on a stick!!! We actually agree on something. Mark this day down as it well may not occur again.
thesapien Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 Using all caps in red doesn't make it true, nor repeating it. Let's back up and clarify what we're arguing about here. I objected to a claim made by an OP in a link you provided. The OP claimed that synthetic life can't evolve in the ME universe. I do not see that as something intended by the writers. Now, let's back up further and just look at basic evolution for ordinary life on Earth. Stagnation occurs for organic species all the time. Sharks have not changed much for many generations. Countless others went extinct because of stagnation. The rats in a maze you refer to are still considered to be a species that can evolve. Do you not see rats as part of evolving organic life? We can see examples of where Reapers probably are stuck in their ways, likely due to being created and controlled by the Catalyst. They never did reach a point of singularity and outgrow their own creator. Reapers are shackled AI, like an indoctrinated organic. They also seem to lack much of an environment to evolve within. In between cycles, what's their outside stimuli and challenge? Do they power down and hibernate? During their feeding time, they are shown to be adaptive and able to create new types of Reapers from new types of species, however, that could also just be the Catalyst controlling its toys on a gameboard. Seems inconclusive to me, the more I think about it. If sharks were remoted controlled with collars, how could we say with certainty that they could never otherwise evolve? What about the Geth? My impression is that they did evolve, though limited by isolation. They even contradicted the Catalyst's linear rule by sparing their creators during the Quarian retreat. Their creators, on the other hand, seemed to stagnate, though this observation, of course, doesn't imply that the Quarians are no longer part of evolution. Once the Geth were faced with new challenges, a lot seemed to happen with them, exemplified by Legion, while the Quarians still seemed to be stuck in their old ways, with the exception of Tali, who goes to show these simple descriptions are overgeneralizations. So I do object to any quick dismissive and really did mean what I said about such themes being provocative, maybe there to provoke thought along different lines and to get anyone stagnating on these issues to reconsider their positions. Personally, as I've said before in this thread, I strive to be inconsistent. I keep going back and forth, even now, on how much the writers intended and how much was accidentally deep.
thesapien Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 And, aside from arguing about the ME universe, I do not agree that everything is mere opinion without any degrees of sound reasoning or validity regarding what comes closer to truth. And when someone or something challenges your opinion it will be felt like a "dig", as you put it. I tend to do it in a way that is not very productive, saving my own time, but sometimes think it's worse to not say anything at all. I'm crazy that way, so much so, that when some random stranger just out of the blue calls me stupid with no explanation, I still try to pause and see how maybe they were right. Mostly, I just think it's the other way around, of course, but really do practice pausing and considering the feedback. In trying to piece together what you mean to say, it sounds like you're arguing that synthetics are necessarily hardwired in a way that allows for a little on the fly adapting yet no evolution. You seem to think this of non-human animals, too, given your example of lab rats in a maze and your singling out of humans who can verbalize a question like "Why?" However, conventional theory actually incorporates the idea that individuals are indeed all hardwired and that evolution applies only to the species as a whole. Novel traits are introduced via cross-breeding and mutations from the norm and selected for via one surviving generation to the next. Cultural evolution (memes), technological evolution, and other types do complicate things. Sci-fi much more so. Something like a Geth does not breed yet is also able to modify itself in ways using its tech. Geth could also build more Geth based on modifications. I'm just thinking out loud here. Spoiler for the future; pretending to be so bold: New science is always challenging conventional theory, as well. Up till recently, most of our own DNA was considered "junk DNA" left over from ancestors but no longer used. Now, it's looking like it is being used not by us but something else. It's viral, used by things smaller than the wavelength of visible light (being that most simple viruses are that small) and thus had not been noticed before and still hard to observe. New studies are exploring the idea that swarms of viruses are constantly using most of our DNA. Remember, too, that viruses are the only things we know of that can also rewrite DNA. Indeed, when we do genetic modification to plants and such, we are using viruses and their methods. Thus, well, the implications are mind boggling. Consider that kissing could actually be a way of sharing information and modifying ourselves within a single generation, breathing too. I suspect we will one day completely change how we define viruses, likely no longer label them as being "bad" or even distinct from ourselves. I kind of see a few of them as rogue and giving all the rest a bad name. Like what if we learned about cancer before ever learning about normal human cells, then had to go back and rewrite the books on tissue cells being what mostly seems to constitute us with the rogue ones being cancer. With each cell now being full of swarms of viruses as the norm... anyway, often more fascinating than sci-fi really. And I've had a lot of coffee, today. I should go.
thesapien Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 As far as I am concerned there is nothing to "think about" as the premise of synthetics killing organics' date=' to prevent organics from creating synthetics, who would kill all organics is STUPID! That is my opinion. Clearly you do not share it, so lets move on. [/quote'] As you would say, this again? I've already explained that the villain's reasons ought to be rejected, ought to be thrown out as "stupid". You are supposed to see through it, see it for what it really means for humanity. The catalyst can try to explain all it wants that becoming a Husk or a Reaper is not death, is better for everyone, but it's not supposed to convince you. If you agreed with the Catalyst, then you would wrongly be admitting to had been on the wrong side all along. But that's not the case. What the Reapers do to organics IS an abomination and just walking through the discarded bodies on the way up to the Catalyst ought to reinforce that gut reaction. How can you say that's not my opinion after I've repeatedly tried to explain this to you? Do you not understand the words I am using? Reapers = bad. Catalyst = bad. This is one point I have been entirely consistent on. Remember your Hitler analogy? Well, let me ask you, if you played a game that took place in WWII where you were fighting as a hero against the Nazis, then confronted Hitler who told you his reasons, would you say the writers of the game were stupid because Hitler was stupid? No, of course not. The writers also see him as the bad guy. I doubt the writers of ME, if asked, would say yes to becoming Husks or a Reaper. Anyway, I don't know how else to say it right now. I'm so done revisiting this point.
Surenas Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 In the context of Mass Effect we better have to leave aside any analogy to Hitler, for the evil of the latter isn't that simple. To grasp Hitler's demonic visions, his roots in the doomed gas war generation of WW-I, one ultimately has to read J.R.R. Tolkien's contemporary Silmarillion to understand the Austrian private Hitler and the angry Germans during the 2nd Dark Age in Middle-Earth as the historical background (actually it is a decennial literary anticipation) of Sauron and the Orc armies in Lord of the Rings. The evil, folks, is called stupid first after its overcoming! In Mass Effect we find other analogies that are reminiscent to contemporary literature and cinematic art, e.g. H.G. Well's War of the Worlds, the Star Trek universe, Battlestar Galactica and the Matrix trilogy. The former deals with organic harvesting by superior aliens and the latter with virtual control of organic energy cells and their war against the machines in the real. And there Commander Shepard goes... a legendary torch in the galactic storm. Resistance is futile, we are legion 1), we are the Borg! You will be assimilated! Fascinating, as Mr Spock would have said. It is, the Number Six in me has to agree. Humans don't even grasp the nature of their own existence, they're ignorant, so what? Shepard quite obviously gets shot and heavily wounded in the run to the beam, the following sequences on the citadel are just the mental showdown of the indoctrinated part of the inner self (represented by the Illusive Man), the still resisting part (represented by Anderson) and the human willpower (represented by Shepard himself). Depending on the military strength of the Alliance Shepard either dies on the ground in London or survives heavily wounded. The following fictional dialogue with the personal shadow of the past - the child Shepard couldn't save in the intro, drawn as bodyless VI - is to be understood as final answers given by the Harbinger within leading to the last choice of the willpower before the lights go out and night befalls the conscious mind - the beliefs Shepard is dying for, here and now. Control, synthesis with or destruction of the synthetic. Game over! Load New Game... Tell me another story of the Shepard! 1) Gospel of Mark 5.9 Then Jesus asked him, "What is your name?" "My name is Legion," he replied, "for we are many."
thesapien Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Spoiling thread: I do hate me some Hitler analogies. Earlier in this wondrous thread, I quipped such was "awkward" and left it that, else welcome being Austracized. History written by the Victors, then re-inserted, over and over, Brainstaining. Soak in the black and white and red of Spielberg's Hollywood Truth. Feel the shame and embarrassment of a Mad Max Gibson. Great Depression, aka the last cycle, and the hardest hit nation of hyperinflation, Deutschland, arises how? Indoctrinated leader is suicided and can't talk. Following the yellow brick road of gold bars, following the money to the green, emerald city, I'm faced with a stupid Catalyst hell bent on reducing populations and playing the world like it's theirs. Ah, but this cycle, the BRICS are uniting and Iran isn't making the same mistakes. Let's not forget the less meaningful yet fully entertaining borrowing from the TV series Andromeda, named after the ship that also had a beautiful female AI which acquired an avatar with the help of the comic relief engineer and Seth Green look alike. Speaking of Joker, he gets a lot of flack on the intertubes for high tailing it at the end. In one way, it's deserved but not out of character. ME2 made it pretty clear Normandy was more important to him than Shep. He once said to Shep something along the lines of hurry your ass up because I'm not about to lose another Normandy. Plus, Shep kind of died at the beginning because Joker wouldn't abandon ship with everybody else. Shep will risk his/her life for Joker, but Joker is more about Normandy. Also, he had a whole crew to save and his LI, EDI. He was probably prepared for anything coming out of that superweapon and ready get clear as soon as it fired. And, yes, grasping one's own nature is quite... uhm, problematic.
thesapien Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Shepard quite obviously gets shot and heavily wounded in the run to the beam' date=' the following sequences on the citadel are just the mental showdown of the indoctrinated part of the inner self (represented by the Illusive Man), the still resisting part (represented by Anderson) and the human willpower (represented by Shepard himself). Depending on the military strength of the Alliance Shepard either dies on the ground in London or survives heavily wounded. The following fictional dialogue with the personal shadow of the past - the child Shepard couldn't save in the intro, drawn as bodyless VI - is to be understood as final answers given by the Harbinger within leading to the last choice of the willpower before the lights go out and night befalls the conscious mind - the beliefs Shepard is dying for, here and now. Control, synthesis with or destruction of the synthetic. Game over! Load New Game... [i']Tell me another story of the Shepard![/i] 1) Gospel of Mark 5.9 Then Jesus asked him, "What is your name?" "My name is Legion," he replied, "for we are many." Ah, yes, Shep as the good shepherd, herding the herd, back from the dead, leading with a sword, ending with a last temptation... Knowledge, tech, as the Original Sin of those with free will to be tempted to usurp and play as God... Gotta love these writers! Not sure the sequence needs to be interpreted as metaphors within a game that is already metaphorical, but, again, seems someone did leave a trail of breadcrumbs for those who might. Careful though, because some things like Shep holding his/her side injury might look like the same spot Anderson was shot by Shep but be explained by the devs simply reusing the same animation on every injured soldier! Shep lost consciousness twice, once before beaming up to the Citadel, then upon being raised even higher to the Catalyst. Perhaps a third time if not actually dying in the end. Quite thick in metaphor. I still do think that one can see the ending as making some sort of sense without necessarily going meta tho. Gamers object to Anderson getting ahead of Shep, yet Shep was knocked out so maybe. Then on the Citadel, the walls were shifting so their paths may had been very different, shifting once to allow Anderson to go forward, then Shep, and then even the Illusive Man, who of course was already on the Citadel as planned by the Reapers/Catalyst and there to "make you believe" as the Illusive Man says to Shep. Did anyone catch the flowery imagery of the natural sexual reproductive shapes of the Crucible contacting the Citadel while Hackett says it is "opening its arms"?
Sεraphim Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Honestly, the only thing I hate about this game is -- no, not the ending, but the chaaracter design and character creation. Honestly, it boils down to 4 choices when it comes to your character. 1. Play as the default male Shepard, be limited in the "be-your-own-Shepard" aspect, but at the same time, not suffer from having to look at a guy that looks half-dead and suffering from AIDs. 2. Play as a custom male Shepard, have your oh-so-important "roleplay" aspect, but at the same time, suffer from having to look like Tom Hanks suffering from AIDs... and down syndrome... 3. Play as default female Shepard, who looks like that 8th grade ginger math teacher you really hated, except this time she has even more of an ugly hair-do and looks as if a Krogan sat on her face and fucking flattened it. 4. Play as a custom female Shepard, who looks like a dying monkey almost 80% of the time because you're so damn limited to how you create your character. Honestly, whoever designed the character's awkward stances, awkward animations, and awkward hair should get fired, and if it was made each by separate individuals, then fire them! If they were made each by different departments of Bioware... GUESS THE FUCK WHAT? YOU'RE PAYING HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE MONEY TO TRANSFER 5 YEAR OLD ANIMATIONS, HAIRSTYLES, AND BODIES THAT WOULD'VE BEEN GOOD IN LIKE... 2002! Atleast give the people the option to mod the game, but nope, you've got to make it HARD to let the community edit your game. I tried to make a female Shepard. The first time, I used the default... I had to wait 10 minutes before I could quit the damn cutscene and create a new custom one (thought I'd have better luck)... I failed. 3 damn times. I really don't feel like going through a second playthrough anymore. I'll start playing Bioware's games again when they update their: -textures -animations -character designs (bodies, faces, etc.) Now, I know I seem like a spoiled player to some, but this is just how I feel towards those three things. They haven't even tried to change these three factors to the game over the course of what, five damn years? Actually, you know what?I don't care TOO heavily on the textures, that won't kill me if it doesn't change (and knowing Bioware, it wont). But at least, for the love of baby fucking Jesus, change the character design. For me, it straight up ruins the game. I literally do NOT want to play, especially since you have dialogue scenes most of time in this game that have cameras zoom into your face. Everything else about Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 is good though. The story, great. The armor designs (and improvements over each sequel), wonderous. The voice-acting, it's good. And so on, and so on. Even the ending was good, sure, I didn't exactly find it suitable to the genre of endings I usually get, but it was still GOOD.
GSBmodders Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Honestly' date=' the only thing I hate about this game is -- no, not the ending, but the chaaracter design and character creation. Honestly, it boils down to 4 choices when it comes to your character. 1. Play as the default male Shepard, be limited in the "be-your-own-Shepard" aspect, but at the same time, not suffer from having to look at a guy that looks half-dead and suffering from AIDs. 2. Play as a custom male Shepard, have your oh-so-important "roleplay" aspect, but at the same time, suffer from having to look like Tom Hanks suffering from AIDs... and down syndrome... 3. Play as default female Shepard, who looks like that 8th grade ginger math teacher you really hated, except this time she has even more of an ugly hair-do and looks as if a Krogan sat on her face and fucking flattened it. 4. Play as a custom female Shepard, who looks like a dying monkey almost 80% of the time because you're so damn limited to how you create your character. Honestly, whoever designed the character's awkward stances, awkward animations, and awkward hair should get fired, and if it was made each by separate individuals, then fire them! If they were made each by different departments of Bioware... GUESS THE FUCK WHAT? YOU'RE PAYING HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE MONEY TO TRANSFER 5 YEAR OLD ANIMATIONS, HAIRSTYLES, AND BODIES THAT WOULD'VE BEEN GOOD IN LIKE... 2002! Atleast give the people the option to mod the game, but nope, you've got to make it HARD to let the community edit your game. I tried to make a female Shepard. The first time, I used the default... I had to wait 10 minutes before I could quit the damn cutscene and create a new custom one (thought I'd have better luck)... I failed. 3 damn times. I really don't feel like going through a second playthrough anymore. I'll start playing Bioware's games again when they update their: -textures -animations -character designs (bodies, faces, etc.) Now, I know I seem like a spoiled player to some, but this is just how I feel towards those three things. They haven't even tried to change these three factors to the game over the course of what, five damn years? Actually, you know what?I don't care TOO heavily on the textures, that won't kill me if it doesn't change (and knowing Bioware, it wont). But at least, for the love of baby fucking Jesus, change the character design. For me, it straight up ruins the game. I literally do NOT want to play, especially since you have dialogue scenes most of time in this game that have cameras zoom into your face. Everything else about Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 is good though. The story, great. The armor designs (and improvements over each sequel), wonderous. The voice-acting, it's good. And so on, and so on. Even the ending was good, sure, I didn't exactly find it suitable to the genre of endings I usually get, but it was still GOOD. [/quote'] Most of your complaints are nonsense imo, I can confirm that the game has high rez models and textures it also has duplicate low rez models and texture's. For optimization mass effect calls the low rez models and textures at times where there are a lot of npc's on the map there is nothing wrong with this, after all the game was designed to run on pc's that are close to being 15 years old at min settings, and while I hate to get into the console shit, they havnt been updated in a long time. At this point consoles are holding developers back and until microsoft releases the next gen trash box this wont change Character creation is like any other game it takes practice but once you get the hang of it you can knock out some pretty damn bad ass looking shepards. the only thing that the character creator needed was a couple more sliders to be perfect, as it stands it's still a thousand steps above many other games that provide no choice at all and a tip, when using any character creator that is slider based, it is helpful to have profile pictures that you can reference. Most people end up with retarded looking characters because they simply havnt a clue as to how a persons facial features should look
Sεraphim Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Honestly' date=' the only thing I hate about this game is -- no, not the ending, but the chaaracter design and character creation. Honestly, it boils down to 4 choices when it comes to your character. 1. Play as the default male Shepard, be limited in the "be-your-own-Shepard" aspect, but at the same time, not suffer from having to look at a guy that looks half-dead and suffering from AIDs. 2. Play as a custom male Shepard, have your oh-so-important "roleplay" aspect, but at the same time, suffer from having to look like Tom Hanks suffering from AIDs... and down syndrome... 3. Play as default female Shepard, who looks like that 8th grade ginger math teacher you really hated, except this time she has even more of an ugly hair-do and looks as if a Krogan sat on her face and fucking flattened it. 4. Play as a custom female Shepard, who looks like a dying monkey almost 80% of the time because you're so damn limited to how you create your character. Honestly, whoever designed the character's awkward stances, awkward animations, and awkward hair should get fired, and if it was made each by separate individuals, then fire them! If they were made each by different departments of Bioware... GUESS THE FUCK WHAT? YOU'RE PAYING HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE MONEY TO TRANSFER 5 YEAR OLD ANIMATIONS, HAIRSTYLES, AND BODIES THAT WOULD'VE BEEN GOOD IN LIKE... 2002! Atleast give the people the option to mod the game, but nope, you've got to make it HARD to let the community edit your game. I tried to make a female Shepard. The first time, I used the default... I had to wait 10 minutes before I could quit the damn cutscene and create a new custom one (thought I'd have better luck)... I failed. 3 damn times. I really don't feel like going through a second playthrough anymore. I'll start playing Bioware's games again when they update their: -textures -animations -character designs (bodies, faces, etc.) Now, I know I seem like a spoiled player to some, but this is just how I feel towards those three things. They haven't even tried to change these three factors to the game over the course of what, five damn years? Actually, you know what?I don't care TOO heavily on the textures, that won't kill me if it doesn't change (and knowing Bioware, it wont). But at least, for the love of baby fucking Jesus, change the character design. For me, it straight up ruins the game. I literally do NOT want to play, especially since you have dialogue scenes most of time in this game that have cameras zoom into your face. Everything else about Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 is good though. The story, great. The armor designs (and improvements over each sequel), wonderous. The voice-acting, it's good. And so on, and so on. Even the ending was good, sure, I didn't exactly find it suitable to the genre of endings I usually get, but it was still GOOD. [/quote'] Most of your complaints are nonsense imo, I can confirm that the game has high rez models and textures it also has duplicate low rez models and texture's. For optimization mass effect calls the low rez models and textures at times where there are a lot of npc's on the map there is nothing wrong with this, after all the game was designed to run on pc's that are close to being 15 years old at min settings, and while I hate to get into the console shit, they havnt been updated in a long time. At this point consoles are holding developers back and until microsoft releases the next gen trash box this wont change Character creation is like any other game it takes practice but once you get the hang of it you can knock out some pretty damn bad ass looking shepards. the only thing that the character creator needed was a couple more sliders to be perfect, as it stands it's still a thousand steps above many other games that provide no choice at all and a tip, when using any character creator that is slider based, it is helpful to have profile pictures that you can reference. Most people end up with retarded looking characters because they simply havnt a clue as to how a persons facial features should look My argument was based mostly around 1. Character designs 2. Character creation 3. Textures These three things haven't even changed a BIT from Mass Effect 1 (2007). That's why I'm mad. Over the course of five years, they couldn't have the decency to change at least the body shape, awkward hunch, and I-just-shat-myself run animation? Nope, they just decided "Hey, I have an idea guys. Instead of changing the animations, let's just change the camera POV!" Now, the only animations I've seen change are the slow-run animations, which still suck. I mean, ONE guy who made a walk-animation mod for Skyrim did better than a whole department could in 2 weeks. It's a bit sad. Like I said, low-rez textures, fine. I can live with it if it didn't change, though I'd prefer there to be a setting so it can be changed on the PC. But I don't depend that much on graphics anyways. As for the character creation, the fact that it's missing slides, and there is only five POVs I can work with is exactly why I think it sucks. Trust me, I've tried using angled and from-the-front pictures of different people. It's still extremely hard because I can't actually see how I'd see it in a cinematic or during gameplay. And, lastly, it boils down to the hair. The retro 90's hair ruins it for me even further. To be honest, if I had better hair to work with, it'd probably make the character look a lot better, even with a shitty face. (I'd also prefer to have a good looking default on BOTH genders than a custom character. I could care less about having my own, if they both looked decent. Mass Effect is about Shepard, not about some dying albino ape with cool armor.)
thesapien Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 It's kind of funny. Okay, maybe not. But, yeah, the character creation even still has the same oddities like two identical mouth settings. I can't figure out why they changed the things they did but left everything else the same since none of the changes were improvements. Why not just leave it all the same for those importing? Why is default maleShep the same while those using default femShep got a surprise, oh, and an equally fugly one? Default maleShep is the only one who looks like one of the main characters. All the rest look out of place unless standing next to a random character that was probably created using the same options. Anyway, I agree that it's an annoying relic, but it's not a game breaker for me. I don't mind so much that it's the same game engine from ME and ME2 without any improvements. Those are still good games, too. Oh, yes, and the animation for jogging is pretty darn embarrassing. It makes you really wonder about two things: One, what was BioWare's budget all for? Mostly voice acting is my guess. Two, what are those other gamers smoking who see the graphics as so awesome? Give me some of that.
GSBmodders Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 It's like I said the game was designed to run on a 15 year old pc and todays consoles such as the trash box. So as for graphics they are ok when considering this. Bioware's biggest problem is that they still continue to use the same skeleton for both male and female characters. This is the cause of the stupid looking animation's and the reason why characters look a bit goofy sometimes in cut scenes the male skeleton is to large for the female model, so if you look at femshep while she runs you notice her arms tend to look mutated. In all fairness this is the same damn thing that capcoms resident evil suffers from and it's really noticeable in res evil 5 with sheva alomar in defense of bioware Bethesda did no better which is why we are all so keen on our body replacers. Dont even get me started on that mutated thing that they attempted to pass as a woman that imo resembles a slimmer failed test subject. I think this may be one of the reasons for Bioware ending sheps story the way they did in ME 3. That would leave them open to over haul the game's models and textures in a way that allows for them to start from scratch
thesapien Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Sorry, if I sounded like I was bashing. I still think the series holds up okay graphics wise, quirks and all. Heck, their DA series was still good gaming for me, and those graphics were far less impressive. I don't have a problem with making games run well on older systems either. I'd even go one step further than you and avoid any console bashing. I think consoles provide good standards and a solid platform for the industry so devs can focus on other aspects. Removing consoles from the equation doesn't remove the problems involved in getting new tech on the market anyway. There's always that near catch-22 of how to get people producing new hardware and consumers buying it before/after(?) game devs design for it. Something big like ray-tracing just remains a pre-rendering feature never seeing new hardware to run it in real time except in labs, while something small like the newly talked about tessellation takes its sweet time. I kind of think new consoles, if done right, could actually allow for novel stuff to hit the market all at once more easily, maybe. And I'm very happy not buying new hardware every year! Edit/PS: There are games that run on consoles and look better than ME3, too. So there's still room for improvement in this iteration on the software side of things. Getting close though, but looks like good timing if we see new consoles in a year or two. Sounds about right to me!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.