Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
>Also the themes of Mass Effect pretty much equate to Commander Shephard is awesome.
-_-
Also that sounds like they were trying to do a 2001 ending. I'll give my opinions when I get to it.
Also I see a lot of frustration at my comments that Mass Effect doesn't have that strong themes but not a lot of responses.
Mass Effect is first and foremost an action series about a hero fighting an unquestionably evil force. Your choices aren't even good or evil, they're picard-or-kirk. (or they're intended to be) There are a couple of interesting ideas bandied about (and some genuinely touching moments of spirituality) but none of them are strong enough to be considered main themes.
As for the idea that it's just 2001-style trippiness...well...yeah, that's a possibility (though there's less support for it than for the theory I'm still not going to name because spoilery name), but...well, when you've played it, we can discuss it.
>none of them are strong enough to be considered main themes
But they're still themes, and it would be very bad form to contradict...well, almost all of them at the same time.
there are a lot of themes
validity of life, choice, self-determination, etc.
but
is not the way to state anything if you want people to actually respond.
I feel the themes of Mass Effect come down to choice, morality and values in a big way. While attaching a tracked variable to moral choices was unnecessary (and hurt the end products, I think), Mass Effect plays with some big ideas and lets the player deal with them. Genocide, infanticide, loyalty, where a soldier's morality and responsibility may conflict -- stuff like that. While there may be no complete undercurrent of a central theme, saying that it "equates to Commander Shepard is awesome" implies the wrong things, because it conveys the idea that Mass Effect doesn't play with issues of relevance or weight.
In fact, I'd argue one of the big successes of Mass Effect is that it does explore ideas that generally aren't in this AAA environment. From the Quarian's Judaic exodus to the concocted infanticide against the dangerous Krogans, most of the pivotal moments in each game conclude (or continue) a short story about something very real, and I appreciate that. While Mass Effect isn't always graceful about those things, the fact that it even goes that far should be applauded. Keep in mind that right now, the game that sticks out as a narrative "masterpiece" in the minds of many longtime, established gamers is Final Fantasy VII, which created a trend of angsty heroes and massive spectacle. If Mass Effect holds continuous influence, then it might encourage more developers to approach real world issues in their games. It's one step along the path of bringing games into balance with films and literature as a medium that can handle a strong analysis of the world around us and where we stand in it.
In short, Mass Effect is a legitimising influence towards future games. It doesn't succeed on every ground, but I'm extremely happy that it even had the tenacity to try. For all that effort, all three Mass Effect games are very strong when it counts.
>But they're still themes, and it would be very bad form to contradict...well, almost all of them at the same time.
Not sure that's true, again pointing to stuff like 2001 and The Illuminatus Trillogy
>validity of life
I'm not sure this is so much a theme as it is just an aspect of the game where you take the two choices whether your shephard makes nice or cracks eggs to make an omlette.
>choice, self-determination
The problem there is that your choices are already determined on two rails. Granted I haven't played ME3 to its conclusion but the first two games demanded you go all one way or the other get maximum results. The choice is which track you go on, which isn't a bad thing but it isn't self-determination.
>Keep in mind that right now, the game that sticks out as a narrative "masterpiece" in the minds of many longtime, established gamers is Final Fantasy VII, which created a trend of angsty heroes and massive spectacle.
That, to me, says more about gamers' warped expectations and the problems with the game industry than any virtues of Mass Effect.
Keep in mind, I think the Mass Effect games are good. Very good. Hell they're even pretty addictive. They're a step forward for games narratively, but they aren't the unequivocal masterpiece people are making them out to be.
it's explored with both the Krogans and the Geth. The questions posed all involve things like 'At what point does life become worth something?' and 'Is it right to potentially wipe out a race to prevent a war?'
I'd say it's definitely a theme. It's not a main theme or anything, but it crops up way more than just once.
That is from an outsider's perspective, though. Within the game, choice is certainly a very important element, and self-determination wraps into that.
Well, it is /possible/ for a work to do that well, but...not the way it's done here.
The point is that Mass Effect is a step along a correctional path that allows players exposure to wider issues that escape the grasp of a single character. All works of media exist in context of their environment, and video games are still largely juvenile. Mass Effect is a series with a lot more maturity where it counts, and it goes all out on providing the player with real issues to deal with, even if they're dressed in pulp sci-fi clothing. And frankly, I think it's astounding that a game successfully provides such intensity within its narrative choices after decades of the concept falling flat.
It's not some kind of literary canonical masterwork, but I think that's the issue here. Comparisons between games and works of other mediums can only go so far, because games will never be as good as books or films at delivering the kinds of narrative those mediums excel at. Games have to travel their own path, and Mass Effect represents a milestone in providing players with a more thoughtful and demanding experience. That can only be a good thing, if you ask me.
A sequel to ZoE has been confirmed.
I couldn't tell you in detail, since I made if four hours into the game and it wasn't even verging into the plot I was told about. Perhaps the worst that can be said about it is that it's indulgent, but I dislike it on a bit of a deeper level. If you look at the transitions of games like Zelda and Metroid to a 3D format, you'll notice that while they use a lot of the same elements, they completely recontextualised them for a different kind of experience. The fact that Ocarina of Time introduced a targeting system right off the bat is a little piece of genius, if you ask me, because a lot of transitions have been a lot less graceful. Final Fantasy VII would be amongst those, since its transition was used for spectacle.
Essentially, you play Final Fantasy VII exactly the same way you played previous Final Fantasy games. If you ask me, this set the scene for every further installment, to the extent where Final Fantasy both sells extremely well yet represents the worst kind of stagnation. It essentially began with Final Fantasy VII and I think that's where the JRPG as a genre began its downward spiral. The game might be absolutely great on its own individual merits, but I wouldn't know the full extent of that. All the same, its very moderate and humble advancement in video game storytelling has been blown far out of proportion, and I think its immediate predecessor was the stronger game by significant degrees.
A big part of Final Fantasy VII's weakness is its cinematic nature. While it was applauded at the time, this was a period when video games and gamers were struggling for mainstream legitimacy, and had no idea how far that rabbit hole went. Thus we're presented with something like Final Fantasy XIII, which seems like the logical conclusion to the earlier design philosophy of Final Fantasy VII. As good as the writing may or may not be in Final Fantasy VII, its ultimate failure is in its medium. Prior Final Fantasy games were just that -- games. But Final Fantasy VII feels like it wants to be an anime or a series of animated films, and that just seems off to me.
In short, Final Fantasy VII was earth-shattering in its initial context, but in retrospect has turned out to inform some of the worst excesses and elements of the modern AAA games industry. I stress that it might be a perfectly excellent game on its own merits, but in context of the games industry and its own series, it's a disappointing turn towards away from innovation and towards elements that have nothing to do with the core gaming experience.
I'm with you on that, one-hundred percent.
try reading this, INUH.
I hear a lot about the downward spiral of JRPGs, but as far as I can tell it's mostly just Final Fantasy and imitators thereof. I mean, just recently we've gotten the later Personas, Kingdom Hearts, The World Ends with You...some good stuff.
Anyway, I read wikipedia's summary of FFVII. it sounds like they started out wanting to write an episode of Captain Planet, then switched to a generic Shonen fighting anime for a bit, then in the last five minutes got back to environmentalism with the conclusion that blowing up a large part of the planet is only good if it's an urban population center.
^^ just sayin
>It's not some kind of literary canonical masterwork, but I think that's the issue here. Comparisons between games and works of other mediums can only go so far, because games will never be as good as books or films at delivering the kinds of narrative those mediums excel at. Games have to travel their own path, and Mass Effect represents a milestone in providing players with a more thoughtful and demanding experience. That can only be a good thing, if you ask me.
The thing though, is that Mass Effect doesn't do that. I'm barely a third through the game and it takes every opportunity to wrest the control from me to show Thane or Garrus being awesome fighting a dude with a katana. It's all about the sweeping action-adventure shots, the (not that great) story and attempting to feel like a hollywood blockbuster. Silent Hill has always struck me as a better tool for what games can do that films can't and its best iteration was over a decade ago.(Hell, I'd argue games are the best medium for horror)
There's good stuff to be found in ME3 but the claim that games are fundamentally different than other mediums has always struck me as disingenuous and especially so in a game that tries so hard to feel like an action movie.
I also find a stupid amount of defeatism that games can't deliver a narrative experience on par with film or literature. It's a new medium (granted film got its foot in the door more quickly) and to say that things like Bioshock, Silent Hill 2, and Persona 4 don't have narrative to match up with a great book or film is insulting.
>That is from an outsider's perspective, though. Within the game, choice is certainly a very important element, and self-determination wraps into that.
I experience the game as an outsider though. It's not about what characters experience, It's about what I experience.
Yeah, you ninja'd me. Reading it now.
deleted
What Mass Effect tries to be is less relevant than what it is, and it's still a game, and that means some degree of player agency, which in turn provides the foundation for its discussion of the issues it presents. BioWare are hardly the best game designers at this stage and it shows in all their recent works, but that doesn't change the fact that Mass Effect (and games like it) would be vastly different in a different medium. A film would never ask you to choose between forced indoctrination and genocide, for instance. It may well ask you to consider that choice, but the conclusion of that will be left up to the plot and characters of the film. So as much as Mass Effect imitates some elements of popular film, it still calls upon elements that only games can provide, and this is where it's at its strongest.
I mean, the cutscenes are great and all, but that's not what you hear discussed. Everyone who plays Mass Effect talks about the choices they made and why they made them, and that's very telling of where the crux of the game lies.
@Nova: Read the article. What I got from it is that it's pretty much what I said, but with a lot of generic religious references and character names that weren't picked from a hat.
You're wrong.
The character names were picked from a hat.
>A film would never ask you to choose between forced indoctrination and genocide, for instance.
Are you seriously going to use the worst handling of moral choice systems I've ever seen in the game's favor? Admittedly, it's an interesting question, but they fuck it up by putting it paragon vs. renegade.
The question of choice is all a false one because it comes down to whether you want to follow the story of the dick or the boyscout. That's not choice. That's deciding which rail you want.
>I mean, the cutscenes are great and all, but that's not what you hear discussed. Everyone who plays Mass Effect talks about the choices they made and why they made them, and that's very telling of where the crux of the game lies.
Actually what you hear discussed the most is the ending, which while it might be terrible is A NARRATIVE ISSUE.
Honestly the only choice I feel that had any significant factor so far is who I chose to bed. Letting Mordin die didn't even change the game in any significant manner.
>Saying that ME doesn't do one thing because it also does another thing doesn't make much sense to me. Also, a scene of Thane acting badass is a reward formaking good choices and not letting him die.
It's not a bonus in an interactive medium though. A true bonus would be letting me take control of Thane for a short while or something. That's my point. The game's choices are pretty superfluous, leading to giving you some cool cutscenes, and the fact that your choices lead to pretty much the same ending only support that.
Or, you know, make your decision based upon the factors present and not purely limit yourself to choosing every Renegade option or every Paragon option, like most players.
But HEY whatthefuckever.
If there were any gameplay aspect that supported or encouraged that, sure. But as is the games wants you to be one or the other or you get a shit ending.
This isn't entirely true. Charm and intimidate options aren't always the best solution in the long run (keeping Wrex alive makes getting full readiness in ME3 impossible, for example), and as of the third game, they're both based on total reputation so you can choose whatever.
wait
what
fuck
noooooo
dammit wrex
Mostly I was talking about ME2 where you couldn't make any progress if you didn't go all the way one or the other.
In any case, I think telling you which is paragon or renegade ahead of time is a bad choice from a roleplaying perspective, not that these games have actually been RPGs.
Then it's clear you haven't played many games with moral choices. If there's anything that deserves the title of "worst", it's easily inFamous. I've already expressed how poor a decision I think it was to use a mechanical measure for the moral choices, and I don't think it takes away from the essential choice it's asking you to make. That said, it might have benefited from making both choices garner Renegade points, which would have been using the mechanical system to its advantage.
Right now, but not throughout the life of the series. And it's only partially a narrative issue; while it was a terrible ending on those grounds, it was also a mechanical failure in that it didn't provide validation for the prior choices that player had made. In fact, the entire ending of the final game is like this, with a practical identical scenario no matter who you have on your side or how many resources you gained.
But what about each choice in its own context? The first game alone, just from memory, had you choose between the death of two good soldiers and gave you an opportunity to deal with racial (species-related?) tensions, which could end in the death of another crew member. These are the kinds of things that gave a lot of players reason to pause, and that's not the way games normally go. Most of the time, players will choose whichever option satisfies their "rail", and while Mass Effect 2 onwards did itself a disservice by telegraphing which dialogue option would garner certain points, I felt that a lot of the choices were interesting in their own right.