Multiplatform Mass Effect 3: 12 whole Kirrahes [Archive]

Mordokai

2014-01-11, 05:34 PM

Mass Effect 3, thread 12
or
"12 whole Kirrahes."

***

This is the twelfth thread for discussion of Mass Effect proper, currently on its third installment and final DLC, the final game in the ballad of Shepard. Here we discuss gameplay, mechanics, multiplayer, and anything at all from Mass Effect 1 &2. Spoilers are still spoilers, at least for the DLC. Main game is fair game though. As of this thread, the Reckoning Multiplayer DLC is is open, but people would still prefer spoiler boxes on Citadel in the single player, to allow for pleasant surprises.

Prior threads:
Thread 1: [Spoilers!]
Thread 2: We Fight and We Whine. That's the Plan.
Thread 3: The Important Thing is not Whining, it's Participosting.
Thread 4: Would've Liked to Perform Experiments on Seashells
Thread 5: Does This Thread Have a Soul?
Thread 6: Are You Engaging in Reproductive Behavior With This Thread?
Thread 7: "Now all we need is a gun that fires thresher maws!"
Thread 8: "That was for Thane!"
Thread 9: "How things begin isn't nearly as important as how they end."
Thread 10: Stood Fast, Stood Strong, Stood Together
Thread 11: "Black tie required"

INCOMPLETE
Playgrounder multiplayer profiles (please use the provided format of
- GitP user name
- game system(s)
- in-game user name
- frequently used weapons/classes

PC:

GITP Name : bladescape
Gamertag : blade_scaper
Classes: Sentinels, soldiers, infiltrators.

GitP Name: Triscuitable
Gamertag: Triscuitable
Classes: Quarian Infiltrator, Human Vanguard

GitP Name: Farix
Gamertag: Nejaa
Classes: N7 Fury, Paladin, & Shadow

GITP Name : Wilhelm Scream
Gamertag : chumsley
Classes: Salarians, asari adept, krogan vanguard

GITP Name : Ertwin
Gamertag : Ertwin
Classes : Krogan Soldier, salarian/quarian infiltrator

GITP Name : DabblerWizard
Gamertag*: DabblerWizard
Classes : Adepts

GITP Name : MonarchAnarch
Gamertag : MonarchAnarch
Classes : Asari Vanguard, Salarian Infiltrator, Drell Adept.

GITP Name : The Rose Dragon
Gamertag : Khantalas
Classes : N7, any

GITP Nam e: Drakefall
Gamertag : Drakefall_XI
Classes : Engineer, any

GITP Name : Sagonene
Gamertag : vinceroix
Classes : Adept & Engineer

GITP Name : Comrade
Gamertag : NapalmMotorhead
Classes : Soldier

Giantitp Name: Corvus
Gamertag: Auscorvus
Classes; Drell Adept & Human Engineer

Giantitp name: Chen
Gamertag: Chen932000
Classes: Asari Vanguard, Human Sentinel

Giantitp name: Anarion
Gamertag: jrogers55
Classes played: any

GitP Name: Khosan
Gamertag: Khosan
Classes: Sentinel, any

GITP Name : Dhavaer
Gamertag : Dhavaer
Classes : Vanguard, Engineer, Sentinel.

GITP Name : Actana
Gamertag : Miriact
Classes : Salarian Infiltrator, Human Vanguard

GianTiTP name : Mikeavelli
Gamertag : Mikeavelli
Classes : vanguard

GitP name : Sholos
Gamertag : veebeebee
Classes : Engineer, Infiltrator, Soldier, Adept

GITP Name : Darius Macab
Gamertag : DariusMacab
Classes : any

GitP username : Arbitrarity
Gamertag : Arbitrarity
Classes : any caster, infiltrator

GitP Poster : Aotrs Commander
Gamertag : AotrsCommander
Classes : Infiltrator

GitP Poster: Gamerlord
Gamertag: Gamerlord2
Classes: Any

GitP name: Starsign
Gamertag: Sunrust
Classes: any

Name on GITP: Landis963
Gamertag: landis963
Classes: caster

GiTP Name: Morty
Gamertag :*Morty901
Classes: non-vanguard

GiTP Name : Horngeek
Gamertag : Horngeek
Classes : Any

Gitp Name: Insanealien
Gamertag: Kalehn
Favourite characters: Turian Soldier, N7 Paladin, Shadow and Demolisher.

X-Box 360:

GitP user name :Strife Warzeal
Gamertag :*aafro1109
Classes : Any

GITP Name : thugthrasher
Gamertag : thugthrasher
Classes : Any

GITP Name: Psyren
Gamertag: Psyren Y
Preferred Classes: Casters

GITP Name : Thanatos 51-50
Gamertag : Saalaksin
Classes : infiltrator, nova!guard

GitP Name: SiuiS
Gamertag: Starry Notions
Classes: Any, infiltrator

GitP: James the Dark
Gamertag: Jacob Greyson
Classes : Sentinel

GitP Poster: Tome
Gamertag: Taejix
Classes: Vanguard, Adept

GitP name : Octopusapult
Gamertag : Octopusapult
Classes : Yes

GiTP name: Polity4life
Gamertag: ManofOpposites
Classes: any

GitP name: Alaris
Gamertag: Alarikun
Classes: Infiltrator

GitP name: Sanguine
Gamertag: Kugger
Classes : any

GitP name: Wagadodo
Gamertag: Wagadodo
Classes : gunners, any

Giantitp username: Fawkes
Gamertag: Mechafox
Classes : any

GITP username: Squark
Gamertag: CanisLupus623
Preferred Classes: vanguard, Engineer

GiTP Name: Yana
Gamertag: The 1337 Doctor
Classes: Any

GitP Name: Wraith
Gamertag: o IIIusionist o
Classes: Engineer/Sentinel

Giantitp Name: Illven
Gamertag: Migratingimp 44
Classes: Adepts

GitP Name: thorgrim29
Gamertag: thorgrim29
Classes : any (vanguard)

GitP Name: Derthric
Gamertag: Derthric
Classes: Salarians

GitP Name: Xondure
Gamertag: Royal LP
Classes: any

GitP Name: kamikasei
Gamertag: amanadiel
Classes: any

GitP Name: Mr. Blinky
Gamertag: Hells DM
Classes: any

GitP name: Krade
Gamertag: Krade2k20
Classes: any

GITP Name: Edge
Gamertag:UnbrokenUnbowed
Classes: casters

GiTP Name: Beowulf DW
Gamertag: MechaBeowulf DW
Classes: All classes

GITP Name : Moogleking
Gamertag:MK8Bit
Classes: Human Engineer, Quarian Infiltrator

GITP Name: CreganTur
Gamertag: CreganTur
Classes: Any

PS3:

GitP Name: Lycan 01
Gamertag: Ralix_57
Classes: Quarian Infiltrator, sentinel

GITP Name : Lord Fullbladder, Master of Goblins
Gamertag*: TheFullbladder
Classes: any

GiTP Name: C-Lam
Gamertag: Crystal1995
Classes: any

Character builder (http://narida.pytalhost.com/me3/classes/#0@0@0@0@0) complete with numbers compiler. Some damage calculations are off.
bioware page archiving useful information (http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/343/index/10712294)

Mordokai

2014-01-11, 05:36 PM

And lets open this with a picture that had me really laughing.

http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/Mordokai/304633_451664528218191_692624526_n.jpg

Seems like it's universal :smalltongue:

Now back to your regularly scheduled conversations!

McDouggal

2014-01-11, 05:50 PM

(Might want to include the 3 in the thread title, oh fearless leader.)

Also, I don't get it.

SiuiS

2014-01-11, 06:04 PM

Reaper: "Ah yes. Shepard, a human with the capacity to threaten our harvesting and elevation of the lesser organic beings.

"We have dismissed this claim."

Collector: "$@&!..."

Mordokai

2014-01-11, 06:11 PM

(Might want to include the 3 in the thread title, oh fearless leader.)

Also, I don't get it.

Thank you, it has been now fixed. Blame the alcohol... I always do.

Also, watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7FU6s-xz_w). Should help you understand it.

RagingKrikkit

2014-01-11, 08:34 PM

While we're pointing out flaws with your transition, you included the "Mass Effect 3.11" in the thread history, and left out the end quotation on "Black tie required".

McDouggal

2014-01-11, 09:32 PM

Thank you, it has been now fixed. Blame the alcohol... I always do.

Also, watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7FU6s-xz_w). Should help you understand it.

Ah. My bad, I didn't have my eyes on, so I didn't see Harbinger's air quotes.

Mordokai

2014-01-12, 03:48 PM

While we're pointing out flaws with your transition, you included the "Mass Effect 3.11" in the thread history, and left out the end quotation on "Black tie required".

I'm pretty sure I have no idea what you're talking about. *shifty eyes*

Anything else I messed up? Keep up comin' and I just may fix them all by the end of the first page :smalltongue:

Lentrax

2014-01-12, 04:30 PM

Seems the place for this, but I am running an ME PnP game http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=324664

The rules hovering the system would be here. (http://masseffectd20.freeforums.org)

Any questions free to ask away, and I will answer when I awaken.

Krade

2014-01-12, 04:38 PM

Hey! Remember when we were all like, "The tenth thread will probably be the last one". Man. We sure showed us.

Mordokai

2014-01-12, 04:41 PM

Well, we better fill this one up as well, or I'm gonna feel really bad for killing it :smalltongue:

Psyren

2014-01-12, 07:44 PM

McDouggal

2014-01-12, 09:50 PM

Ah well. The Mass Effect 4 thread is inevitable, and now we know what to call it when it arrives :smalltongue:

(Assuming some new detail doesn't surface that captures our attention.)

Anyway - there isn't much to discuss about ME4 yet, but I'll get the rumor mill a-turnin' with this interesting video I found (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BnNK3Q-nLs) from one enterprising fan.

Cliff notes are basically that there was a closed door ME meeting at PAX Prime 2013 (https://twitter.com/GambleMike/status/367673935153741824) headed up by Mike Gamble. The rumor is that they discussed new directions the franchise could take, including two potential new races, and an interesting question about "if you had to remove two races, which would they be?" The original leak was deleted, but it has been reposted. (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=721736)

The video is basically a well-reasoned treatise on why this particular leak might be legitimate, so if you have a few minutes to kill I suggest you watch it for yourself. And discuss, naturally!

So... discuss and all that.

If Quarians aren't playable, and races other than humans are, then no sale.

As-is, it's no sale since Frostbite 3 is a bit beyond my power capacity. Then again, I've been saving up for a GabeN shrine anyways, so I'll probably just do my usual "wait half a year to buy under the assumption that any gamebreaking issues will be found by then, plus the price is now lower."

I don't preorder kind of as a rule given some of the recent disastrous launches of extremely hyped games. Also, I refuse to preorder if day 1 DLC is involved.

2 races that aren't playable? Gonna have to go with Geth and Batarians. Since they seem to be aiming to increase your ability to customize your character, having Geth (even the enlightened form) seems to be counterproductive. And nobody likes Batarians.

There's going to be some problems if it's post reaper war. Assuming they don't specify a 'canon' ending (and if they do, they're idiots on the scale of release ME3 ending), they're going to have to include a lot of different things - Geth/Quarian fate, Genophage, Rachni, why a control shep can't solve everything with reapers, what reapers do in synthesis, what the aftermath was in general for destroy, what ends up happening to the Citadel...

But a timeline that runs parallel to the original trilogy runs the risk of "why bother? Shep's doing everything anyways." and runs you noticably on rails (one of the things I like about Bioware's stories are that while they are on rails, you don't notice said rails. I like that), making you feel like you personally aren't accomplishing anything.

A prequel looks to be the best option. But there are problems with prequels too. Mostly, if it's a major event, they really can't twist the ending. If it's a minor event, why should I bother? (one of the things I enjoy most about starting a new story-based game is that I don't know what's going to happen. I got absolutely floored on Virmire, screwed up on my fist suicide mission, and actually got to have some ethical debates to go alongside those, a magic you don't experience when you already know what's going to happen.

I really think that their best hope might actually be a universe reboot. It's either that or create a 'canon' ending and annoy a lot of their fanbase. But I'm a little jaded.

Landis963

2014-01-12, 10:55 PM

I really think that their best hope might actually be a universe reboot. It's either that or create a 'canon' ending and annoy a lot of their fanbase. But I'm a little jaded.

Or the simple expedient of having a young protagonist going through a "history of the Reaper War" pop quiz where the answers you pick set the flags for the rest of the game. If they don't allow an "import the save" option again. Like Genesis, but less obtrusive.

Dienekes

2014-01-12, 11:16 PM

Math_Mage

2014-01-12, 11:20 PM

Or the simple expedient of having a young protagonist going through a "history of the Reaper War" pop quiz where the answers you pick set the flags for the rest of the game. If they don't allow an "import the save" option again. Like Genesis, but less obtrusive.
Good luck making a game that can encompass all the endings, though.

Psyren

2014-01-12, 11:54 PM

Kill off two races? Asari and quarians from the main races. I guess I can see that vorcha and maybe hanar would be easier to drop.

My guess (echoed by the video I linked) is that this question is less about "which race should we remove from the setting" and more about "which races would people most be okay not being playable?"

Playable Vorcha outside of multiplayer mode is pretty unlikely anyway as they are the setting's goblins. Hanar/Elcor are even less likely.

As-is, it's no sale since Frostbite 3 is a bit beyond my power capacity. Then again, I've been saving up for a GabeN shrine anyways, so I'll probably just do my usual "wait half a year to buy under the assumption that any gamebreaking issues will be found by then, plus the price is now lower."

Even if a Frostbite-capable PC is still outside of your price range by 2015, you can always get a next-gen console to play it on instead for cheaper.

Also, I refuse to preorder if day 1 DLC is involved.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with Day 1 DLC. And you can be all but certain than DAI/ME4 will have it, so if that's a dealbreaker you may as well count on not pre-ordering now.

Assuming they don't specify a 'canon' ending (and if they do, they're idiots on the scale of release ME3 ending)

This is just nonsensical; picking a canon ending is actually the smart thing for them to do. They had no problem doing that in Dragon Age/KOTOR and it certainly helped both franchises far more than it hurt. (Or at the very least, they hardened some details canonically that were variables in the game - such as making Alistair king, Sten surviving and becoming Arishok, and Leliana/Morrigan's survival.) So there's no reason to bellyache if Mass Effect does something similar.

Landis963

2014-01-13, 12:04 AM

Good luck making a game that can encompass all the endings, though.

Make a plot too small to be solved with Controlled reaper-minions and too complex to be cut through with Synthesis' Federation-esque hunky-doriness, and voila!

You don't even need to care about Destroy at all, since Bioware's WordOfGoded away the worst parts of that ending.

Heck, ME3's ending can be relegated to a cameo of a Reaper-minion, glowing circuit boards on everything organic, and non-AI'd geth, respectively. Best case scenario, it'll get a sidequest a la the background-specific ones in ME1.

McDouggal

2014-01-13, 12:06 AM

Good luck making a game that can encompass all the endings, though.

There's that, and a lot of dissonance between proponents of various endings-for instance, I find Synthesis to be morally repulsive, my characters wouldn't trust themselves with control, leaving destroy the only canon ending that I can accept. If they decide on any particular ending, they're going to alienate a lot of their fanbase-if they decide on Synthesis as the 'canon' ending, I am never buying another Bioware product.

There's also the problem of the endings in themselves. Quite a few people (myself included) have headcanon that actually, ya know, GIVES SHEPARD A HAPPY FREAKING ENDING, and forcing people to abandon that headcanon in favor of the inferior starbrat ending is annoying.

Lastly, as much as I hate them, they are endings. They provide a Newtonian Fluid ending to the series (solid until you look at it closely :smalltongue:), and are actually different enough that making an actual sequel to ME3 would be problematic.

If they do a sequel, it's either going to be a HUGE undertaking or with a 'canon' ending that will alienate a large chunk of the fanbase. I honestly think a reboot or AU is more likely than a straight sequel.

Psyren

2014-01-13, 12:25 AM

There's little threat of them canonizing Synthesis, it changes the galaxy too much for it to be relatable. Even those of us who like Synthesis know that much.

Whether Shepard gets a "happy ending" or not (and please note that "still breathing" is not the only definition of that term) isn't relevant either, since the one thing we do absolutely for sure know about ME4 is that it won't feature Shepard regardless. Alive with blue babies, atomized, immortal god-computer or charred corpse in rubble - either way we're done with him/her for good and all. (They also explicitly ruled out "it was all a dream" - which invalidates IT too, not that IT needed any more invalidation.)

I think they can tweak one of the endings and canonize it without causing too much uproar. Some folks will complain for a while about their choices not mattering then they'll get over it and we'll have more great stories set in the 'verse.

McDouggal

2014-01-13, 12:30 AM

Even if a Frostbite-capable PC is still outside of your price range by 2015, you can always get a next-gen console to play it on instead for cheaper.

I don't buy consoles anymore. I can get better performance out of a PC and actually play 15 year old games on it, rather than needing to hope an old console boots up. The only things that consoles do better is fighting games and racing games, both of which can be enjoyed just fine by hooking up one of many available 3rd party controllers to your PC.

Cheaper? Don't make me laugh. They "next gen" barely matches middle of the line PC's TODAY. In a few years, they'll be woefully underpowered. At least the 360 and PS3 actually launched with great hardware for the time; PS4 only reaches 1080p and the XBone only 720p when in the next two years, PC will be getting affordable 4k (2160p).

Oh, and before the "exclusives" argument: PC has more. Like, thousands more. Than all consoles put together. I can give you a list if you want.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with Day 1 DLC. And you can be all but certain than DAI/ME4 will have it, so if that's a dealbreaker you may as well count on not pre-ordering now.

No, other than the fact that it is a part of the game that is fully programmed and ready to play on the date of release and yet it's been chunked out of the game to make a quick buck off people who don't preorder. Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with preorder bonuses if they're cosmetic only/don't cut heavily into dev time, but stuff like 'from ashes' should've been released with the game, not as DLC.

This is just nonsensical; picking a canon ending is actually the smart thing for them to do. They had no problem doing that in Dragon Age/KOTOR and it certainly helped both franchises far more than it hurt. (Or at the very least, they hardened some details canonically that were variables in the game - such as making Alistair king, Sten surviving and becoming Arishok, and Leliana/Morrigan's survival.) So there's no reason to bellyache if Mass Effect does something similar.

See my last post.

Psyren

2014-01-13, 12:47 AM

Cheaper? Don't make me laugh.

Laugh away, but what you're clearly forgetting is that no matter how cheap a PS4 or Xbox One gets (say, during Black Friday or some other deep discount promotion) between now and ME4, they will be able to run it because it will release on those consoles. Even if you somehow got a PS4 for $399, you can be absolutely certain it will run ME4, and at decent performance if not the best textures/resolution in the world.

A gaming PC at that price is a much dicier gamble.

Oh, and before the "exclusives" argument: PC has more. Like, thousands more. Than all consoles put together. I can give you a list if you want.

For the record, I'm a PC gamer now myself. I'm not here to start a pissing contest/platform war. (In fact, I'm restarting the entire trilogy on PC having picked them up for peanuts on Steam/Origin.)

No, other than the fact that it is a part of the game that is fully programmed and ready to play on the date of release and yet it's been chunked out of the game to make a quick buck off people who don't preorder.

This is the all-too-common misconception about how Day 1 DLC is actually made. The reality is that the vast majority of titles with a console release have a period called "certification" between when the game is complete and when it can actually be shipped. This is when the console manufacturers have to test the game and certify that it works with their system. During that entire weeks-long window, the devs are doing nothing - so having them work on DLC is the best logical use of that time, and often they will finish several bits of it (particularly the stuff that gets into the Collector's Editions) right at or just before the game's launch.

For more, please watch this video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0TT_SGL-oc)

See my last post.

I responded to that - see my last post :smalltongue:

Zevox

2014-01-13, 01:05 AM

There's little threat of them canonizing Synthesis, it changes the galaxy too much for it to be relatable. Even those of us who like Synthesis know that much.
Honestly, that's exactly why I'd like for them to do so, if they were going to do a canon ending at all (which I think/hope they won't). I'd like to see what a galaxy that thoroughly changed would be like. It'll never happen, but more's the pity.

D_Man_7733

2014-01-13, 01:26 AM

This is the all-too-common misconception about how Day 1 DLC is actually made. The reality is that the vast majority of titles with a console release have a period called "certification" between when the game is complete and when it can actually be shipped. This is when the console manufacturers have to test the game and certify that it works with their system. During that entire weeks-long window, the devs are doing nothing - so having them work on DLC is the best logical use of that time, and often they will finish several bits of it (particularly the stuff that gets into the Collector's Editions) right at or just before the game's launch.

Don't forget shipping time, after the whole certification thing it has to be shipped to stores for it's retail release.

Math_Mage

2014-01-13, 02:19 AM

Honestly, that's exactly why I'd like for them to do so, if they were going to do a canon ending at all (which I think/hope they won't). I'd like to see what a galaxy that thoroughly changed would be like. It'll never happen, but more's the pity.
Well, yeah, but the very thing that makes it appealing--the implied singularity--makes it impossible to execute both accurately and comprehensibly.

McDouggal

2014-01-13, 02:34 AM

the day 1 DLC thing

Yeah... I forgot that they do have to pad out certification time for disc purchases. I'm still not happy about it, and I really don't approve of the practice in general, but I can understand it.

The PC vs. Console debate

*calms down slightly* Ok then. I will disagree with you about how a PC I made today might not run it; if it can run BF4/PS2 well, it should be able to handle Frostbite and ME4.

Psyren

2014-01-13, 02:35 AM

Well, yeah, but the very thing that makes it appealing--the implied singularity--makes it impossible to execute both accurately and comprehensibly.

Exactly. No possible permutation or expression of what Synthesis actually entails on-screen can possibly measure up to what our imaginations can ascribe to it. EDI pretty much says this in the epilogue - repeatedly harping on how the advancements of the synthesized galaxy are beyond imagining. (And keep in mind, this is from a being who was previously imagining the possibility of the Mass Effect existing in all possible universes, and who was able to scan the entirety of human literature in the span of a few seconds mid-conversation.)

Mordokai

2014-01-13, 02:55 AM

You don't even need to care about Destroy at all, since Bioware's WordOfGoded away the worst parts of that ending.

What are you talking about and can I have links to that?

*console thingie*

*insert a raving of a console fanboy*

No seriously, consoles are awesome, but you know what's even better? Console and PC together :smallbiggrin:

Psyren

2014-01-13, 02:58 AM

*calms down slightly* Ok then. I will disagree with you about how a PC I made today might not run it; if it can run BF4/PS2 well, it should be able to handle Frostbite and ME4.

You were the one who said you wouldn't be able to afford a Frostbite-capable machine. I was pointing out an alternative - between now and when ME4 comes out, at least one of the next-gen consoles will undoubtedly be on sale; no matter when you buy one or for how little, we know for a fact that it will run ME4.

Hell, they might even release it on the older consoles, which might even cost less than $100 by the time 2015 rolls around. (After all, if they can scale it back to run on the WiiU, the PS3/360 are only the slightest step down from there.

D_Man_7733

2014-01-13, 03:57 AM

McDouggal

2014-01-13, 04:12 AM

You were the one who said you wouldn't be able to afford a Frostbite-capable machine. I was pointing out an alternative - between now and when ME4 comes out, at least one of the next-gen consoles will undoubtedly be on sale; no matter when you buy one or for how little, we know for a fact that it will run ME4.

... I never said I couldn't afford a machine that could run frostbite 3, I said I currently do not have a machine capable of running frostbite 3 at playable levels. It runs frostbite 2 just fine. I might not be able to afford it right this moment, but if I save my money I'll easily be able to upgrade by the time I'm looking to purchase ME4.

Rodin

2014-01-13, 06:17 AM

If the game is a sequel, there is going to be a canon set of events. There simply has to be. It's not a matter of small details like those which varied between the different games of the original trilogy. Consider:

Questline 1: Go to a Geth ship, and do X. Except the Geth were all wiped out by the Quarians. Oops.

Questline 2: Go to a Quarian ship, and do X. Except the Quarians were all wiped out by the Geth. Doh!

Questline 3: Go to a Geth/Quarian allied base, and do X. Except the Geth were wiped out by the Destroy ending. Damnation!

Questline 4: Go to Tuchanka to meet with legendary war hero Grunt, and get his advice. Except Grunt died in Mass Effect 3. But wait! Random Krogan #457 is there to take his place...Except the Krogan are now at war with the galaxy under the leadership of Wreav. Crud.

Questline 5: New world! We're going to go visit the Hanar Homeworld. Whiiiiich...got wiped out because we chose to save the STG agent instead of stopping the indoctrinated Hanar from disabling their defense network. Shoot.

------

See the problem? It is possible for a badly played Shepard to wipe out half the races in the Galaxy by the end of Mass Effect 3. The only ones which are safe(ish) are Humans, who can still have Earth wiped out but survive on the colonies, the Turians, the Asari, and the Volus (by sheer unimportance, ironically enough). Technically you can add the Elcor to that - they're canonically doomed no matter what, I think, but there would still be some about. Ditto Batarians.

A badly played Shepard can also end up wiping out the entire Normandy crew. I should know, I've done it, with an eye to seeing what would happen in ME4 if they do give the option to import a save. In case you're interested...

Get the minimum crew required to go through the Omega relay. Wait until the captured crew will be dead before going through. The only survivor of the crew will be Dr. Chakwas. Send her back on her own, and she dies. Don't upgrade the Normandy at all, pick the wrong leaders for the fireteams, and pick the worst people for holding the line. However, you have to have two people alive to get you back alive for ME3. Arrange it so that the ones who survive are any of Tali, Legion, Mordin, Miranda, Samara, or Thane. In ME 3, you can kill Tali/Legion by supporting the other side in the war. If you have both, you have to support the Geth, then get the Destroy ending to kill Legion that way. Mordin and Thane are dead men walking anyway. Don't tell Miranda about Kai Leng. Let Samara commit suicide.

Then, of the folks who join you in ME3, you can kill Ashley/Kaidan by not gaining their trust. Javik you just don't wake up. Garrus should already be dead from ME2. This leaves the tricky ones - James, Liara, and EDI. If you take James and Liara with you on the final mission, you can kill them by having a low enough rating - they'll get killed by Harbinger. Pick the Destroy ending, and that does for EDI. By having a low enough rating, that will also do for Joker and any remaining crew when the Normandy crashes. For maximum horror, you can ensure that the Geth, Quarians, Krogan, Hanar, and Drell will all be effectively wiped out, as well as the canonically doomed Batarians and Elcor.

Long story short, you can screw over the galaxy so horribly that there is no way to write around it. Hence: Canonical ending of some sort.

Or they could just do a prequel. I'd love to see the First Contact War or the Krogan Rebellion, although that second is highly unlikely since the Humans weren't around for that one.

Mordokai

2014-01-13, 06:47 AM

@^ that is actually terrible thing to do and you should probably feel bad because of it. But you probably don't.

Rodin

2014-01-13, 07:02 AM

It was actually pretty horrifying, and I didn't manage to go all the way through with it. In the end, I just couldn't kill Tali off, which also meant saving the Quarians. Everybody else got offed though, and she still didn't survive the ending.

As for karmic justice for seeking a horrible ending, it reminded me of an old Mass Effect 2 thread that still makes me giggle.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/105/index/1322062‎ (http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/105/index/1322062‎)

Mordokai

2014-01-13, 07:39 AM

That is pretty funny, I admit.

EDIT: for all the excrement BSN produces, there are good things to be found as well.

http://i43.tinypic.com/2db5rgm.jpg

Can you say deep?

Yes, I'm pretty sure this relays back to original endings(ones I never had the "privilege" of seeing, thank the over deity for small favors), but still, pretty funny.

EDIT2: also this.

http://i874.photobucket.com/albums/ab304/Ellen_Chu/aprilfools.jpg

Jeez, just how bad was the original ending? :smalleek:

Psyren

2014-01-13, 09:32 AM

As much as I wish it too be true, I doubt that ME4 will be on X360 or PS3, or that it will even have an import function. ME3 was the end of Shepherd's journey, and if they truly want to start a new series, a total reboot would be best.
I am dubious that it will even be called "Mass Effect", if it is it will probably have a subtitle and restart from 1, at least that's my hope. Although the title "Mass Effect" is pretty much branded now so abandoning it wouldn't to the advertising department any favours, so my wish probably won't be answered for good reason. (It would also make the next iteration of this thread difficult to title, the fourth installment in the Mass Effect Universe, but not a sequel to the current games or even called Mass Effect)

It will almost certainly have "Mass Effect" in the title. The only real item up in the air right now is the "4."

... I never said I couldn't afford a machine that could run frostbite 3, I said I currently do not have a machine capable of running frostbite 3 at playable levels. It runs frostbite 2 just fine. I might not be able to afford it right this moment, but if I save my money I'll easily be able to upgrade by the time I'm looking to purchase ME4.

You said it would be "no sale," which I took to mean that your rig would be a reason not to get the game no matter when it actually comes out.

See the problem? It is possible for a badly played Shepard to wipe out
A badly played Shepard can also end up wiping out the entire Normandy crew. I should know, I've done it, with an eye to seeing what would happen in ME4 if they do give the option to import a save. In case you're interested...

Get the minimum crew required to go through the Omega relay. Wait until the captured crew will be dead before going through. The only survivor of the crew will be Dr. Chakwas. Send her back on her own, and she dies. Don't upgrade the Normandy at all, pick the wrong leaders for the fireteams, and pick the worst people for holding the line. However, you have to have two people alive to get you back alive for ME3. Arrange it so that the ones who survive are any of Tali, Legion, Mordin, Miranda, Samara, or Thane. In ME 3, you can kill Tali/Legion by supporting the other side in the war. If you have both, you have to support the Geth, then get the Destroy ending to kill Legion that way. Mordin and Thane are dead men walking anyway. Don't tell Miranda about Kai Leng. Let Samara commit suicide.

Then, of the folks who join you in ME3, you can kill Ashley/Kaidan by not gaining their trust. Javik you just don't wake up. Garrus should already be dead from ME2. This leaves the tricky ones - James, Liara, and EDI. If you take James and Liara with you on the final mission, you can kill them by having a low enough rating - they'll get killed by Harbinger. Pick the Destroy ending, and that does for EDI. By having a low enough rating, that will also do for Joker and any remaining crew when the Normandy crashes. For maximum horror, you can ensure that the Geth, Quarians, Krogan, Hanar, and Drell will all be effectively wiped out, as well as the canonically doomed Batarians and Elcor.

Long story short, you can screw over the galaxy so horribly that there is no way to write around it. Hence: Canonical ending of some sort.

Nitpick: Legion actually dies on Rannoch, not during Destroy. (I agree with the rest though - they do have to canonize some events if they want to move forward.)

Note however that some of the threads can indeed be tied together. Whether the Krogan are under Wrex or Wreav they can still go to war with the galaxy; Eve cautions that Wrex might not be able to control them. It would suck for everyone else but it could be done. The bigger problem of course is the endings themselves, since Control and Synthesis can handle rebelling Krogan in pretty short order.

Talderas

2014-01-13, 10:56 AM

It will almost certainly have "Mass Effect" in the title. The only real item up in the air right now is the "4."

Since volus and vorcha appear to be the two races that don't have their homeworlds ravaged or have the potential to have their races decimated by **** shep's actions.....

I propose the following working title for the next Mass Effect game.

Mass Effect: The Volus Gambit

Mordokai

2014-01-13, 02:57 PM

So, the time for my next playthrough is rapidly approaching and I've decided, I'm going with adept.

Now, the first game is gonna be a little problematic, at least from start, but I imagine AI hacking(bonus power) is gonna make things easier. I have both, Asari and Sentinel Ally achievements already, so that will help as well. Other than that, patience and some luck will hopefully get me through tough spots.

What worries me a little(still) is second game and supposed nerf the adept got there. I say supposed since I only heard about it and can't testify personally one way or another. Be that as it may, what I'm currently thinking is following:

-Wide Singularity
-Biotic Mastery, evolved to Bastion(reasons for the to follow)
-Heavy Warp

No ranks in Shockwave, that much is certain. Pull and Throw, one rank wonders, at most. Maybe not even that.

Now, bonus powers, this is where it gets interesting. Obvious choice seems Energy Drain, to be able to handle enemy shields and recharge your own. But I profit nothing from Biotic Mastery and certainly not if I go into Bastion. That's why I'm leaning towards Stasis, final evolution being Deep Stasis. Faster cool-down and longer duration and considering I'm going for more crowd control than direct damage, this seems like a good choice. Other bonus powers seem to pale in comparison. And yes, that includes Reave as well.

For bonus weapon, I'm considering taking sniper rifle this time, though, considering I'm having access to Mattock, AR may once again be the choice for me. Mattock is just too damn good.

Does this seem good?

Krade

2014-01-13, 10:13 PM

Rodin

2014-01-13, 11:48 PM

Nitpick: Legion actually dies on Rannoch, not during Destroy.

Counter-nitpick: There's a reason I worded that the way I did. There's actually 3 opportunities to get rid of Legion:

1) Let him die on the Suicide mission. Numerous ways to accomplish that.

2) Failing that, let him die on Rannoch. However, doing this saves the Quarians, and there is no further option to wipe out the Quarians.

3) If you want to wipe out the Quarians too (and get rid of Tali at the same time), you can side with Legion and have them wipe out the Quarians. Then, pick the Destroy ending, which eliminates all mechanical life, including the Geth. Since Legion is a Geth, he gets killed by Destroy. It's also the only way to get rid of EDI, since I think with any ending other than Destroy the Normandy survives.

I found it easiest to bump as many people off as early as possible. You just have to know who is difficult to kill off in the 3rd game and make sure they aren't a survivor of the 2nd. The hardest to kill off are actually James, EDI, and Liara, since they are outright invulnerable during everything except for Harbinger and the Crucible.

Zevox

2014-01-13, 11:52 PM

Counter-nitpick: There's a reason I worded that the way I did. There's actually 3 opportunities to get rid of Legion:
You're missing his point. Regardless of the outcome on Rannoch, Legion always dies there. Even if you support the Geth or achieve peace, him downloading into the other Geth kills him as an individual. So picking Destroy is only necessary for squadmate-killing in order to get EDI, not Legion.

Rodin

2014-01-13, 11:55 PM

You're missing his point. Regardless of the outcome on Rannoch, Legion always dies there. Even if you support the Geth or achieve peace, him downloading into the other Geth kills him as an individual. So picking Destroy is only necessary for squadmate-killing in order to get EDI, not Legion.

Oh. Yeah.

Duh.

I feel like an idiot now.

Landis963

2014-01-13, 11:56 PM

Counter-nitpick: There's a reason I worded that the way I did. There's actually 3 opportunities to get rid of Legion:

1) Let him die on the Suicide mission. Numerous ways to accomplish that.

2) Failing that, let him die on Rannoch. However, doing this saves the Quarians, and there is no further option to wipe out the Quarians.

3) If you want to wipe out the Quarians too (and get rid of Tali at the same time), you can side with Legion and have them wipe out the Quarians. Then, pick the Destroy ending, which eliminates all mechanical life, including the Geth. Since Legion is a Geth, he gets killed by Destroy. It's also the only way to get rid of EDI, since I think with any ending other than Destroy the Normandy survives.

I found it easiest to bump as many people off as early as possible. You just have to know who is difficult to kill off in the 3rd game and make sure they aren't a survivor of the 2nd. The hardest to kill off are actually James, EDI, and Liara, since they are outright invulnerable during everything except for Harbinger and the Crucible.

You're conflating Legion's death with that of the geth as a whole. No matter what you do, Legion the platform/character dies, either at Tali's/Raan's hands or via his Jesus impression. The geth as a whole, however, stick around until Destroy comes along.

EDIT: :smallsigh: ninja'd.

Blackdrop

2014-01-14, 02:08 AM

Kil'em all stuff

My preferred way of killing everyone was to have every death be as traumatic or pointless as possible. To that end:

Prep-Work for 3:
1.) Romance the Virmire Survivor.
2.) Kill the Rachni Queen
3.) Have Wrex survive Virmire.
4.) Make sure that Garrus and Jacob are the only casualties from the suicide mission (most easily accomplished by having Garrus be the Vent specialist and sending an un-loyal Jacob as the crew escort).
5.) Have every party member in ME2 be loyal, except for Grunt, Zaeed, and Kasumi.
6.) Move far enough along with Chambers to have her feed your fish.

When playing 3:
-Support the Dalatrass and sabotage the genophage cure.
-Skip Grissom academy
-Side with the Geth on Rannoch
-Don't warn Miranda about Kai-Leng
-Recruit Dr. Michel instead of the Dr. Chakwas
-Follow the Renegade path when dealing with chambers
-Rescue the Rachni Breeder
-Don't wake Javik up
-Do the Missions on the Citadel concerning Kasumi and Zaeed
-Bring James and Liara along with you for the final push to the beam
-Choose the Destroy ending

This leaves all crewmembers of the Normandy, both past and present, dead. Causes of death include:
-Suicide (Tali and Samara)
-Killed by Reaper troops (Grunt and most likely Dr. Chakwas)
-Stabbed (Thane and Miranda)
-Shot (Zaeed, Wrex, Mordin, Jack, Chambers, and the Virmire Survivor)
-Explosion (Kasumi)
-Disintegration (James and Liara)
-Citadel Beam thingy (EDI)
-Stasis pod failure (Javik)
-High Velocity impact (Joker, Dr. Michel, Traynor, and the rest of the Normandy crew)
-Other (Legion)

Psyren

2014-01-14, 02:37 AM

My preferred way of killing everyone was to have every death be as traumatic or pointless as possible. To that end:

Prep-Work for 3:
1.) Romance the Virmire Survivor.
2.) Kill the Rachni Queen
3.) Have Wrex survive Virmire.
4.) Make sure that Garrus and Jacob are the only casualties from the suicide mission (most easily accomplished by having Garrus be the Vent specialist and sending an un-loyal Jacob as the crew escort).
5.) Have every party member in ME2 be loyal, except for Grunt, Zaeed, and Kasumi.
6.) Move far enough along with Chambers to have her feed your fish.

When playing 3:
-Support the Dalatrass and sabotage the genophage cure.
-Skip Grissom academy
-Side with the Geth on Rannoch
-Don't warn Miranda about Kai-Leng
-Recruit Dr. Michel instead of the Dr. Chakwas
-Follow the Renegade path when dealing with chambers
-Rescue the Rachni Breeder
-Don't wake Javik up
-Do the Missions on the Citadel concerning Kasumi and Zaeed
-Bring James and Liara along with you for the final push to the beam
-Choose the Destroy ending

This leaves all crewmembers of the Normandy, both past and present, dead. Causes of death include:
-Suicide (Tali and Samara)
-Killed by Reaper troops (Grunt and most likely Dr. Chakwas)
-Stabbed (Thane and Miranda)
-Shot (Zaeed, Wrex, Mordin, Jack, Chambers, and the Virmire Survivor)
-Explosion (Kasumi)
-Disintegration (James and Liara)
-Citadel Beam thingy (EDI)
-Stasis pod failure (Javik)
-High Velocity impact (Joker, Dr. Michel, Traynor, and the rest of the Normandy crew)
-Other (Legion)

Actually there's a good chance Chakwas survives all of that as written because Hackett has her secreted away in an R&D lab if you pick Dr. Michel. The only way to make sure she dies is to get her killed during the SM.

Blackdrop

2014-01-14, 03:12 AM

Well bollocks. And you can't just have the crew go unescorted, cause that circumvents someone getting unceremoniously getting shot in the face. Well, that throws a monkey wrench into the works.

Psyren

2014-01-14, 04:04 AM

To be fair, I think Kelly getting melted alive is probably more traumatic than her getting shot in the face :smalltongue:

SiuiS

2014-01-14, 05:17 AM

Jeez, just how bad was the original ending? :smalleek:

Imagine if the last half of the Return of the King was "and dam and Frodo were both tired. But then gollum said 'ill do it for you!' And they have him the ring. He ran off and danced for joy and slipped! He landed in lava and the ring was destroyed."

Entire last half. Up to and including starting this before they even get to Mordor. The ending was bad because it built up and petered out. Lots of tension, and then nothing, and then lame.

Also, I think I'm indoctrinated. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16787047#post16787047)

The question is "which three sentences could the n'Avi have given the humans in the movie Avatar that would have solved everything." The answer is apparently "we picked synthesis".

Psyren

2014-01-14, 09:07 AM

Also, I think I'm indoctrinated. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16787047#post16787047)

The question is "which three sentences could the n'Avi have given the humans in the movie Avatar that would have solved everything." The answer is apparently "we picked synthesis".

The parallels between Synthesis and Pandora/Avatar weren't lost on me either. But Avatar barely scratched the surface - sure, every living thing on Pandora has a USB port, but consider what the Na'vi could have done with wireless technology.

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-14, 09:07 AM

Honestly, that's exactly why I'd like for them to do so, if they were going to do a canon ending at all (which I think/hope they won't). I'd like to see what a galaxy that thoroughly changed would be like. It'll never happen, but more's the pity.

If the canonize Synthesis I will have to not buy the game. :smallannoyed:

I definitly hope for a sequel though; the poll Bioware conducted on the official forums indicare most people there wants a sequel as well.

Zevox

2014-01-14, 09:47 AM

If the canonize Synthesis I will have to not buy the game. :smallannoyed:
Like I said, it'll never happen. I'm just of the opinion that if they were going to canonize an ending and make a game set after it, it should be the one that would be most interesting to explore, which in my opinion is far and away Synthesis.

I definitly hope for a sequel though; the poll Bioware conducted on the official forums indicare most people there wants a sequel as well.
I don't. I don't think any good would come of trying to set a game after ME3, thus forcing an ending to be canonized and probably reigniting the embers of many peoples' hate for the endings in general, and I think it's entirely unnecessary. We already know there will be no more stories focusing on Shepard, which would be the only reason I could see for a sequel to be set after the ending of 3, so I think it's better to just use the setting they have to tell other stories entirely.

SiuiS

2014-01-14, 09:57 AM

The parallels between Synthesis and Pandora/Avatar weren't lost on me either. But Avatar barely scratched the surface - sure, every living thing on Pandora has a USB port, but consider what the Na'vi could have done with wireless technology.

Been less of a bunch of jackaninnies? Alternately, interfaces and gotten their whole continent to be jackaninnies?

If the canonize Synthesis I will have to not buy the game. :smallannoyed:

Not a fan of avatar?

Psyren

2014-01-14, 10:05 AM

Been less of a bunch of jackaninnies? Alternately, interfaces and gotten their whole continent to be jackaninnies?

But if they weren't, how would the straight white American male get to show them all the ways they were Doing It Wrong? :smalltongue:

I don't. I don't think any good would come of trying to set a game after ME3, thus forcing an ending to be canonized and probably reigniting the embers of many peoples' hate for the endings in general, and I think it's entirely unnecessary. We already know there will be no more stories focusing on Shepard, which would be the only reason I could see for a sequel to be set after the ending of 3, so I think it's better to just use the setting they have to tell other stories entirely.

They will have to deal with "reigniting people's hatred" eventually, unless they want to do prequels and midquels for the rest of eternity. Far better to bite the bullet and get it over with now; people will piss, moan, rage, then get over it and buy the damn game, because Mass Effect. And if there's improved multiplayer modes, that whole crowd will be like "what endings?"

Also, Shepard is the only reason for a post-ME3 game? Seriously?

Mordokai

2014-01-14, 10:20 AM

They will have to deal with "reigniting people's hatred" eventually, unless they want to do prequels and midquels for the rest of eternity. Far better to bite the bullet and get it over with now; people with piss, moan, rage, then get over it and buy the damn game, because Mass Effect. And if there's improved multiplayer modes, that whole crowd will be like "what endings?"

Don't start giving them ideas. EA already proudly(not sure what's to be proud about, but hey... EA) boasts there will be no future game of theirs without some sort of support for networking. Not necessarily via multiplayer, but I wouldn't put it past them.

And I for one, could do with less of it.

Zevox

2014-01-14, 10:32 AM

Also, Shepard is the only reason for a post-ME3 game? Seriously?
The only one that comes to mind for me. For an all-new story unrelated to Shepard's, it doesn't really matter when it's set relative to the existing story, aside from that they probably wouldn't want it to be set smack in the middle of the Reaper invasion itself.

Psyren

2014-01-14, 10:46 AM

Don't start giving them ideas. EA already proudly(not sure what's to be proud about, but hey... EA) boasts there will be no future game of theirs without some sort of support for networking. Not necessarily via multiplayer, but I wouldn't put it past them.

And I for one, could do with less of it.

You can hate on it all you want but the MP was a masterstroke for them. Not only was it lots of fun to play and introduced us to a lot of cool firsts for the franchise (playable aliens with unique models, a laundry list of new powers, and even brand new enemy types to fight), it also did the wonderful job of keeping people invested between SP DLC releases. I don't think Leviathan and Citadel would have done half as well without MP to tide people over until they came out, and it gave people something to do while they waited for EC as well. And unlike other bland horde modes like Gears of War or CoD, the variety of weapons, powers and environments enabled all kinds of rich tactical gameplay; whether you were dodging acid rain on Benning, scrambling for more grenades on Dagger, or frantically defending chokepoints on Glacier.

The only one that comes to mind for me. For an all-new story unrelated to Shepard's, it doesn't really matter when it's set relative to the existing story, aside from that they probably wouldn't want it to be set smack in the middle of the Reaper invasion itself.

The setting has a story too, and writing a story prior to or during ME3 will just be retreading old ground. The rumor mill I linked earlier for instance believes there will be new races - you can't do something like that in a prequel or midquel because it will clash with the continuity.

I don't get this fear of a canon ending anyway. The journey is what mattered to me, not the destination. I'm fine with merely contemplating ideas like Synthesis and Refusal, being at peace with the very likely scenario that neither of those endings actually happened. Just like I'm fine with contemplating what it would have been like in a "everybody dies" SM failure ending in ME2... or even the Normandy crew busting into the observation deck to find a grinning Shepard's corpse and Morinth nowhere to be found.

Mordokai

2014-01-14, 10:59 AM

You can hate on it all you want but the MP was a masterstroke for them. Not only was it lots of fun to play and introduced us to a lot of cool firsts for the franchise (playable aliens with unique models, a laundry list of new powers, and even brand new enemy types to fight), it also did the wonderful job of keeping people invested between SP DLC releases. I don't think Leviathan and Citadel would have done half as well without MP to tide people over until they came out, and it gave people something to do while they waited for EC as well. And unlike other bland horde modes like Gears of War or CoD, the variety of weapons, powers and environments enabled all kinds of rich tactical gameplay; whether you were dodging acid rain on Benning, scrambling for more grenades on Dagger, or frantically defending chokepoints on Glacier.

I never said I hate MP and I don't see where you found it. Despite me being not too big on it, I admit it is reasonably fun and even enjoyable in it's own right.

What I do hate is the time they spent on development of it that could be instead spent on extra features for SP. So the MP turned out great. Good, I'm happy for you guys. But I didn't buy this game for MP. I bought it for SP and if MP development eat time away from that, I don't like it one bit. Neither ME or ME2 had it and they seem to be doing rather well for themselves. I also don't buy your predictions about sales of DLC's. People will generally buy what they are offered, just pack it right and paint a pretty enough picture. And if EA is good at one thing, presentation is it.

And for every ME3 MP you have five or more run-of-the-mill collect the flag and team deathmatch. This is the future EA has in store for games, if what I've seen is to be believed. And this is something I very much don't like. If you're willing to believe they can uphold same sort of quality all the time I'm also happy for you, but I'm not that optimistic. And this will be reflected on SP portion of the game sooner or later.

Psyren

2014-01-14, 11:11 AM

I don't have faith in EA - I have faith in Bioware. EA is only the publisher - they can request certain features, certainly, but execution is up to Bioware, not them.

MP was handled by a separate studio entirely; the meme about SP development being impacted by it needs to die, or at the very least needs some kind of support besides "I felt they could have done more, therefore MP must be to blame for my discontent."

Zevox

2014-01-14, 11:20 AM

The setting has a story too, and writing a story prior to or during ME3 will just be retreading old ground.
I would rather they not treat it that way. The important thing about the setting is that it's conducive to stories about characters, and they've shown the Mass Effect setting to be just that. Focusing on advancing the setting's timeline for its own sake seems like a mistake to me. If you're advancing the timeline, I feel it should be to follow what happens next to the established characters, which we already know they won't be doing.

The rumor mill I linked earlier for instance believes there will be new races - you can't do something like that in a prequel or midquel because it will clash with the continuity.
That does worry me, I admit. But it is only a rumor at this time.

Psyren

2014-01-14, 11:24 AM

I would rather they not treat it that way. The important thing about the setting is that it's conducive to stories about characters, and they've shown the Mass Effect setting to be just that. Focusing on advancing the setting's timeline for its own sake seems like a mistake to me. If you're advancing the timeline, I feel it should be to follow what happens next to the established characters, which we already know they won't be doing.

But you can do that just fine even if they are not the focus. DA2 showed us what happened to just about every party member from DAO through cameos/references, and DAI looks set to do the same thing again. So why can't ME4?

SiuiS

2014-01-14, 11:35 AM

But if they weren't, how would the straight white American male get to show them all the ways they were Doing It Wrong? :smalltongue:

I'm sorry, but "how would straight white males tell people they were wrong on the Internet"?

Do I even have to answer that?
:smallwink:

Talderas

2014-01-14, 11:35 AM

Also, Shepard is the only reason for a post-ME3 game? Seriously?

I think there's multiple reasons but Shepard is a huge part of it.
1. A post-trilogy game would require canonizing an ending, which I'm not sure Bioware should do.
2. If Bioware did canonize an ending, it would require an entirely new protagonist or one of the few characters who can escape the trilogy without being killed. I can't think of noteworthy characters beyond Admiral Hackett that would survive. While a destroy ending could feature a Shepard protagonist they would require an entirely new cast of foreign individuals because of the aforementioned number of people that could be killed off. Unless they want to do something stupid like close characters that do exactly what the surviving character would do, like Gavik a turian military sniper. That's without getting into the race destroying choices that could be made during ME3.
3. Because of #1 and the events canonized by the trilogy, any game involving Shepard should be set prior to the trilogy.
4. Setting a game pre-trilogy means no need to account for any player decisions.
5. If a new game is set during the trilogy then it will probably be a canonized event that is self contained that either is open ended or concluded by canon events in the trilogy.

If the game is set during the trilogy's time span then a game with Garrus as the primary protagonist when he's Arch Angel I believe to be the safest bet. His canon events as arch angel are definitely action oriented which would fit in well with the current style of Mass Effect games. They take place between the events of ME1 and ME2 and Garrus is not a character that can be killed in ME1. He additionally one of the most loved characters from Mass Effect which would give the game wide appeal. Bioware also experimented with a solo squad during the Arrival DLC so the game could progress from him and his squad down to just him holding out against the three merc groups.

Zevox

2014-01-14, 11:47 AM

But you can do that just fine even if they are not the focus.
But there's also need to do that if they are not the focus.

DA2 was going to be set after DA:O anyway, so there was no issue with including cameos from old favorites there. But a Mass Effect game set after 3 has plenty of complications, from the need to canonize an ending to the god-knows-how-many details they might feel the need to let players import from the trilogy, which could potentially massively impact things, since entire races can live or die depending on what you do in 3. And that's before you even touch the PR concerns.

No, I completely believe that their best choice is to simply never set a game after ME3. They have a huge setting ripe for use in its current form - best they go ahead and use it as it is, not try to advance the timeline for its own sake despite the potential pitfalls of it.

Psyren

2014-01-14, 11:54 AM

I'm sorry, but "how would straight white males tell people they were wrong on the Internet"?

Do I even have to answer that?
:smallwink:

I was still talking Avatar there - I meant Jake Sully teaching the Na'vi how to get in touch with their own natural environment. "You ignorant savages, this is how you tame epic bird/get Ey'wa's attention/become chief/get hottest girl in the village. Do we have to teach you everything?"

I think there's multiple reasons but Shepard is a huge part of it.
1. A post-trilogy game would require canonizing an ending, which I'm not sure Bioware should do.
2. If Bioware did canonize an ending, it would require an entirely new protagonist or one of the few characters who can escape the trilogy without being killed. I can't think of noteworthy characters beyond Admiral Hackett that would survive. While a destroy ending could feature a Shepard protagonist they would require an entirely new cast of foreign individuals because of the aforementioned number of people that could be killed off. Unless they want to do something stupid like close characters that do exactly what the surviving character would do, like Gavik a turian military sniper. That's without getting into the race destroying choices that could be made during ME3.

1) Whereas I think they should. Again, they will have to eventually unless they want to wallow in prequels forever or do a reboot. I'm not totally opposed to the latter either if it's done well - it didn't hurt MK after all - but either way, whatever they are doing for the future of the franchise they should do it now.

2) Who says there has to be one protagonist? I'd love an Origins-style game next with multiple playable races, even if it would be a logistical headache VA-wise.

3,4,5) I think a prequel/midquel is a waste of time/potential.

If the game is set during the trilogy's time span then a game with Garrus as the primary protagonist when he's Arch Angel I believe to be the safest bet.

At best that should be a spinoff or another iOS/arcade title. We know how Garrus' story ends, just like we knew how Jacob and Miranda's ended in ME Galaxy.

No, I completely believe that their best choice is to simply never set a game after ME3.

There's zero point to that. We know how all the pre-ME3 stories end already, and none of them matter.

Zevox

2014-01-14, 11:57 AM

There's zero point to that. We know how all the pre-ME3 stories end already, and none of them matter.
I completely and utterly disagree with that sentiment and cannot fathom how you come about it.

Psyren

2014-01-14, 11:59 AM

I completely and utterly disagree with that sentiment and cannot fathom how you come about it.

That's because you're hankering for some kind of small-scale story like a uncovering embezzlement fraud or tracking down a kidnap victim or something else trivial like that. Could it be an entertaining yarn, with Shepard's exploits as a backdrop? Sure. Could it carry a AAA title on its own? I emphatically believe, not in the least.

Zevox

2014-01-14, 12:15 PM

That's because you're hankering for some kind of small-scale story like a uncovering embezzlement fraud or tracking down a kidnap victim or something else trivial like that. Could it be an entertaining yarn, with Shepard's exploits as a backdrop? Sure. Could it carry a AAA title on its own? I emphatically believe, not in the least.
Such a story doesn't even need Shepard's exploits as a backdrop. I'd rather they not try to tie them in at all, in fact.

But again, I disagree. Stories smaller than "save the world/galaxy" can very much carry a game, AAA or no. The important parts are that the story is compelling and the gameplay enjoyable, and neither of those require a big, "epic" story, such as you seem to believe is needed.

Mordokai

2014-01-14, 12:24 PM

I don't have faith in EA - I have faith in Bioware. EA is only the publisher - they can request certain features, certainly, but execution is up to Bioware, not them.

Like that whole ending debacle?

MP was handled by a separate studio entirely; the meme about SP development being impacted by it needs to die, or at the very least needs some kind of support besides "I felt they could have done more, therefore MP must be to blame for my discontent."

Didn't know that, I admit. But I'm pretty sure that meme is there for a reason. Won't go looking for an examples, but I'm sure there are enough titles out there that can support it.

Talderas

2014-01-14, 12:53 PM

1) Whereas I think they should. Again, they will have to eventually unless they want to wallow in prequels forever or do a reboot. I'm not totally opposed to the latter either if it's done well - it didn't hurt MK after all - but either way, whatever they are doing for the future of the franchise they should do it now.

I'm opposed to it because it's rather obvious the trilogy was meant to be it. There weren't plans for anything else. The story wasn't written in a fashion that really permitted anything after ME3 and anything after it reeks of a money grab. Actually, any game for mass effect at this point reeks of a money grab but I'd rather see something that actually fits within the variable canon provided without destroying that canon as canon.

2) Who says there has to be one protagonist? I'd love an Origins-style game next with multiple playable races, even if it would be a logistical headache VA-wise.

Origins? One protagonist where it was 100% the same protagonist except. "Oh I'm a dwarf" or "Oh I'm an elf" or "Oh I'm a human". Very minor, but nice differences throughout the rest of the game but otherwise the same experience.

At best that should be a spinoff or another iOS/arcade title. We know how Garrus' story ends, just like we knew how Jacob and Miranda's ended in ME Galaxy.

Garrus, unlike Jacob and Miranda, actually has adoration from the vast majority of the ME fanbase. He also has the sort of background that would actually permit a character on par with Shepard (many argue the Shepard was holding Garrus back from his full potential afterall). ME Galaxy used a primary character very few players actually liked (Jacob) and was pushed out on a system that didn't even carry the main game and was done in poor quality. It's a poor representation of what could be done.

With an Arch Angel subplot, we do know the ending but that doesn't matter because the journey is more important than the destination otherwise there's no reason to play a video game or watch a movie. Read the ending and be done with it. We have a vague idea of what happened. We also know that the story provides sufficient fuel to allow the player to be a complete and total badass. On top of all of that there's canon characters that could and likely would be on the fringes of the story that the playerbase tends to like (Aria, Mordin). The question isn't whether it could be AAA. The questions are whether Bioware would put the effort into it being AAA because the pieces are all there for them to do it and whether Bioware has the balls to use Garrus as a main protagonist.

Psyren

2014-01-14, 01:12 PM

But again, I disagree. Stories smaller than "save the world/galaxy" can very much carry a game, AAA or no. The important parts are that the story is compelling and the gameplay enjoyable, and neither of those require a big, "epic" story, such as you seem to believe is needed.

Perhaps we can meet in the middle then. What kind of stories with lower stakes than saving a planet/race/galaxy do you think can carry a sci-fi opera game? (Or heck, just a sci-fi game in general.)

Like that whole ending debacle?

A "debacle" that was vastly overblown by a loud, vocal and entitled minority. (Note - not saying anyone here falls in that category.)

Remember, these are the same "fans" that threatened writers' families, voted EA a worse corporation than Bank of America/BP/Wal-mart, and tried to buy billboard space in Edmonton on the highway leading to the studio offices - all over a video game.

Didn't know that, I admit. But I'm pretty sure that meme is there for a reason. Won't go looking for an examples, but I'm sure there are enough titles out there that can support it.

The meme is there because it's an easy target based on a faulty logical premise. (i.e. that any resources allocated to X means less resources available for Y, which assumes transferability of all resources.)

Hell, the main complaint about the endings has to do with writing - why would there have been writers on the MP staff? It has no story.

I'm opposed to it because it's rather obvious the trilogy was meant to be it. There weren't plans for anything else.

False; this is only "it" for Shepard. Chris Priestly said prior to ME3's release that they weren't done with Mass Effect as a whole.

Origins? One protagonist where it was 100% the same protagonist except. "Oh I'm a dwarf" or "Oh I'm an elf" or "Oh I'm a human". Very minor, but nice differences throughout the rest of the game but otherwise the same experience.

This sameness was because in DA, race had no bearing on gameplay. A human fighter, elf fighter and dwarf fighter all played the same - class/spec were all that mattered.

We already know from the ME multiplayer that this won't be the case. A Krogan vanguard plays extremely differently from a Drell vanguard, a Geth engineer plays differently from a Salarian one who in turn plays very differently from a Volus, and the humans had all kinds of playstyles.

Garrus Effect

I'm not against this idea, but again, I think it should be a spinoff title. And I'm not saying it should be an iOS or Android title either (those honestly didn't play very well.) It would be fine as an XBLA/PSN/Origin release. I just think it would be a $15 diversion at best.

Lentrax

2014-01-14, 01:39 PM

Joran

2014-01-14, 03:44 PM

3,4,5) I think a prequel/midquel is a waste of time/potential.

I think a midquel has a lot of potential, but it'd have to be separate from Shepard. The easiest way to do this is to make a Mass Effect: BSG/Voyager type spin-off.

The Reapers invade and start obliterating homeworlds and systems. Admiral Hackett (or the Council) has a contingency in place to send a flotilla of civilian ships into deep space, away from the Reapers, away from the Mass Effect relays, to preserve the civilizations of the Council races in case the Reapers win.

As Commander... uh... Sheepherder, the player is in charge of mediating conflicts between all the races, protecting the ships from Reaper and other attacks, and making first contact with whatever races are out beyond the Mass Effect relay system. This type of story would be rife will all sorts of interesting choices.

D_Man_7733

2014-01-14, 03:53 PM

I'm not sure if there is a way to not get me to buy the next Mass Effect game, if it's a prequel, we'll get to fight in the Rachni Wars or something, we all know how that ends (Krogan go "WRAAAAAGH!" and stomp everything), but they could set it about the war prior, it was a galaxy spanning threat, the problem there lies in that it works for an action/shooter, not much a roleplay, since all your choices will take place in sidequests, never being able to converse with the enemy or talk while in enemy territory. (Also, imagine the final level just being a charge over flat plains into caves with a horde of Krogans and other races around you... show off those next-gen capabilities)

It kinda fits the same as Shepherd's crew in the reaper invasion, one crew who does everything it needs to in a better way than anyone else in the galaxy.

I was scared at them canonizing an ending, but then I realised "why do I care?" I've played Shepherd's journey, it's over. If I can import my save for the sidequests/codex/Wrex, Grunt and Liara (Because I wholly expect everyone else to be dead due to the time period), that's cool. But if not? It's a new series, set on a new protagonist with a new storyline, that occurs in the ME universe.

thoughts on the possible Rachni plot? Seems likely to me, more likey than anything like the First Contact War or Archangel arc (a spinoff of that would be BRILLIANT). Should they bring back the hacking minigame? or continue using the locked doors that double as loading screens? (yes I spotted it, the elevators don't bother me much anymore but those doors... do)

Joran

2014-01-14, 04:02 PM

thoughts on the possible Rachni plot? Seems likely to me, more likey than anything like the First Contact War or Archangel arc (a spinoff of that would be BRILLIANT). Should they bring back the hacking minigame? or continue using the locked doors that double as loading screens? (yes I spotted it, the elevators don't bother me much anymore but those doors... do)

One possible drawback for the Rachni plot is that it can't include the humans. I'm unsure if that's a dealbreaker or not. We also know what happens at the end.

First Contact War doesn't seem particularly interesting; we know how it ends. Archangel seems like it'd belong to a DLC rather than a full-fledged game.

I'm glad they streamlined silly mini-games like the hacking game or the driving simulator. I never particularly enjoyed them and they felt like obstacles to getting down to the brass tacks: shooting stuff in the face.

Psyren

2014-01-14, 04:28 PM

I think a midquel has a lot of potential, but it'd have to be separate from Shepard. The easiest way to do this is to make a Mass Effect: BSG/Voyager type spin-off.

The Reapers invade and start obliterating homeworlds and systems. Admiral Hackett (or the Council) has a contingency in place to send a flotilla of civilian ships into deep space, away from the Reapers, away from the Mass Effect relays, to preserve the civilizations of the Council races in case the Reapers win.

As Commander... uh... Sheepherder, the player is in charge of mediating conflicts between all the races, protecting the ships from Reaper and other attacks, and making first contact with whatever races are out beyond the Mass Effect relay system. This type of story would be rife will all sorts of interesting choices.

That could actually be interesting but the issue becomes how do you end it. Anyway, I wouldn't mind this as a spinoff title like an adventure or action-adventure game.

I was scared at them canonizing an ending, but then I realised "why do I care?" I've played Shepherd's journey, it's over. If I can import my save for the sidequests/codex/Wrex, Grunt and Liara (Because I wholly expect everyone else to be dead due to the time period), that's cool. But if not? It's a new series, set on a new protagonist with a new storyline, that occurs in the ME universe.

Agreed.

thoughts on the possible Rachni plot? Seems likely to me, more likey than anything like the First Contact War or Archangel arc (a spinoff of that would be BRILLIANT). Should they bring back the hacking minigame? or continue using the locked doors that double as loading screens? (yes I spotted it, the elevators don't bother me much anymore but those doors... do)

Eh, I'm not too interested in the Rachni wars. No Humans, no Turians, no Quarians, no Geth... there's potential for a Fighter/Mage/Thief style action-puzzler (think Trine) with a strike team consisting of a Krogan, Asari and Salarian respectively (being yelled at over the radio by a Volus) but still nothing that I feel could carry any AAA title.

The Rebellions might be more interesting and is recent enough to allow us to see some noteable faces - Wrex's father and Okeer for instance, possibly even a young Aethyta and Benezia, and perhaps even an ancestor of Mordin who was involved with initially developing the genophage - but again, we know how that story ends too. The Morning War would be interesting to watch or read about (Rise of the Planet of the Apes-style) but not so much to play.

No, the more I think about it the less I want a prequel. The only one I'd actually be interested in is the First Contact War and the rise of the Illusive Man, and Bioware already told that story in the comics so there's no point making a game about it.

Dienekes

2014-01-14, 05:41 PM

Hey everyone. Just thought I would let you all know about a ME game I am running here in the Playground.

Recruitment thread is here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16765026#post16765026)

I am planning on cutting off the applications tomorrow, but if you need more time, PM me, and we can work something out.

Sorry mate. I was looking at that earlier but I'm pretty busy currently. Also I'm not really a fan of the system. Or certain parts anyway. Soldier Shepard was just as skilled as any other Shepard. Any game that limits soldiers to 2 skill points and that terrible list is a no go.

D_Man_7733

2014-01-14, 05:54 PM

I seem to have forgotten the lack of races during the Rachni wars... could have sworn otherwise but that's probably just all the characters that make reference to it throughout the series regardless of race.

Maybe a parallel story set during ME1? While Shepherd is taking down Saren you go after Cerberus with a small experimental mixed-race strike team in the council's effort to adapt/investigate human tactics, occasionally finding their bases filled with corpses because Shepherd got there first.

Psyren

2014-01-14, 06:34 PM

Rachni Wars had exactly 4 races: Asari, Salarians, Volus, Krogan. Nobody else had arrived yet. Turians arrived during the rebellions, followed by everyone else (with us coming last.)

I do kinda understand why Din is so pissed at the council though. The Volus freaking invented galactic money and they didn't get a seat. Well, that will probably change post-ME3 since everybody pitched in.

Joran

2014-01-14, 08:19 PM

That could actually be interesting but the issue becomes how do you end it. Anyway, I wouldn't mind this as a spinoff title like an adventure or action-adventure game.

For a Mass Effect: BSG, you could have the flotilla being pursued by a Reaper. The ending of game 1 could be taking out that Reaper. Thematically, it'd be an ending to how Mass Effect revolves around the Reaper threat.

Edit: BTW, for those who don't understand BSG, it's short for Battlestar Galactica. In the TV show, a race of cybernetic beings called Cylons completely devastate the human race, leaving one fleet with one battleship and a few civilian ships, as the lone survivors. They're forced to run from the Cylons while trying to maintain order and the fleet.

In the new version of the series, Cylons can take the shape of humans and are virtually indistinguishable, leading to even more paranoia. /coughIndoctrinatedcough.

Zevox

2014-01-14, 09:41 PM

Perhaps we can meet in the middle then. What kind of stories with lower stakes than saving a planet/race/galaxy do you think can carry a sci-fi opera game? (Or heck, just a sci-fi game in general.)
I don't fancy myself much of a writer, so asking me to come up with specific plots myself isn't really going to lead anywhere I'm afraid. But to use existing examples, I would say that things that they left as mere short side-quests in the current games could certainly carry a full game. Stories like Mordin's or Jack's were more compelling than the Reaper plot ever was, and had nothing to do with saving the galaxy (Mordin's eventually tied into saving one race, but that's still a much smaller scale). There would need to be more events involved to make a whole game out of such stories of course, but that shouldn't be an issue.

Or look at other games - though I admit I can't think of any that are sci-fi specifically (if only because the only sci-fi games that come to mind right now are Mass Effect and Xenosaga). But Arkham Asylum, for instance, is a AAA game where the story basically amounted to "inmates take over Asylum, Batman stops them." Or my favorite game of all, Persona 4. Most of that game is just a mystery story - primarily a murder mystery, secondarily mystery surrounding the supernatural elements involved in the murder mystery - and while an element of "save the world" does enter at the eleventh hour, it was actually not necessary to the story at all, as the protagonists had plenty of motivation to see their investigation through to the end without it.

Psyren

2014-01-15, 12:27 AM

I don't fancy myself much of a writer, so asking me to come up with specific plots myself isn't really going to lead anywhere I'm afraid.

Neither am I - but I'd certainly call myself a reader, and as such I know what I'd like to see.

But to use existing examples, I would say that things that they left as mere short side-quests in the current games could certainly carry a full game. Stories like Mordin's or Jack's were more compelling than the Reaper plot ever was, and had nothing to do with saving the galaxy (Mordin's eventually tied into saving one race, but that's still a much smaller scale). There would need to be more events involved to make a whole game out of such stories of course, but that shouldn't be an issue.

Jack's story is full of action but not much growth. Until the events of ME2, she's the same angry girl throughout her adult life that she was forced to become during Pragia. So there really isn't more to dive into beyond what she told Shepard.

Mordin didn't change much before you met him either. He thought the genophage modification was the right thing to do, he went out and did it. No real conflict or struggle there. You might have some action missions where he takes down a couple of Krogan but aside from arguments in the lab with Maelon there's nothing more to show there. He got guilty and left STG after the project concluded, but until the plague he didn't use his skills much.

I guess we could have a noir story where we see how he met Aria but again, I don't see that carrying a whole AAA title. Like the Archangel idea it would be a spinoff arcade installment at best.

Or look at other games - though I admit I can't think of any that are sci-fi specifically (if only because the only sci-fi games that come to mind right now are Mass Effect and Xenosaga). But Arkham Asylum, for instance, is a AAA game where the story basically amounted to "inmates take over Asylum, Batman stops them." Or my favorite game of all, Persona 4. Most of that game is just a mystery story - primarily a murder mystery, secondarily mystery surrounding the supernatural elements involved in the murder mystery - and while an element of "save the world" does enter at the eleventh hour, it was actually not necessary to the story at all, as the protagonists had plenty of motivation to see their investigation through to the end without it.

In Asylum you are saving the world (well, Batman's world) by keeping the inmates from getting out. Sure in the grand scheme of things, even if Gotham burned to the ground it wouldn't be too big a deal for the DCU because Superman could go round up whichever two-bit thugs were left, but considering you never leave Gotham in the majority of Batman games anyway it might as well be the world.

Persona 4 I haven't played but it sounds like it proves my point as well, they felt the need to raise the stakes at the end. Without stakes there's no tension.

Zevox

2014-01-15, 12:53 AM

Jack's story is full of action but not much growth.
[...]
Mordin didn't change much before you met him either.
Um, I was referring to their stories during the existing games. The ones that were used as side-quests. Not as something that I seriously think would be used as full games, since obviously they've already been told, but as examples of stories that could certainly carry a game had they not already been used as side-quests in ME2 and 3.

In Asylum you are saving the world (well, Batman's world) by keeping the inmates from getting out. Sure in the grand scheme of things, even if Gotham burned to the ground it wouldn't be too big a deal for the DCU because Superman could go round up whichever two-bit thugs were left, but considering you never leave Gotham in the majority of Batman games anyway it might as well be the world.
So, you're equating a much smaller story to world-saving, just because that's the scope of that particular story? Not really making sense here.

Persona 4 I haven't played but it sounds like it proves my point as well, they felt the need to raise the stakes at the end. Without stakes there's no tension.
The fact that you've never played the game really gives you no room to talk there I'm afraid. But let me assure you, there's no lack of tension in Persona 4. You're spending the game trying to find and stop a serial murderer whom the police don't realize exists because the supernatural means by which he kills makes it impossible to determine the cause of death. Most members of your group were among those he attempted to kill, and one was friends with one of the first victims, giving each of them a very personal stake in the situation. And one of his last victims is someone very close to the group, but especially to the main character himself.

I am completely serious when I say that the extremely late appearance of a threat beyond just this murderer was basically incidental to the game's story. It just shows up when the murder mystery is getting very close to being solved and is resolved at the same time and in the same way as the murder mystery itself, with nothing really occurring in between. Fortunately it's done in a way that doesn't detract from the story, but nor does it add to it.

D_Man_7733

2014-01-15, 03:00 AM

Persona 4 stuff

The way you describe it makes it seem like it is the equivalent of the Mass Effect series not passing the first installment. At the end they basically go "oh yeah, this reaper thing? It'll destroy the galaxy". You were already going to destroy it, but it just upped the stakes. (assuming they left out the whole "there are more of these things coming" plot point). Am I right?

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-15, 03:31 AM

Not a fan of avatar?

What does Synthesis have to do with Avatar?

Other topic: Why are all suits of armor (unlike the loose armor parts) worthless?
I won the special armor at the arena this morning, and it kinda looks cool but not only are the stats worse than what I already have (it cuts my damage bonus in half and my headshot bonus with about 25%, all because some ammo capacity I don't need and stronger shields that I don't need) but they didn't even bother to reskin it, so it still looks like cerberus armor (which my Shep wouldn't touch).

Psyren

2014-01-15, 03:34 AM

Um, I was referring to their stories during the existing games. The ones that were used as side-quests. Not as something that I seriously think would be used as full games, since obviously they've already been told, but as examples of stories that could certainly carry a game had they not already been used as side-quests in ME2 and 3.

This is self-defeating. Stories that were barely enough to warrant a sidequest cannot then be expected to carry a AAA title.

So, you're equating a much smaller story to world-saving, just because that's the scope of that particular story? Not really making sense here.

There's no real difference in the Arkham context between saving Gotham and saving the world.

Imagine for a second that the rest of the DCU didn't exist - it's just Batman and his town full of loony villains. If they killed Batman and got out into the wider world they would cause a lot of damage, just like they would if they got out into the wider Gotham. But from the game sense the stakes are the same - keep them penned in at all costs, and stay alive.

It should be pretty easy to imagine because, in the context of those games, the rest of the DCU might as well not exist - because the likes of Supes or Flash or Green Lantern or Martian Manhunter etc. could easily mop the floor with the likes of Penguin, Killer Croc and Two Face, contrivances notwithstanding, and so the other heroes are kept out of the picture entirely.

The fact that you've never played the game really gives you no room to talk there I'm afraid.

Except I'm going off of what you said; you are the one doing the talking here, actually. And you told me that towards the end of the game the world* ends up being at stake. I'm assuming that wasn't thrown in there as a joke, so they did that on purpose, no?

*humanity, really

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-15, 03:37 AM

Psyren

2014-01-15, 08:49 AM

RE: Persona 4: From what I read it looks like if you fail to solve the murder mystery (i.e. it gets pinned on the wrong guy) you get a nonstandard game over where the humanity-killing fog sticks around and will eventually slaughter the entire human race. So calling that "just a murder mystery" or "incidental" seems disingenuous to me.

What does Synthesis have to do with Avatar?

Pandora appears to have every organism live in a planet-wide network - the kind of thing you can feasibly do when every animal and plant is suffused with nanites.

Other topic: Why are all suits of armor (unlike the loose armor parts) worthless?
I won the special armor at the arena this morning, and it kinda looks cool but not only are the stats worse than what I already have (it cuts my damage bonus in half and my headshot bonus with about 25%, all because some ammo capacity I don't need and stronger shields that I don't need) but they didn't even bother to reskin it, so it still looks like cerberus armor (which my Shep wouldn't touch).

I don't know about the best armor for a gun-using Shepard, but the Phantom armor for casters ("Spirit") is second to none. (http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Cerberus_Spirit_Armor)

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-15, 09:05 AM

Pandora appears to have every organism live in a planet-wide network - the kind of thing you can feasibly do when every animal and plant is suffused with nanites.

---

I don't know about the best armor for a gun-using Shepard, but the Phantom armor for casters ("Spirit") is second to none. (http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Cerberus_Spirit_Armor)

Yes, but it has evolved naturally, and it is not a sudden transformation of all of nature across the whole galaxy. Nor it it thrust upon anyone against their will.

I haven't played a caster yet in ME3 (I have played two infiltrators, one soldier and a vanguard I got bored with and stopped playing) so I don't know. But the armor "optimized" for infiltrators is nothing of the sort. It has higher ammo capacity, but unlike in ME2 you are highly unlikely to run out of sniper ammo, at least if you have any of the DLC snipers or the Black Widow. It also has stronger shields, which is exactly what I DON'T need, since the whole point is to NOT get hit in the first place.

Psyren

2014-01-15, 09:17 AM

Yes, but it has evolved naturally, and it is not a sudden transformation of all of nature across the whole galaxy. Nor it it thrust upon anyone against their will.

Appeal to Nature (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature), with some dashes of Genetic Fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic) and Appeal to Emotion. (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion)

I haven't played a caster yet in ME3 (I have played two infiltrators, one soldier and a vanguard I got bored with and stopped playing) so I don't know. But the armor "optimized" for infiltrators is nothing of the sort. It has higher ammo capacity, but unlike in ME2 you are highly unlikely to run out of sniper ammo, at least if you have any of the DLC snipers or the Black Widow. It also has stronger shields, which is exactly what I DON'T need, since the whole point is to NOT get hit in the first place.

You said "all the suits of armor" so I took that to mean you were evaluating all of them instead of just the infiltrator ones.

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-15, 10:04 AM

Appeal to Nature (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature), with some dashes of Genetic Fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic) and Appeal to Emotion. (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion)

---

You said "all the suits of armor" so I took that to mean you were evaluating all of them instead of just the infiltrator ones.

I don't think this warrants the links you have above. Natual evolution is the purpose of life, Synthesis is the literal murder of nature as a whole. At least on one complete galaxy. You might not agree (if I remember correctly there was one person in the ME3 threads who didn't consider nature worth preserving at all, which I consider a mindboggling stance) but that won't change the fact that I consider it the ultimate evil.

As for armors, I was even speaking about more than that, I was talking about ALL the full armor suits, including the ones you can buy on the Citadel and the bonus ones you get for pre-ordering etc.

Tiki Snakes

2014-01-15, 10:07 AM

I don't think this warrants the links you have above. Natual evolution is the purpose of life, Synthesis is the literal murder of nature as a whole.

I don't know man. I don't think that's something you can just state outright as a non-controversial fact. It certainly feels like link no.1 to me (Appeal to Nature).

Psyren

2014-01-15, 10:21 AM

As for armors, I was even speaking about more than that, I was talking about ALL the full armor suits, including the ones you can buy on the Citadel and the bonus ones you get for pre-ordering etc.

Well again, the caster full sets (Inferno, Blood Dragon and now Spirit) are all useful. At the point in the game you get them they are certainly more useful than the caster piecemeal set, and Spirit blows all the others out of the water.

I don't think this warrants the links you have above. Natual evolution is the purpose of life, Synthesis is the literal murder of nature as a whole.

Putting aside that you're still committing the same fallacies - no, this is provably wrong. "Natural evolution" means no medicine, no genetic engineering, no selective breeding even. Natural evolution would have killed Joker, because he would have never lived past being an infant. It certainly would have killed Shepard, because no Lazarus.

"Altering nature is bad because nature is good!"is not only circular, it is false and dangerous besides.

Nerd-o-rama

2014-01-15, 10:38 AM

Chiming in to this digression with an observation that humans (in Earth's environment, at least) are weird because our problem-solving ability has evolved to such an extent that we constantly ignore natural selection.

No food to hunt or gather here? Invent agriculture!

Too cold to live without thick fur? Invent clothes!

Too hot for large formerly glacier-dwelling people to live? Invent air conditioning!

Disease that would pare the population down to the 10% who resist it naturally? Screw that, we invent medicine!

So basically as soon as creatures that we would call sapient tool-users or inventors enter the picture, natural selection stops being the primary driver of both that species's evolution and, after their numbers have thrived enough, for the whole rest of their biosphere, unless they just ignore their ability to cultivate or otherwise affect the environment around them.

Zevox

2014-01-15, 10:40 AM

The way you describe it makes it seem like it is the equivalent of the Mass Effect series not passing the first installment. At the end they basically go "oh yeah, this reaper thing? It'll destroy the galaxy". You were already going to destroy it, but it just upped the stakes. (assuming they left out the whole "there are more of these things coming" plot point). Am I right?
Not entirely. The Reapers were built up as a huge threat right from the start of ME1, with Shepard's visions from that Prothean artifact showing them slaughtering the Protheans wholesale, and the big reason to be scared of Saren was the recording that indicated he wanted to bring them back. The save-the-world elements in Persona 4 come much more out of left field than that, right in the last phase of the game, and get resolved much quicker.

This is self-defeating. Stories that were barely enough to warrant a sidequest cannot then be expected to carry a AAA title.
I disagree. Just because the stories as they were told were not used as a full game does not mean they would not be good enough to do so had the developers set out to do so.

There's no real difference in the Arkham context between saving Gotham and saving the world.

Imagine for a second that the rest of the DCU didn't exist - it's just Batman and his town full of loony villains.
...it would still just be one asylum full of crazy people, most of whom don't have superpowers or only barely do. Them getting out would be bad, but hardly something that would spell doom for the world, or even necessarily the general area.

Except I'm going off of what you said; you are the one doing the talking here, actually. And you told me that towards the end of the game the world* ends up being at stake. I'm assuming that wasn't thrown in there as a joke, so they did that on purpose, no?

*humanity, really
Yes. But without knowing the context of the game, how it comes about, how quickly it is resolved, how little impact it actually has on the overall narrative, you're making assumptions about its importance that are simply incorrect.

RE: Persona 4: From what I read it looks like if you fail to solve the murder mystery (i.e. it gets pinned on the wrong guy) you get a nonstandard game over where the humanity-killing fog sticks around and will eventually slaughter the entire human race. So calling that "just a murder mystery" or "incidental" seems disingenuous to me.
That's something that you don't actually know at the time if you get the bad ending. That element is introduced only after successfully fingering the true culprit, but before capturing him. During the bad ending you briefly skip to a point far enough in the future that the fog has become a constant at least in your little town, but you don't realize the implications of that unless you've been further into the game already. I actually had a friend on another forum back when I first played through the game who got the bad ending and was satisfied by it, not realizing it was a bad ending until the rest of us told him so, because if you don't realize you've got the wrong culprit and the actual meaning of the fog, the way it's written can come across as a bittersweet but strong ending.

Psyren

2014-01-15, 10:53 AM

That's something that you don't actually know at the time if you get the bad ending. That element is introduced only after successfully fingering the true culprit, but before capturing him. During the bad ending you briefly skip to a point far enough in the future that the fog has become a constant at least in your little town, but you don't realize the implications of that unless you've been further into the game already. I actually had a friend on another forum back when I first played through the game who got the bad ending and was satisfied by it, not realizing it was a bad ending until the rest of us told him so, because if you don't realize you've got the wrong culprit and the actual meaning of the fog, the way it's written can come across as a bittersweet but strong ending.

Not fully knowing just how bad it is doesn't change the fact that it is bad, and globally so. So yeah, the world is definitely at stake even in your supposed ur-example, even if the game somehow makes you feel good if you fail and everyone everywhere dies.

So you have yet to present an example of a AAA game without sweeping stakes, especially not a science fiction title. The small-scale stuff works fine for sidequests and can be done well, but just isn't sufficient on its own.

Zevox

2014-01-15, 11:25 AM

Not fully knowing just how bad it is doesn't change the fact that it is bad, and globally so. So yeah, the world is definitely at stake even in your supposed ur-example, even if the game somehow makes you feel good if you fail and everyone everywhere dies.

So you have yet to present an example of a AAA game without sweeping stakes, especially not a science fiction title. The small-scale stuff works fine for sidequests and can be done well, but just isn't sufficient on its own.
And the parts where I keep telling you it's an element introduced extremely late in the game (i.e. the vast majority of the game is carried on without it, and without the player having any reason to believe the world will ever be at stake in this story) which has no real impact on the overall narrative seem not to be getting through to you. Nor the example of Arkham Asylum, which no, is not equivalent on any level to saving the world, and your insistence otherwise is baffling.

I think we're done here. I don't know what I can say on the topic that you would ever acknowledge at this point.

Psyren

2014-01-15, 11:40 AM

The fog is around for almost the whole game actually - you only figure out what it truly means late in the game. (And it is still there even if you never realize its significance.)

Arkham, aside from not being sci-fi or an RPG, may not be about saving the planet but it's still a large-scale endeavor. The stakes are high because these dangerous people will get out and put thousands if not millions of lives at risk. Even if the population of Gotham survived, they would certainly be living in a very oppressive and dangerous situation as the supervillains engaged in destructive turf wars - very akin to what they do in Arkham City, only with more innocents caught in the crossfire.

We most certainly are done here.

Nerd-o-rama

2014-01-15, 11:56 AM

If I can contribute to another digression, Fallout: New Vegas is a regional conflict in a border territory between two large nations. An important territory, to be sure, but not the whole of known human civilization as was more or less the case in the first two games, and it distinctly lacks the End of the World As We Know It scenarios of the first three. It's one of the few sequels I can think of that doesn't escalate from previous installments. An analogy to Mass Effect would be a sequel that looks at how a war between the Alliance and the Terminus Systems affects one particular star system; even if that star system has some major military MacGuffin or strategic advantage that could hypothetically turn the tide of the war, it's still smaller-scale than the trilogy.

It also does the traditional Fallout format of ramping up to the larger conflict mid-game after spending the first act on a strictly personal journey. (Actually, the initial quests of mainline Fallout games have gotten steadily more personal as the series has gone on, from saving your community to finding your father to tracking down the guy who left you for dead.)

Dragon Age II was a AAA title, by Bioware even, that didn't have a save-the-world conflict, even though it was a sequel to one that did. Its final act was also bad, but not due to a lack of dramatic tension.

Psyren

2014-01-15, 12:22 PM

Isn't the macguffin in New Vegas a chip that can transfer control of an entire robot army? Even if all the antagonist wanted was control of the region, that's still pretty high stakes.

As for DA2, several of us have gone on at length about how sharply Act 3 raised the stakes. Hamfistedly perhaps, but the fact that they felt the need to (and did) is undeniable.

(edited for spoilers)

Nerd-o-rama

2014-01-15, 01:37 PM

Upgraded Securitrons are impressive, and necessary to holding the real strategic advantage of the Mojave (the Hoover Dam), but they're hardly a world-changer like the Master's army of psychically-bound Super Mutants or the Enclave's genocide virus would have been. They're just there to give House or the Courier military parity with the NCR and Legion's conventional troops.

Zevox

2014-01-15, 02:14 PM

Arkham, aside from not being sci-fi or an RPG, may not be about saving the planet but it's still a large-scale endeavor. The stakes are high because these dangerous people will get out and put thousands if not millions of lives at risk.
So you'll admit at least that such stakes are not comparable to world-saving. Care to give a reason why such smaller stakes would not work in a sci-fi RPG?

Psyren

2014-01-15, 02:56 PM

Guess we're not done, but okay...

Care to give a reason why such smaller stakes would not work in a sci-fi RPG?

I didnt' say that saving a city, country or region couldn't work. But none of the stories you proposed even got that far. Mordin's sidequest, Garrus' sidequest, and Jack's sidequest are all too small - they focus on one person, or at most a handful of people, and have no real stakes beyond their individual welfare.

Garrus' comes closest to being able to carry a game but still falls short of AAA. During his stint as Archangel, what are the stakes? We care about his survival because we got to know him etc., but we don't give a rat's ass about Omega. So whether he beats the gangs or not, even if we somehow didn't know how that particular story ends we wouldn't care. And if he somehow saved Omega from the merc groups, that would either just strengthen Aria's hold or enable some new criminal to step in. No stakes, no tension, no reason to care - just the dude himself.

Similarly, we care about Jack (well, some of us do anyway) because we got to know her, not because of anything she does in her backstory. We could follow her around as she pals with pirates, dodges Cerberus, and finally ends up locked away in Purgatory, but there's no stakes there either; whether she stays free or gets locked up, it doesn't really matter either way. Worse, this would be still-psycho-Jack, meaning all that great character development she got in 3 (and even 2) would be nonexistent and people might even be rooting for her to get caught after the umpteenth murder.

Mordin is worst of all. He doesn't even have all that much action; his team gets jumped on Tuchanka during the genophage test but beyond that he spends most of his time in a lab. His STG stuff could be interesting, but that would run into the very thing you don't want to see, i.e. large-scale save-the-day stories, because that's the sort of problem you call the STG in to deal with in the first place.

Basically the question you have to ask yourself is "if I didn't know how this story ends, would I be interested to play through it in a feature-length game?" If you didn't know Jack gets caught and locked up in Purgatory, would her thrilling flight from Pragia be worthy of experiencing firsthand?" We don't care about her fleeting allies, she can't shut down Cerberus because that would be a large-scale galaxy-spanning goal the likes of which you don't want to see, and even if she gets caught again it's not like she has the key to real ultimate biotic power inside her head. Getting caught would suck for her but would have absolutely zero impact on the galaxy at large. So again, what are the stakes?

Zevox

2014-01-15, 03:05 PM

Guess we're not done, but okay...
[snip]
So your problem is that you don't see a reason to care about the stories if there's not high stakes? That sounds like a personal thing for you. I'd always assume that a well-written story will give me a reason to care.

Heck, game stories can have big stakes but fail to make me care - Final Fantasy 13, for instance, is a prime example of this, where the protagonists may have to destroy the main human habitation of their world in order to avoid becoming zombie-things, but the game utterly fails to make me care about either the characters or their world.

On the flip side, something like the Persona titles make me care very much about their characters and events long before save-the-world level stakes ever enter the equation. Or the Ace Attorney titles, where the stakes are never much higher than one person's life and simply seeing justice done for a crime, but I often care more than Mass Effect ever made me care about the Reapers.

Making a person care about the story and want to see it through is entirely on the writing quality, not on the scope of the stakes.

Psyren

2014-01-15, 03:11 PM

That sounds like a personal thing for you.

It might be - just as your desire for small-scale stories sounds like a personal thing for you.

The question then becomes - which of our personal things is Bioware more likely to go with, particularly for the next major release in the ME franchise?

I'll take that bet if you will.

Rodin

2014-01-15, 03:14 PM

I would argue that the problem is genre. Mass Effect is Space Opera, and one of the only examples of a game in that genre that isn't a space combat simulator. All of the deep character stuff is set against a backdrop of a huge galaxy going about its business.

To take Garrus for an example, if they were to set a game about him being Archangel, that means he spends the entire game on Omega. Could you make a game out of that? Sure. But that isn't the sort of game I'm looking for when I want to play Mass Effect. It's all about going around the galaxy, seeing exciting new places, meeting new alien races, and being big damn heroes.

That's why I wouldn't have a problem with ME4 being a sequel - there's plenty to explore that way, and there's room for establishing new history.

Moving on a bit, what sort of features would you like for ME4? And no "better ending" please, we all want that. :smallwink:

For myself, I would really like for them to integrate Dragon Age II's personality changer into it. Not the full set, but one for Paragon/Renegade. It often felt rather schizophrenic when you had a tough-as-nails Renegade Shepard suddenly swap personalities because you didn't feel like going full Renegade on a particular issue. I'd like if you play a full Paragon/Renegade for that to start showing up in your speech patterns outside of the dialog choices, the same way a Snarky Hawke would crack jokes even when you didn't want him to.

I'd also like to see more involvement from the lesser races. The vast majority of the focus in the 2nd and particularly the 3rd game was on the Asari, Turians, and Quarians. I'd like to have a Volus ship's engineer. I'd like to visit the Hanar homeworld and deal with tensions between them and the Drell. Find out more about Elcor society. Even the Batarians would be interesting to see more of.

In terms of the gunplay, my biggest complaint has been that you always know what to expect from a given group of enemies. If you're fighting Cerberus, there is one set of enemies. If you're fighting the Reapers, there's another. You rarely got to participate in mixed combat, even when logically you should be doing so. Where's the battle where Blood Pack are duking it out with Blue Suns and both sides are sparing the time to shoot my way? Where's the fight where I'm stuck in the middle between a force of Reapers on one side and Cerberus on the other?

I just felt like they picked a side, loaded a template, and ran with it.

Zevox

2014-01-15, 03:25 PM

It might be - just as your desire for small-scale stories sounds like a personal thing for you.
Fair. Though that's not a general desire, it's specifically a desire for Mass Effect, or perhaps Bioware games in general. It's simply because that's what I think Bioware does best. Their big, "epic" plots all boil down to the same generic story over and over - create monstrous threat that the blank-slate main character will have to deal with even if the player plays him as a selfish a-hole, spend whole game finding a way to do so, defeat it in the end. It's everything that happens in between, especially in the character-focused subplots, where I see the real quality of their work shining through. So my desire and hope is to see them play to that strength.

Math_Mage

2014-01-15, 03:43 PM

I don't think this warrants the links you have above. Natual evolution is the purpose of life, Synthesis is the literal murder of nature as a whole. At least on one complete galaxy. You might not agree (if I remember correctly there was one person in the ME3 threads who didn't consider nature worth preserving at all, which I consider a mindboggling stance) but that won't change the fact that I consider it the ultimate evil.

As for armors, I was even speaking about more than that, I was talking about ALL the full armor suits, including the ones you can buy on the Citadel and the bonus ones you get for pre-ordering etc.
That was probably me. No, I don't see any value in preserving nature's current form. The 'murder of nature' you consider the ultimate evil is only murder in the sense that the future always murders the past. As not a single living creature dies in the transition (other than Shepard), there is no other sense in which you can call it murder.

KillianHawkeye

2014-01-15, 04:07 PM

Actually, nobody in this game is trying to escape the asylum. In fact, the Joker allows himself to be caught and returned to the asylum for the express purpose of taking over and trapping Batman there. And while his scheme appears to be a grave danger to Gotham City should he succeed, in the end the Joker's threat was merely a manufactured ploy to motivate Batman into a showdown.

What was the Joker's real goal, then? He just wanted to see Batman lose all his restraint by "freeing him" with an injection of TITAN serum. However, Batman refuses to mutate, using his only shot of the TITAN cure on himself, and then defeats a TITAN-fueled Joker in a rooftop brawl.

This is basically the furthest thing from end of the world stakes as we can get. The plot may revolve around a fake threat to one city, but the story is actually about the very personal relationship between Batman and the Joker.

Talderas

2014-01-15, 04:23 PM

I would argue that the problem is genre. Mass Effect is Space Opera, and one of the only examples of a game in that genre that isn't a space combat simulator.

Halo.
Star Ocean.
Starcraft.
KOTOR.
Dead Space.

That's five off the top of my head that I've played. A game self contained in a single location does not disqualify it as a space opera, especially if it's part of a larger series that is already a space opera.

Zevox

2014-01-15, 04:29 PM

That was probably me.
Or me. I recall making a comment in a previous conversation with Avilan on the topic that I don't personally place any particular value on nature simply for being what it is, and thus am not bothered by Synthesis changing it, which isn't far from what he said there.

Joran

2014-01-15, 04:51 PM

Halo.
Star Ocean.
Starcraft.
KOTOR.
Dead Space.

That's five off the top of my head that I've played. A game self contained in a single location does not disqualify it as a space opera, especially if it's part of a larger series that is already a space opera.

I'd argue that Dead Space is not space opera. It's a survival horror game taking place in space. Does the entire game take place on one ship?

KOTOR is your stereotypical space opera. It has adventure, it has gallivanting across the galaxy, exploring new worlds. It also has the huge stakes, where one person makes a difference in the galaxy (how the Jedi decides to use the Starforge changes the course of the galaxy and the war between the Sith/Jedi).

Math_Mage

2014-01-15, 05:01 PM

Of course, space opera can feel very different depending on how it's done. The Mass Effect games up to this point have shown that; 1 feels different from 2 feels different from 3. And of course there's more Firefly-esque space opera which has both small scale and gallivanting around space. There's room for Han Solo: The Story somewhere in the Mass Effect universe, prequel or sequel or what have you.

Rodin

2014-01-15, 05:04 PM

Halo.
Star Ocean.
Starcraft.
KOTOR.
Dead Space.

That's five off the top of my head that I've played. A game self contained in a single location does not disqualify it as a space opera, especially if it's part of a larger series that is already a space opera.

See, I wouldn't have qualified Starcraft or Dead Space as being space operas. However, this caused me to go look up the definition of space opera, and it turns out that there is some dispute over what it actually is. The broad definition appears to be:

"It happens in space."

Which...ain't terribly helpful. So, I'm going to leave that (and try to stop using the phrase "space opera" in general).

I like the alien politics, the clash of cultures, and landing on an alien planet and seeing the beauty of it and the mysteries there-in. The grand scale of it is very important, and knowing that such is happening off-screen isn't what's going to get me into it. Babylon 5 is probably the best example of the sort of story I'm interested in - there is a threat to the galaxy, but it grows slowly and most of the story is taken up by the conflicts between the various races with sub-plots of discovering new species and phenomena throughout.

Mass Effect has that, and I think moving away from it would be a grave error. Starcraft has the setting, but with the focus only on three races (one of which is pretty much a Reaper-level plot device) it feels much more like a military sci-fi story than anything else. I admit though that I haven't played Star Ocean or Halo (never had an X-Box of any kind), although I always got the impression of Halo that it was very much military sci-fi.

At any rate, I feel that the scale is important. There is plenty of room for smaller stories in the sidequests.

Psyren

2014-01-15, 05:15 PM

Fair. Though that's not a general desire, it's specifically a desire for Mass Effect, or perhaps Bioware games in general. It's simply because that's what I think Bioware does best. Their big, "epic" plots all boil down to the same generic story over and over - create monstrous threat that the blank-slate main character will have to deal with even if the player plays him as a selfish a-hole, spend whole game finding a way to do so, defeat it in the end. It's everything that happens in between, especially in the character-focused subplots, where I see the real quality of their work shining through. So my desire and hope is to see them play to that strength.

I actually agree with you on their strength; where we disagree though is that I think those subplots are made all the more poignant with the Big Thing going on as a backdrop to all of them. Subplots are made more meaningful when there is a major threat because (a) you add reasonable justification for the renegade choices that isn't solely "the protagonist is kind of a douche", and (b) a victory doesn't reduce the overall tension of the work because the greater threat is still out there, and likely growing in strength.

Take Mass Effect 1. All the plot missions prior to Ilos - scratch that, prior to the finale - end with "we're stronger now, but Saren is still one step ahead and even closer to his goal." Which works great because, under normal circumstances, the protagonist growing in power actually reduces tension - especially when he is dismantling the antagonist's strengths as he goes. "Oh, your krogan army? That's gone. Your super-biotic Dragon to the Dragon and her assassin squads? Also dead, and I recruited her daughter. My equipment and training? Top of the line." Despite the balance of power shifting in the protagonist's favor, the tension ramps up because Saren isn't amassing power; he's racing you to the Big Thing that nobody can beat.

So in short, I agree with you on the sorts of story Bioware handles better, but I think part of the reason they're so good is because of the high-stakes backdrop.

Joran

2014-01-15, 05:47 PM

"It happens in space."

Which...ain't terribly helpful. So, I'm going to leave that (and try to stop using the phrase "space opera" in general).

The TVTropes definition meshes with what I understood space opera to be with Star Wars being the archetype space opera.

A space opera is a work set in a far future space faring civilization, where the technology is ubiquitous and entirely secondary to the story. It has an epic character to it: The universe is big, there are lots of sprawling civilizations and empires, there are political conflicts and intrigues galore. Frequently it takes place in the Standard Sci Fi Setting. In perspective, it is a development of the Planetary Romance that looks beyond the exotic locations that were imagined for the local solar system in early science fiction (which the hard light of science revealed to be barren and lifeless) out into an infinite universe of imagined exotic locations.

Space opera has a lot of romantic elements: big love stories, epic space battles, oversized heroes and villains, awe-inspiring places, and insanely gorgeous women.

So in short, I agree with you on the sorts of story Bioware handles better, but I think part of the reason they're so good is because of the high-stakes backdrop.

The BIG THREAT is an excellent framing device, because it focuses the character and there's never really a moment where I as a player can question "Why am I here? Why am I doing this?" My major issue with Dragon Age 2 is that it didn't adequately answer why my character was still in freaking Kirkwall in Act 3 or why my character cared about the mage/templar war.

I didn't have this issue with Dragon Age 1, even though I liked the side quests/characters in Dragon Age 2 better than 1.

KillianHawkeye

2014-01-15, 05:53 PM

Zevox

2014-01-15, 05:59 PM

I actually agree with you on their strength; where we disagree though is that I think those subplots are made all the more poignant with the Big Thing going on as a backdrop to all of them. Subplots are made more meaningful when there is a major threat because (a) you add reasonable justification for the renegade choices that isn't solely "the protagonist is kind of a douche", and (b) a victory doesn't reduce the overall tension of the work because the greater threat is still out there, and likely growing in strength.
Well, that is certainly a point of disagreement between us, then. I don't think that makes the subplots better at all. The second point you cite there would be completely invalidated if a plot similar to one of those sub-plots was actually the main plot, and thus lasted the whole game anyway. And of course I think you're aware that the first doesn't matter to me in the first place due to my opinions on the whole matter of "player choices" when it comes to stories. So, yeah, we're just going to disagree on that part.

Maryring

2014-01-15, 06:21 PM

Psyren

2014-01-15, 06:39 PM

The BIG THREAT is an excellent framing device, because it focuses the character and there's never really a moment where I as a player can question "Why am I here? Why am I doing this?" My major issue with Dragon Age 2 is that it didn't adequately answer why my character was still in freaking Kirkwall in Act 3 or why my character cared about the mage/templar war.

I didn't have this issue with Dragon Age 1, even though I liked the side quests/characters in Dragon Age 2 better than 1.

Precisely. In DA2 your only real motivation to stay was your mother; it's indeed very unclear why Hawke stuck around in Act 3 the way s/he did regardless of feelings toward the city or the conflict itself. This goes double for Mage Hawke, who was basically allowed to roam around the city simply because Val Royeaux hadn't sent stormtroopers to round him/her up in the night yet.

Well, that is certainly a point of disagreement between us, then. I don't think that makes the subplots better at all. The second point you cite there would be completely invalidated if a plot similar to one of those sub-plots was actually the main plot, and thus lasted the whole game anyway. And of course I think you're aware that the first doesn't matter to me in the first place due to my opinions on the whole matter of "player choices" when it comes to stories. So, yeah, we're just going to disagree on that part.

You seem to think that "subplot + stuff + length = AAA plot" which strikes me as overly simplistic at best.

What synthesis does is that by destroying evolution it will prevent new species from developing. There will be no new species that naturally develop intellect. For better or worse, any new sapient races will be constructed in some manner by those races who already exist.

This might be true for our galaxy, but there are others.

Tiki Snakes

2014-01-15, 07:02 PM

What synthesis does is that by destroying evolution it will prevent new species from developing. There will be no new species that naturally develop intellect. For better or worse, any new sapient races will be constructed in some manner by those races who already exist.

Supposition, unsupported. Synthesis gives everything hints of glowy green lines and unspecified augmentations at a cellular level. That's it. At least, I don't recall it getting any more specific than that in the extended ending, but then it's been a while.

Unless I'm missing some pretty major statements of fact, all that Synthesis changes at the practical level is that the same stuff happens but with green glowy lines and I don't know, a reduced chance of cancer or something? Predators still got to eat, prey still got to survive. All evolutionary pressures remain in place, just some small details get shuffled around to get the Reapers off our backs and increase the chance of freaky techno-magic powers maybe.

Zevox

2014-01-15, 07:12 PM

You seem to think that "subplot + stuff + length = AAA plot" which strikes me as overly simplistic at best.
And I can't say that your notion that a AAA game's plot absolutely requires very high stakes to be any good makes any sense to me. So, as I said, we disagree on this point, and it looks like that's about it.

Joran

2014-01-15, 08:46 PM

Insanely gorgeous women? :smallconfused:

Never really happened in Star Wars. Carrie Fisher and Natalie Portman are definitely beautiful, but they're neither particularly exotic nor exactly super models, just good examples of "normal person" beauty.

Slave Leia... It's at least iconic, judging by how many people cosplay it.

It's also not supposed to be an absolute checklist, but rather space operas usually contain one or more of those items.

Psyren

2014-01-15, 09:46 PM

Supposition, unsupported. Synthesis gives everything hints of glowy green lines and unspecified augmentations at a cellular level. That's it. At least, I don't recall it getting any more specific than that in the extended ending, but then it's been a while.

Unless I'm missing some pretty major statements of fact, all that Synthesis changes at the practical level is that the same stuff happens but with green glowy lines and I don't know, a reduced chance of cancer or something? Predators still got to eat, prey still got to survive. All evolutionary pressures remain in place, just some small details get shuffled around to get the Reapers off our backs and increase the chance of freaky techno-magic powers maybe.

I can only assume you didn't listen to a word EDI said if you think "green lines" are all that ending did.

And I can't say that your notion that a AAA game's plot absolutely requires very high stakes to be any good makes any sense to me. So, as I said, we disagree on this point, and it looks like that's about it.

If it's a space opera, certainly, and if it's a space opera RPG, x11.

Tiki Snakes

2014-01-15, 11:03 PM

I can only assume you didn't listen to a word EDI said if you think "green lines" are all that ending did.

Eh, it's been like a year or something. Time has passed, memories have faded.

Math_Mage

2014-01-16, 03:08 AM

Thing about Synthesis is that for humans, it does honestly very little to change the course of evolution as such. The change is on a far lesser scale than what humanity has already done with our inventions and science. The same can be said for many animals who have had their evolutionary course dictated by the whims of humanity. Wolves, cows and chickens are just small examples of that.

What synthesis does is that by destroying evolution it will prevent new species from developing. There will be no new species that naturally develop intellect. For better or worse, any new sapient races will be constructed in some manner by those races who already exist.
It's not clear that Synthesis destroys evolution. To think of evolution as a 'thing' to be preserved or destroyed is a category error. Evolution is a model of the myriad processes by which life changes and develops. There is no reason to believe that life will be entirely static in Synthesis; hence there is evolution. Even given the transcendence of mortality EDI speculates about, life will continue to change and adapt, on a Lamarckian paradigm if nothing else.

By the same token, who says there will be no new species that 'naturally' develop intellect? (I use quotation marks because the term needs defining; if it means 'without outside interference' as I think it should, the statement is wrong.) Synthesized life will still mutate as described above. Indeed, it may still mutate via the same mechanisms by which it currently does.

So no, I don't see any reason to believe Synthesis destroys anything--life, nature, evolution, or whatever else.

Rodin

2014-01-16, 04:57 AM

I can only assume you didn't listen to a word EDI said if you think "green lines" are all that ending did.

If it's a space opera, certainly, and if it's a space opera RPG, x11.

There can, however, be different levels of scale. I wouldn't be particularly happy about just bumming around Omega, but the parts of the ME trilogy I enjoyed the most had little to do with the Reapers. The Krogan Genophage was a fascinating storyline that didn't really require the Reapers looming over everything. Some of the best parts of that came from the second game, looking at the aftermath through Mordin's eyes. The Geth/Quarian War similarly didn't need any Reaper involvement at all, other than as a technobabble way for the Geth to gain true individuality. Subtract the Reapers and add in a rogue Quarian scientist, and boom.

The stakes are still massive - the survival of entire races depend on your choices. But the galaxy would continue about it's business regardless.

I found the Reapers to be the weakest part of the series, and the fact that they were so unstoppable is what neccessitated the ending. I enjoyed the games despite them, for the most part. The best outright villains were the Collectors, and a couple quick snips of the lore makes them their own beasties. Collectors are an unknown species that live near the Galactic Core, they've become interested in humanity because humans are special (or the canon reason, that they've seen Shepard at work, but reattribute that reason from Reapers to Collectors), and instead of Harbinger have the guy doing all the posessing be the Collector General. Human Reaper is the hardest to work in, but that thing was always pretty silly anyway.

Seatbelt

2014-01-16, 07:19 AM

Natalie Portman is pretty freaking gorgeous. Just sayin'

Talderas

2014-01-16, 07:48 AM

I'd argue that Dead Space is not space opera. It's a survival horror game taking place in space. Does the entire game take place on one ship?

Space opera is a storytelling genre and not a gameplay genre.

--

See, I wouldn't have qualified Starcraft or Dead Space as being space operas. However, this caused me to go look up the definition of space opera, and it turns out that there is some dispute over what it actually is. The broad definition appears to be:

Of course not, because most people hear 'space opera' and immediately think "Is this like Star Wars?" rather than assessing whether it meets the criteria for a space opera. This is where and why wikipedia's "space opera" page is terrible on its face. However if you go and deconstruct it based on the information available there's three basic questions you can ask to find out whether something would qualify as a space opera.

Can it qualify as a melodrama?
Does the world in which its set contain advanced technology?
Is space travel used that causes the story or a part of the story?

The answers to these questions are categorically yes to both Starcraft and Dead Space. Both games people the protagonists in danger, contain action, and appeal to emotions. They both also tend to see a good vs evil conflict arise. All of those are traits of the melodrama. Both are set in worlds where technology is advanced beyond our own. Space travel is also serves as a primary motivator for Dead Space and enables most of the story in Starcraft.

Now, when I say space travel causes or is part of the story here's two basic examples to illustrate.
1. A group of people is on an exotic planet. They may have arrived there via space travel prior to the story but they have no interest in leaving the planet and the entirety of the story is contained on the planet. Not a space opera.
2. A group of people is on an exotic planet. They may have arrived there via space travel prior to the story and they have a desire to leave the planet due to a horrible monstrousity. The entirety of the story is set on the planet except for the final chapter where they finally leave. Space opera.

In the first example space travel isn't relevant. It wasn't necessary to include how they got there nor is it relevant at all to the desires of the characters. In the second example space travel is a goal of all the characters in order to effect an escape. The efforts of the characters are going to be oriented towards enabling this.

Now Dead Space does have a number of horror elements which means you could classify it as a horror but I don't think horror and space opera are mutually exclusive. In fact horror is very melodramatic but it just tends to focus exclusively on illiciting the fear emotion out of the audience rather than emotion in general.

Personally, I hate the term space opera because the stories it covers don't usually have many operatic qualities but that's a personal dislike.

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-16, 08:30 AM

Putting aside that you're still committing the same fallacies - no, this is provably wrong. "Natural evolution" means no medicine, no genetic engineering, no selective breeding even. Natural evolution would have killed Joker, because he would have never lived past being an infant. It certainly would have killed Shepard, because no Lazarus.

"Altering nature is bad because nature is good!"is not only circular, it is false and dangerous besides.

If you fail to see the difference... I see no point in discussing this further.

KillianHawkeye

2014-01-16, 08:34 AM

One person failing to see the difference, another person failing to see the similarities. I could go either way on this, really.

Psyren

2014-01-16, 09:12 AM

The Krogan Genophage was a fascinating storyline that didn't really require the Reapers looming over everything.

Actually that required the Reapers more than anything. It justified the extremely morally reprehensible stance of lying to them with a false cure so they would fight - both by providing a threat so large you'd be willing to commit that level of treachery/take that risk, and keeping them so busy with battle (in the case of Wreav) that it'd take them even longer to notice said treachery.

After all, if there are no Reapers and Shepard genuinely feels the Krogan are not ready for a cure - say, Wreav is in charge - what reason is there to go through with the quest at all? You could call the whole thing off and nothing of value would be lost. Neither the Krogan, the galaxy nor Shepard would be any worse off than they currently are.

Throw in the Reapers and the stakes rise. "We don't want the Krogan to be cured, but we need them." Now even a Shepard who has misgivings still has to go through with it, and enter the Dalatrass with her tempting offer of sabotage.

The Geth/Quarian War similarly didn't need any Reaper involvement at all, other than as a technobabble way for the Geth to gain true individuality. Subtract the Reapers and add in a rogue Quarian scientist, and boom.

The Reapers are needed as a reason for the stalemate to begin with. If the Geth were just natively strong enough to hold off the Quarians, then there is no reason for Legion to side with you against his people. And if there is a Quarian powering them up instead of a Reaper, why aren't other Quarians throwing down their weapons and joining that one? Koris certainly would. What benefit is there for that one guy to be holding onto Rannoch and not letting any other Quarians land there? Is he insane? And why would Shepard need to be involved at all? Without the Reaper control in that plotline then none of it makes any sense.

If you fail to see the difference... I see no point in discussing this further.

I fail to see just about anything that requires a Luddite viewpoint, yeah.

SiuiS

2014-01-16, 11:17 AM

AAA title.

What does that even mean? You're running on connotation and inference, here. All Triple A title means is they spent a lot of money on press and production. It has almost no other meaning.

Talderas

2014-01-16, 11:38 AM

What does that even mean? You're running on connotation and inference, here. All Triple A title means is they spent a lot of money on press and production. It has almost no other meaning.

Like.... Dead Space 3. Only 650,000 sales in its first month yet it was marketed just has heaviliy as the latest Call of Duty, Battlefield, or Assassin's Creed.

Mass Effect 3 did 1.5 million sales in its release month. Any large effort Mass Effect game would aim for about 1.25-1.5 million in the same time frame. I'd estimate conservatively that a game featuring Garrus as the playable character would sell no fewer than 500,000-600,000 based on his general lovability and popularity. Creating a good story and good game around him would push it up of course.

Tiki Snakes

2014-01-16, 12:00 PM

What does that even mean? You're running on connotation and inference, here. All Triple A title means is they spent a lot of money on press and production. It has almost no other meaning.

It is my understanding that "Game with huge production budget" is the specific meaning of Triple-A title.

Generally speaking. So, yeah, basically.

Psyren

2014-01-16, 12:03 PM

What does that even mean? You're running on connotation and inference, here. All Triple A title means is they spent a lot of money on press and production. It has almost no other meaning.

An excellent question; I guess a very brief answer would be a game with large budget, production values, and most importantly, a scope to match.

I think Extra Credits probably has done the best job of really defining that divide, particularly in their Innovation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_skCXC9oVA) video. AAA games are defined not just by big budgets, but also by being typically risk-averse, and having a scope large enough to justify the higher price tag and production values. This is why I think a small-scale story about, say, Garrus in Omega would work better as an Indie or Arcade title - you simply don't need all the bells and whistles of a AAA game to tell a story like that.

Please note that I can see the other side too. Spectacle Creep (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSd70TSaajk) is a great treatise on why upping the stakes can be a problem. Unfortunately, they also point out that it's a nearly unavoidable problem, particularly once your budget gets past X. The quote near the beginning of the video is particularly on the nose here.

Finally, here's a nice article (http://www.gamesradar.com/why-its-time-stop-hating-aaa-games/) on the subject of AAA too.

sana

2014-01-16, 12:19 PM

Sales, plot, style and so on don't matter at all for calling something Triple A. the Triple A is nearly always used way before a game actually goes into pre-order.
Seen it on those information papers for the investors way before it's even clear what game it's going to be. Usually it says something like: Plans for 2017 one AAA+ release and two AA releases.

Psyren

2014-01-16, 12:39 PM

How investor-aimed documents use the term doesn't really matter to me. I'm using it in the sense that EC does, as a contrast to Indie development. There's no bright line for when your budget crosses that threshold of course.

Joran

2014-01-16, 03:47 PM

An excellent question; I guess a very brief answer would be a game with large budget, production values, and most importantly, a scope to match.

I think Extra Credits probably has done the best job of really defining that divide, particularly in their Innovation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_skCXC9oVA) video. AAA games are defined not just by big budgets, but also by being typically risk-averse, and having a scope large enough to justify the higher price tag and production values.

Quite so. AAA is the video game version of a blockbuster movie. While it normally just denotes a large budget and anticipated sales, it does have a connotation towards scope. By putting the word "blockbuster", I immediately think explosions and Michael Bay. AAA makes me think Call of Duty.

Damon Lindelof calls it "story gravity". Basically, the bigger the movie, the more has to be at stake. “Once you spend more than $100 million on a movie, you have to save the world.”
http://www.vulture.com/2013/08/script-doctor-damon-lindelof-on-blockbuster-screenwriting.html

That said, Grand Theft Auto 5 had a gigantic budget, massive sales, and didn't have a "Save the World" kind of plot. I think the fact that Mass Effect 1-3 were space operas on a galactic scale means that any subsequent Mass Effect games to be considered true sequels have to have similar scales, not that it's a AAA game.

I remember someone thinking that people were very disappointed about Dragon Age 2 was because it had the "2" after it, thus forcing people to compare it to Dragon Age: Origins. If it was named "Dragon Age: Kirkwall", people's expectations might have been lower.

Personally, I hate the term space opera because the stories it covers don't usually have many operatic qualities but that's a personal dislike.

According to the Wikipedia article, it's basically had a mutation of its meaning. It used to be a parallel term with "soap opera" and "horse opera", common to the programming from that era. Star Wars completely flipped that.

Whenever someone mentions "space opera", I can't help thinking gallivanting across space since both Star Wars and Star Trek are the most famous examples of the genre. By focusing the meaning here, with common features and archetypes, instead of "is it a melodrama in space?", I think is more useful, but we're just quibbling about semantics.

Rodin

2014-01-16, 04:13 PM

According to the Wikipedia article, it's basically had a mutation of its meaning. It used to be a parallel term with "soap opera" and "horse opera", common to the programming from that era. Star Wars completely flipped that.

Whenever someone mentions "space opera", I can't help thinking gallivanting across space since both Star Wars and Star Trek are the most famous examples of the genre. By focusing the meaning here, with common features and archetypes, instead of "is it a melodrama in space?", I think is more useful, but we're just quibbling about semantics.

That's basically why I decided to stop using the word. The definition changes every 10 years from "soap operas IN SPAAAAACE" to "old-school Sci-Fi" to "melodrama in space" to "adventures in space" to "Star Wars" to the "grand scale optimistic" that I knew as the definition. Once you reach that level of differing definitions, it becomes quite difficult to have an understandable conversation about the topic.

-----

I've read that "story gravity" article before, and I still disagree with it on a story-telling front. I think that you can still tell powerful stories even in big-budget movies without a scenery-chewing villain who wants to enslave all the puppies in the world.

I do believe, however, that it is impossible to get it through Hollywood, and like-wise in the gaming industry. Douglas Adams said it best:

"The Hollywood process is like trying to grill a steak by having a succession of people coming into the room and breathing on it."

So...would it be nice to have a new Mass Effect game where you're traveling around fighting a villain with smaller aims than taking over the galaxy or wiping out all life? Sure. Are we going to get it? Ahahahah No.

Math_Mage

2014-01-16, 05:13 PM

I missed this before--

Natural evolution is the purpose of life
No, it isn't. 'Natural evolution' is not in any way prescriptive. There is no imperative or value or purpose attached to random mutation, natural selection, and so on. That's just how it happens to work. And changing how nature works is not 'murdering nature', it's changing how nature works.

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-16, 05:19 PM

And changing how nature works is not 'murdering nature', it's changing how nature works.

And that's where we differ. Maybe it's different cultural backgrounds, but your attitude is just completely alien to me. As in as we were completely different species. I can't even imagine how anyone could come to that way of thinking.

Math_Mage

2014-01-16, 06:24 PM

And that's where we differ. Maybe it's different cultural backgrounds, but your attitude is just completely alien to me. As in as we were completely different species. I can't even imagine how anyone could come to that way of thinking.
Then let's try it the other way around. From your way of thinking, what does it mean to murder nature? What is the thing being murdered? What is harmed?

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-16, 07:04 PM

Then from your way of thinking, what does it mean to murder nature? What is the thing being murdered? What is harmed?

There is an order to things, and that order is chaos. We are a product of nature, not above it. We depend on nature, and on the grand scale of things we are irrelevant. We are a lucky fluke on a speck of dust in the outskirts of a small galaxy circling a smaller than average star.

Yet we are too big a fish for the pond we live in. We are already destroying the very thing that keeps us alive, AND the very thing that created us in the first place, because we are just the right (wrong) amount of smart: Smart enough to know we can free ourselves from the constraints of other species, but dumb enough not to think further ahead than a few years, if that. We are collapsing the echo systems, on purpose, for short-time profit. We are fishing the seas dry, destroying forests which has kept the climate in check for millions of years, and condemning species to extinction on a daily basis because of laziness and greed.
We breed like rats and live like elephants, which is a horrible combination.

Anyway, Synthesis is fixing things like a monkey with a hammer trying to open an old-timey pocket watch. Smashing the clock to pieces with the hammer makes the monkey feel good, because in it's eyes it has fulfilled it's mission: To open the pocket watch. The fact that the clock can never be repaired, it's innards and dial lying in pieces all over the table is irrelevant to the monkey.
It also happened to be someone else's pocket watch, which the monkey tried to open without permission...

What is harmed is the universe itself. The very foundation of life. All life. Everywhere. We are not talking about curing HIV, or Smallpox. The fact that you don't see that scares me. To say that you "just replace it with something else" is true, of course, in the same way like replacing humans with zombies or cybermen, after all both choices used to be humans, so they are basically the same thing, right?

Psyren

2014-01-16, 07:29 PM

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-16, 07:43 PM

This is Luddite thinking to a tee. Yes, actually, we are above it, because we are self-aware and capable of manipulating our environment. However we got this ability (and let's not go into religion) we can now use it for the betterment of everyone.

First of all, most higher mammals, and certain birds are self aware. And can manipulate the environment. Not to the same degree, but this argument does not hold water anymore. It was decades since science admitted that we are not the only ones.

However even without this part of the argument let's go to your last sentence:

"For everybody". On a species, genus order and kingdom level? Without asking them. That's despicable all on it's own.

Blackdrop

2014-01-16, 08:02 PM

"For everybody". On a species, genus order and kingdom level? Without asking them. That's despicable all on it's own.

Yes, because destroying the galaxies infrastructure/genocide of synthetic races or declaring yourself capital "g" God or being stubborn and dooming any race that can tell its ass from a hole in the ground to death, are MUCH better options.

Psyren

2014-01-16, 08:05 PM

"For everybody". On a species, genus order and kingdom level? Without asking them. That's despicable all on it's own.

More Luddite silliness. No one asked me before they cured polio or smallpox either.

Tiki Snakes

2014-01-16, 08:33 PM

There is an order to things, and that order is chaos.

At what point do the actions of living creatures, and the repercussions of those actions cease being a part of nature, would you say?

Math_Mage

2014-01-16, 08:49 PM

There is an order to things, and that order is chaos. We are a product of nature, not above it. We depend on nature, and on the grand scale of things we are irrelevant. We are a lucky fluke on a speck of dust in the outskirts of a small galaxy circling a smaller than average star.
Let's start here. Mass Effect clearly does not take place in an environment where humans are scurrying about on the pale blue in an insignificant galaxy. In Mass Effect, the galaxy is the largest scale we can perceive and the largest scale we can affect, and humans (and other known sentient races) occupy a pretty good-sized chunk of it. A common theme in video games, and one of the central themes of Mass Effect, is putting the player in a position where his choices matter. And since your next paragraph is all about how the choices humans are making in real life matter, you clearly aren't basing your argument on this cosmic perspective either. After all, in the cosmic perspective, the life scurrying around this tiny galaxy doesn't matter either.

Yet we are too big a fish for the pond we live in. We are already destroying the very thing that keeps us alive, AND the very thing that created us in the first place, because we are just the right (wrong) amount of smart: Smart enough to know we can free ourselves from the constraints of other species, but dumb enough not to think further ahead than a few years, if that. We are collapsing the echo systems, on purpose, for short-time profit. We are fishing the seas dry, destroying forests which has kept the climate in check for millions of years, and condemning species to extinction on a daily basis because of laziness and greed.
We breed like rats and live like elephants, which is a horrible combination.
I'll skip the debate over the validity of the perspective as applied in real life. However, this is once again a perspective that does not apply to the Mass Effect universe; technology is generally shown as a force for environmental good, and the places that suffer are those that lack it.

Anyway, Synthesis is fixing things like a monkey with a hammer trying to open an old-timey pocket watch. Smashing the clock to pieces with the hammer makes the monkey feel good, because in it's eyes it has fulfilled it's mission: To open the pocket watch. The fact that the clock can never be repaired, it's innards and dial lying in pieces all over the table is irrelevant to the monkey.
It also happened to be someone else's pocket watch, which the monkey tried to open without permission...
This analogy depends on unsupported assumptions. Just because we the player do not understand how Synthesis works does not mean we can assume Synthesis was developed in similar ignorance, or that Synthesis has actually 'broken' anything. You are projecting your pessimistic outlook onto evidence that really doesn't justify it.

What is harmed is the universe itself.
No, Synthesis doesn't affect "the universe itself."

The very foundation of life. All life. Everywhere.
No, Synthesis does not spread beyond this galaxy. Synthesis does not prevent new life from coming into existence. And you have yet to demonstrate any actual harm to any life (or the foundation thereof) anywhere.

We are not talking about curing HIV, or Smallpox. The fact that you don't see that scares me.
You should probably stop treating this subject so melodramatically, then. We are talking about fictional space magic in a video game.

To say that you "just replace it with something else" is true, of course, in the same way like replacing humans with zombies or cybermen, after all both choices used to be humans, so they are basically the same thing, right?
I didn't say anything was being replaced. However, if you think every life-form in the galaxy is a 'replacement' of the life-form that existed before Synthesis, I'll discuss it on your terms since this is an investigation of your viewpoint.

Zombies have lost their sentience. Cybermen have lost their humanity (which, by the way, I think is a horribly lazy way to depict cyborgs; the 'uniquely awesome human perspective incomprehensible to cyborgs' fiction reeks of 'back in my day' nostalgia taken up a few orders of magnitude). Synthesis explicitly does neither; no life-form loses anything in the replacement. So the analogy does not hold.

McDouggal

2014-01-16, 08:56 PM

Avilian and I both have visceral reactions to the Synthesis ending; mine is more because I am making a choice for the entire galaxy, and I am not representative of that galaxy, to say nothing of Shepard's mental state at the time (he just passed out from blood loss, he watched his mentor die in front of him/at his side, and you're introducing that stress? No). I firmly believe in the right to self determination, and this... The best comparison I have would be going in for an appendectomy and coming out with a third arm. You had a procedure done on you without your consent, that was not necessary to solve the problem. Whether or not you would've agreed to the procedure if you had known about it is immaterial; it was done without your consent. That is why I cannot support the Synthesis ending.

It's also why I can't support the control ending; you are setting yourself up as that universe's god figure. You have the final say in anything major, and no one can stop you.

Tiki Snakes

2014-01-16, 09:14 PM

Blackdrop

2014-01-16, 09:49 PM

I can see where you are coming from, but assuming a galaxy in which you haven't already genocided the Geth, how is it any less a concern in Destroy?

Would you say that expanding your analogy for Destroy to be, going in for an appendectomy and coming out fine. Only they also shoot your dog?

So, in this analogy the reapers are the appendix, right? So, in a sense, the synthetic life would be part of your stomach and reaper tech would be, like, parts of your intestines?

Ooh ooh, and it even makes sense depending on a high/low EMS ending! In the low EMS ending, yes they removed the dangerous appendix terror, but in doing so did so much damage to you that you'll likely never recover and die! And the high EMS ending, they did what they set out to do and the damage they did was severe but not life-threatening damage to your digestive track. Sure, it'll take awhile for you to recover and you'll probably be pooping into a bag for the rest of your life, but, hey, you're not dead, at least.

KillianHawkeye

2014-01-16, 11:19 PM

This thread has suddenly taken a weird turn.

Rodin

2014-01-16, 11:41 PM

This thread has suddenly taken a weird turn.

Better than endless ending flame wars, I guess.

What part of the anatomy are the Volus? They can generate great biotic winds, after all...

McDouggal

2014-01-16, 11:42 PM

This thread has suddenly taken a weird turn.

I have a gift for either starting debates or making existing debates become extremely weird.

Blackdrop

2014-01-17, 12:25 AM

Better than endless ending flame wars, I guess.

What part of the anatomy are the Volus? They can generate great biotic winds, after all...

I dunno. Probably something that seems relatively inconsequential, but in actuality very important. So, spleen? Maybe?

Joran

2014-01-17, 12:32 AM

More Luddite silliness. No one asked me before they cured polio or smallpox either.

Actually, they asked your parents. I'm a father of two and every single vaccination that my kids have received have required informed consent with my signature on it.

Psyren

2014-01-17, 01:13 AM

Actually, they asked your parents. I'm a father of two and every single vaccination that my kids have received have required informed consent with my signature on it.

My parents are still not me. What's more, these diseases have been reduced to the point that vaccinating against them is not nearly as necessary as it was, say, 30 or 40 years ago. So even if you don't consent to a vaccine, you're still benefiting from that vaccine existing.

Joran

2014-01-17, 02:45 AM

My parents are still not me. What's more, these diseases have been reduced to the point that vaccinating against them is not nearly as necessary as it was, say, 30 or 40 years ago. So even if you don't consent to a vaccine, you're still benefiting from that vaccine existing.

Right, but lack of a procedure doesn't require permission; your body isn't changed by not taking a vaccine. Synthesis does change everybody's bodies, without their consent.

The smallpox analogy only works with Control and then sending the Reapers into a blackhole. Nobody's body is changed and the threat is gone.

P.S. Not sure where this line of analogy came from though or how it applies to Mass Effect/Synthesis.

Math_Mage

2014-01-17, 02:59 AM

Right, but lack of a procedure doesn't require permission; your body isn't changed by not taking a vaccine. Synthesis does change everybody's bodies, without their consent.

The smallpox analogy only works with Control and then sending the Reapers into a blackhole. Nobody's body is changed and the threat is gone.

P.S. Not sure where this line of analogy came from though or how it applies to Mass Effect/Synthesis.
*shrug* Apparently the claim being argued was whether it would be acceptable to provide a benefit to someone without asking their consent first. Which is probably not the claim that Avilan meant to argue, but he ended up there through some overly general responses to more utopian posters.

Psyren

2014-01-17, 03:12 AM

Right, but lack of a procedure doesn't require permission; your body isn't changed by not taking a vaccine. Synthesis does change everybody's bodies, without their consent.

Lack of procedure might not alter bodies directly, but it certainly alters nature without asking anybody. After all, diseases are natural.

Consent is of course preferable, but it's not always a luxury we have time for. To paraphrase Legion, organics impose consensus, always.

I'm not denying that Synthesis acts on people without their consent. I just happen to think the benefits are worth it. "It changed my physiology and that's icky!" feels more emotional than rational.

Math_Mage

2014-01-17, 03:20 AM

Lack of procedure might not alter bodies directly, but it certainly alters nature without asking anybody. After all, diseases are natural.

Consent is of course preferable, but it's not always a luxury we have time for. To paraphrase Legion, organics impose consensus, always.

I'm not denying that Synthesis acts on people without their consent. I just happen to think the benefits are worth it. "It changed my physiology and that's icky!" feels more emotional than rational.
To be fair, while there appear to be no tangible harms imposed, from watching the EC ending the benefits were hardly less vague, at least as regards direct consequences of the physical alteration. It's very "And then space magic happened and the Reapers joined hands with us to sing Kumbayah and happy ending." Also, while that happens to be the canonical outcome, it's not really clear at the time of Shepard's choice that that would be the outcome. Just because synthetics would now understand organics as well as organics do doesn't mean the end of all conflict; after all, look at what organics have done to each other throughout history (and throughout the Mass Effect timeline, for that matter).

Psyren

2014-01-17, 03:38 AM

Math_Mage

2014-01-17, 03:57 AM

It's not trying to end ALL conflict. Just one very specific conflict, i.e. one side (synthetics) continually reaching singularity without the other (organics.)

Other kinds of conflict can potentially arise post-Synthesis. The difference now though is that the two are unlikely to split down that very clear line of demarcation - and even if they do, the tech difference won't be equivalent to cavemen vs. fighter jets.
Maybe, but the way it was portrayed in the ending credits certainly gave the impression that Synthesis had ended all conflicts. That impression can influence how we judge the choice, perhaps more than it should. Heck, what if the Reapers had switched from synthetic-on-organic war to organic-on-organic war with Synthesis? Or did I forget some very obvious reason why that couldn't happen? I probably did, my memory is terrible.

Psyren

2014-01-17, 04:03 AM

You misunderstood me - I agree that the ending portrayed the epilogue as though it had ended all conflict (at least for now.) But what I'm saying was that wasn't actually the goal of Synthesis. Again, the Catalyst had only one concern - stopping the "Chaos" that arises when synthetics advance too far ahead. While any of the choices could potentially stop other conflicts besides that one, he/it was fixated on just the one outcome.

SiuiS

2014-01-17, 05:04 AM

Not entirely. The Reapers were built up as a huge threat right from the start of ME1, with Shepard's visions from that Prothean artifact showing them slaughtering the Protheans wholesale, and the big reason to be scared of Saren was the recording that indicated he wanted to bring them back.

Unfortunately and wholly unrelated to the conversation you were having, the ensuing saga continued to build up Shepard to similar levels and actually tone down the reapers as we learn more about them.

Insanely gorgeous women? :smallconfused:

Never really happened in Star Wars. Carrie Fisher and Natalie Portman are definitely beautiful, but they're neither particularly exotic nor exactly super models, just good examples of "normal person" beauty.

Super models aren't insanely gorgeous. They're chosen specifically to have a type of allure that cannot interfere with your appreciation of the clothes. They are mobile manequins who are chosen not for their personal beauty but for how they complement their product.

Supposition, unsupported. Synthesis gives everything hints of glowy green lines and unspecified augmentations at a cellular level. That's it. At least, I don't recall it getting any more specific than that in the extended ending, but then it's been a while.

Unless I'm missing some pretty major statements of fact, all that Synthesis changes at the practical level is that the same stuff happens but with green glowy lines and I don't know, a reduced chance of cancer or something? Predators still got to eat, prey still got to survive. All evolutionary pressures remain in place, just some small details get shuffled around to get the Reapers off our backs and increase the chance of freaky techno-magic powers maybe.

Aye. There is no indication that sexual reproduction and cellular metabolism end. They are just supported by cybernetic enhancements. And if sexual reproduction continues, evolution continues, guided by the same forces that were already guiding it through genetic enhancement and guidance prior to the decision.

An excellent question; I guess a very brief answer would be a game with large budget, production values, and most importantly, a scope to match.

There have been a number of triple a games which lacked scope, though.

I missed this before--

No, it isn't. 'Natural evolution' is not in any way prescriptive. There is no imperative or value or purpose attached to random mutation, natural selection, and so on. That's just how it happens to work. And changing how nature works is not 'murdering nature', it's changing how nature works.

Let's not discuss religious viewpoints, s'il vous plaît.

This is Luddite thinking to a tee. Yes, actually, we are above it, because we are self-aware and capable of manipulating our environment. However we got this ability (and let's not go into religion) we can now use it for the betterment of everyone.

The culmination if the "why do women play male characters" thread, right here.

First of all, most higher mammals, and certain birds are self aware. And can manipulate the environment. Not to the same degree, but this argument does not hold water anymore. It was decades since science admitted that we are not the only ones.

However even without this part of the argument let's go to your last sentence:

"For everybody". On a species, genus order and kingdom level? Without asking them. That's despicable all on it's own.

Sapience, sentience, sophonts. Most higher mammals aren't self aware; they don't recognize themselves in mirrors.

Yes, because destroying the galaxies infrastructure/genocide of synthetic races or declaring yourself capital "g" God or being stubborn and dooming any race that can tell its ass from a hole in the ground to death, are MUCH better options.

"The other choice is worse!" Doesn't justify a bad choice. They're all bad choices. That's the quandary.

No, Synthesis doesn't affect "the universe itself."

Doesn't it?

Well, the galaxy.

But consider; the idea does have merit in general. If you view the natural processes as a machine which has an end, and you place value in the achievement of that end, then this could be bad.

This assumes there is some good end to evolution though, which we know to be scientifically untrue. Things will evolve back and forth into both good and bad forms based on stimulus.

KillianHawkeye

2014-01-17, 07:43 AM

Super models aren't insanely gorgeous. They're chosen specifically to have a type of allure that cannot interfere with your appreciation of the clothes. They are mobile manequins who are chosen not for their personal beauty but for how they complement their product.

What you are describing is a standard fashion model. Super models are like celebrity fashion models. They are designed to be memorable and alluring.

Regardless, my use of the phrase "super model" was merely an example of the type of person that might have the phrase "insanely beautiful" applied to them, since being beautiful is basically their entire job. Whereas an actor, while usually quite attractive, is not always on the same level.

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-17, 09:45 AM

Math_Mage

2014-01-17, 01:41 PM

Let's not discuss religious viewpoints, s'il vous plaît.
That isn't a religious viewpoint. It would be another matter if a term like 'theistic evolution' or 'guided evolution' were being used. I'm perfectly willing to concede that we're not absolutely certain 'natural evolution' is what is happening. But given that we are talking about natural evolution, there is no purpose to it.

Doesn't it?

Well, the galaxy.

But consider; the idea does have merit in general. If you view the natural processes as a machine which has an end, and you place value in the achievement of that end, then this could be bad.

This assumes there is some good end to evolution though, which we know to be scientifically untrue. Things will evolve back and forth into both good and bad forms based on stimulus.
Basically.

Landis963

2014-01-17, 02:58 PM

I pick either Destroy or Paragon!Control, because Paragon!Control I can live with. Shep is basically being an in-universe replacement to a benevolent God. And since she outright says she will keep her personality, I am not worried, because how I play my Paragons. She will not threaten or poke her nose tentacle in what doesn't concern her. She will repair the destroyed tech, then retreat to dark space and act as a guardian only on a galactic scale, aka only intervene if something hits the fan on a reaper-level or higher treat rate.

Funny, Tyler Shepard (my "canon" Paragade Vanguard extraordinaire) picked Control (it was essentially Paragon!Control) because the other two options messed with "his" galaxy too much. Given that he was led to believe that Destroy would kill EDI and the geth (and that when Synthesis was explained, all he heard was "memememememeh"), Control is the only one that preserves the galaxy that we know and love.

ryuplaneswalker

2014-01-17, 03:46 PM

Paragon Ryu would totally have gone control..if not for that whole "slavery of sentient beings is bad" thing.

Paragon Ryu also wanted to slap the snot out of the catalyst for presenting a heavily flawed argument as fact.

Player Ryu shut the game off at the choices and decided what happened was that Shepard shot the catalyst in the face, then Garrus showed up with an alive Mordin Solus who invented a pair of sniper rifles that could tap directly into the Catalysts power core, and thus began round 2 of the contest to decide who is the best sniper in the galaxy, after all the reapers are just giant black beer cans.

((which Garrus wins, cause Garrus is that awesome))

Mordokai

2014-01-17, 04:11 PM

@^ that is actually pretty awesome and I totally want to make that my head canon right about now :smallbiggrin:

I also seriously want somebody to commission an art of that.

SiuiS

2014-01-17, 04:23 PM

What you are describing is a standard fashion model. Super models are like celebrity fashion models. They are designed to be memorable and alluring.

Alright, that's fair. I've heard that before, or rather that there was a difference, but I thought it was for different separation criteria.

That isn't a religious viewpoint. It would be another matter if a term like 'theistic evolution' or 'guided evolution' were being used. I'm perfectly willing to concede that we're not absolutely certain 'natural evolution' is what is happening. But given that we are talking about natural evolution, there is no purpose to it.

Unfortunately, saying "your essentially religious view is definitely wrong" is still a religious statement. That's why I brought it up. It is my experience that statements which can only be answered with religious discussion can count, is all. Backing someone into a corner as it were.

Paragon Ryu would totally have gone control..if not for that whole "slavery of sentient beings is bad" thing.

Paragon Ryu also wanted to slap the snot out of the catalyst for presenting a heavily flawed argument as fact.

Player Ryu shut the game off at the choices and decided what happened was that Shepard shot the catalyst in the face, then Garrus showed up with an alive Mordin Solus who invented a pair of sniper rifles that could tap directly into the Catalysts power core, and thus began round 2 of the contest to decide who is the best sniper in the galaxy, after all the reapers are just giant black beer cans.

((which Garrus wins, cause Garrus is that awesome))

That...

Good job, mate. Fantastic.

Math_Mage

2014-01-17, 04:42 PM

Unfortunately, saying "your essentially religious view is definitely wrong" is still a religious statement. That's why I brought it up. It is my experience that statements which can only be answered with religious discussion can count, is all. Backing someone into a corner as it were.
Unfortunately, I wasn't rejecting an "essentially religious view." If Avilan (or anyone else) declares an "essentially religious view," I will leave it alone.

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-17, 04:53 PM

This assumes there is some good end to evolution though, which we know to be scientifically untrue. Things will evolve back and forth into both good and bad forms based on stimulus.

Exactly, and this is why Synthesis "murders" nature. Evolution never stops, never has an end. That is a marvelous thing.

Synthesis stops evolution cold. The game tells you so.

This is my point.

Math_Mage

2014-01-17, 04:55 PM

Exactly, and this is why Synthesis "murders" nature. Evolution never stops, never has an end. That is my point.
It wasn't your point three posts ago. Then, your point was something about the hubris of sapient species.

Besides, this point is irrelevant, because Synthesis isn't an end.

SiuiS

2014-01-17, 04:56 PM

Exactly, and this is why Synthesis "murders" nature. Evolution never stops, never has an end. That is a marvelous thing.

Synthesis stops evolution cold. The game tells you so.

This is my point.

Synthesis does not, by this definition, stop evolution.

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-17, 04:58 PM

It wasn't your point three posts ago. Then, your point was something about the hubris of sapient species.

Besides, this point is irrelevant, because Synthesis isn't an end.

That part was to show our true part in the cosmos, and how wrong other's view of humanity and our right to play god is.

My main objection with the Synthesis has been the Death of Nature all along.

Second sentence, see below.

Synthesis does not, by this definition, stop evolution.

"This is the final evolution of all life".

Case closed.

Math_Mage

2014-01-17, 05:11 PM

"This is the final evolution of all life".

Case closed.
Except the way Synthesis is described, and the way it plays out, doesn't jibe with an interpretation of that sentence meaning "no more change ever." After all, EDI describes it as the first few steps towards a level of existence that cannot even be imagined--which would be rather different from whatever pertains immediately after Synthesis. So your argument amounts to an equivocation on the definition.

SiuiS

2014-01-17, 05:15 PM

"This is the final evolution of all life".

Case closed.

But there is no final evolution of all life on that level. So how can it be the thing that cannot be?

End of all evolution of life is a philosophical point, not a biological one. It's the technological singularity wherein the limits of organic existence can be exceeded by the quadratic advancement of technological progress. Although instead of loadif everyone's souls into jars, synthesis went out of the way maintain the validity of the organic half of existence.

Mordokai

2014-01-17, 05:26 PM

After all, EDI describes it as the first few steps towards a level of existence that cannot even be imagined

That (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm1JpJSO1ak#t=41m41s) she does. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8a5L_e2qCM#t=1m55s)

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-17, 05:34 PM

But there is no final evolution of all life on that level. So how can it be the thing that cannot be?

End of all evolution of life is a philosophical point, not a biological one. It's the technological singularity wherein the limits of organic existence can be exceeded by the quadratic advancement of technological progress. Although instead of loadif everyone's souls into jars, synthesis went out of the way maintain the validity of the organic half of existence.

I'm not taking that chance.

Tiki Snakes

2014-01-17, 05:37 PM

As a matter of personal choice and the opinion of a potential shepherd deciding between options, that's a pretty valid viewpoint. It's pretty clear from everything post-choice that this isn't actually in any way a risk or possible consequence, but it's true that you do not have that evidence before your jump.

That's fair enough, basically, but not as a criticism of the synthesis ending itself or shepherd's who take that choice if you follow my train of thought?

Math_Mage

2014-01-17, 05:39 PM

I'm not taking that chance.
Not seeing anything related to chance or the taking thereof in SiuiS' post.

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-17, 05:42 PM

Not seeing anything related to chance or the taking thereof in SiuiS' post.

I won't take the chance that what the Catalyst says is anything but the literal truth, as you and SiuiS say it is.

SiuiS

2014-01-17, 05:44 PM

I'm not taking that chance.

That's a legitimate choice.

Not seeing anything related to chance or the taking thereof in SiuiS' post.

The acceptance of my post as possible.

Mordokai

2014-01-17, 05:45 PM

I won't take the chance that what the Catalyst says is anything but the literal truth, as you and SiuiS say it is.

Look, I'm with you as far as going with the whole "Synthesis is wrong" thingie, but...

As a big supporter of Control(be it paragon or renegade, doesn't matter in this case), why are you willing to take it's words at face value there, but not here?

Math_Mage

2014-01-17, 05:56 PM

Look, I'm with you as far as going with the whole "Synthesis is wrong" thingie, but...

As a big supporter of Control(be it paragon or renegade, doesn't matter in this case), why are you willing to take it's words at face value there, but not here?
He's saying Starchild's description of Synthesis differs from what Synthesis actually looks like. Which, well, shrug. I'm not going to tell him how to read.

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-17, 06:02 PM

He's saying Starchild's description of Synthesis differs from what Synthesis actually looks like. Which, well, shrug. I'm not going to tell him how to read.

I have watched the Synthesis ending a number of times, and nothing argues against my point. There is nothing that outright states that "Hey. Evolution continues as normal but everything is Pandora now". Nothing. EDI says she is truly alive, and everything is Hippie-Paradise-y. Which is not the same thing.

And what do you Mordokai mean with face value? I don't take Starbrat's speech any differently when it come to control.

SiuiS

2014-01-17, 06:09 PM

Well, as much fun as it would be in not here to tell you that your idea seems to be missing points or is wrong or whatnot. Honestly, Avilian, the only justification you needed was "I couldn't trust that this was a good thing".

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-17, 06:12 PM

Mordokai

2014-01-17, 06:13 PM

And what do you Mordokai mean with face value? I don't take Starbrat's speech any differently when it come to control.

The GodChild says you will be able to control Reapers. What makes you believe him/it?

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-17, 06:20 PM

The GodChild says you will be able to control Reapers. What makes you believe him/it?

The same thing that makes me believe it when he says "This is the final evolution of all life".

The problem is not that I don't believe "him", the problem is that I DO. And equally so in both cases. This is not an inconsistency but rather the opposite.

Mordokai

2014-01-17, 06:22 PM

My brain is confused, so I will just remove myself from this and watch from the sidelines, as I usually do.

Math_Mage

2014-01-17, 06:36 PM

I have watched the Synthesis ending a number of times, and nothing argues against my point.
Given that I was all-but-quoting the ending...well, I doubt watching the ending again would change your mind, but that doesn't mean there's nothing there.

ryuplaneswalker

2014-01-17, 11:44 PM

@^ that is actually pretty awesome and I totally want to make that my head canon right about now

I also seriously want somebody to commission an art of that.

That...

Good job, mate. Fantastic.

Why thank you!*bows*

SiuiS

2014-01-18, 10:07 AM

The problem is not that I don't believe "him", the problem is that I DO. And equally so in both cases. This is not an inconsistency but rather the opposite.

Alright, here's why I think you're missing the mark.

During control, and also destroy, you have build up. It doesn't matter that the starchild says anything, here. He is at worst confirming what you already know, because three games worth of inertia.

But he speaks about them anyway. Clinical, cynical, skeptical. Remember, AI have emotions, personalities. He balks. You can do this, but..." he seems to say, implying he views it as stupid, when you should be letting him harvest you.

And then we get to synthesis. Suddenly "wow! Such EMS! Very ending!". He changes tone, completely. There's uncertainty, but wonder rather than fear. The cold, clinical voice changed. This is the ending you have to earn, and unlock, and the description is full of technobabble garbage that makes "modified microbes translator" sound downright rational. It's clear this is something the game designers were playing up, not because it ended everything, but because they knew what they meant, if you read any scifi you knew what they meant, why complicate it with too many words? They gave the token overview because the starchild did that for both other endings, but the flags for "Look! Best ending!" were all over Synthesis, bungled and garbled in the designer's senseless optimism.

My complaint with synthesis has never been about any of it's technical specs or explanations, because I knew exactly what Bioware was going for. My reaction to synthesius was to roll my eyes at the shoddy deliver, and then pick destroy because I was demoralized and just didn't give a damn anymore.

KillianHawkeye

2014-01-18, 10:07 AM

On the internet? How much fund would that be? :smallbiggrin::smallwink:

A lot more fun than watching this travesty, I can tell you. :smallwink:

Beowulf DW

2014-01-18, 11:21 AM

Mordokai? Could I get my multiplayer info updated? It's been a while since I played, but I'm actually comfortable and enjoy playing with all the classes, not just the three that I pointed out so long ago. Thank you!

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-20, 07:54 AM

Argh. I am frustrated with myself because I just blew a ton of cash on the Black Widow despite vaguely remembering i didn't like the weapon.

After trying it in Priority - London I restarted the mission and went back to the Valiant. It makes about 20% more damage per shot, but the difference between zero recoil and fast reload and heavy recoil and very very slow reload... Is definitly in the Valiant's favor.

Beowulf DW

2014-01-20, 10:27 AM

Psyren

2014-01-20, 12:06 PM

Alright, here's why I think you're missing the mark.

During control, and also destroy, you have build up. It doesn't matter that the starchild says anything, here. He is at worst confirming what you already know, because three games worth of inertia.

But he speaks about them anyway. Clinical, cynical, skeptical. Remember, AI have emotions, personalities. He balks. You can do this, but..." he seems to say, implying he views it as stupid, when you should be letting him harvest you.

And then we get to synthesis. Suddenly "wow! Such EMS! Very ending!". He changes tone, completely. There's uncertainty, but wonder rather than fear. The cold, clinical voice changed. This is the ending you have to earn, and unlock, and the description is full of technobabble garbage that makes "modified microbes translator" sound downright rational. It's clear this is something the game designers were playing up, not because it ended everything, but because they knew what they meant, if you read any scifi you knew what they meant, why complicate it with too many words? They gave the token overview because the starchild did that for both other endings, but the flags for "Look! Best ending!" were all over Synthesis, bungled and garbled in the designer's senseless optimism.

My complaint with synthesis has never been about any of it's technical specs or explanations, because I knew exactly what Bioware was going for. My reaction to synthesius was to roll my eyes at the shoddy deliver, and then pick destroy because I was demoralized and just didn't give a damn anymore.

Even though I'm a Synthesis supporter, I can totes get behind this rationale. Kudos to you.

SiuiS

2014-01-20, 12:36 PM

The Black Widow vs. Valiant, huh? I tend to come out on the Black Widow side, mostly due the the higher damage per shot, and penetration. I actually tend to be a decent shot in most shooters I play, so less ammo per clip usually isn't too much of an issue for me. When using a sniper rifle at all, I also tend to use classes like Human and Turian Soldiers, so reload canceling is relatively easy, and the recoil is partially compensated for.

Still, no denying that the Valiant is a great rifle. As with so much in this game, I think it might come down to personal preference in the end.

That's all multiplayer. Avilian is SP only. And it's an entirely different comparison in single player; the black widow definitely sucks more there than in the multiplayer environment.

Even though I'm a Synthesis supporter, I can totes get behind this rationale. Kudos to you.

Thanks! It's a weird culture blindness thing. It's the one time I happened to be the exact right audience to grasp something like this, too. So I wouldn't say it's American, exactly, but definitely a thing that will make more sense to thirty year old popular science fiction culture savvy North Americans.

Of course, it's really hard to win debates online with "just, trust me. This guy is dumb but I know what he's trying to say" XD

Beowulf DW

2014-01-20, 02:51 PM

That's all multiplayer. Avilian is SP only. And it's an entirely different comparison in single player; the black widow definitely sucks more there than in the multiplayer environment.

Thanks! It's a weird culture blindness thing. It's the one time I happened to be the exact right audience to grasp something like this, too. So I wouldn't say it's American, exactly, but definitely a thing that will make more sense to thirty year old popular science fiction culture savvy North Americans.

Of course, it's really hard to win debates online with "just, trust me. This guy is dumb but I know what he's trying to say" XD

Well, then yeah, totally with Avilan on that one.

Mordokai

2014-01-20, 05:01 PM

Beowulf DW

2014-01-20, 06:42 PM

Thank you, Mord!:smallsmile:

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-21, 02:24 AM

This weekend I had EVERYBODY for the first time at the party (Citadel DLC). The Miranda / Jack interaction was both really cute and um... fanservy. I am with Shepard though, there is definitely some... tension there. :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

Also, the Traynor romance IS adorable. SHE is adorable. And better than Kelly, because English Accent :smallbiggrin:. And of course a deeper relationship. And toothbrushes. And showers.

Also, Zaeed coming on hard on Samara is both awkward and rather sweet.

Krade

2014-01-21, 03:37 AM

Also, Zaeed coming on hard on Samara is both awkward and rather sweet.

When I got to that part, I was like, "He is going to die. She is going to kill him." But a not insignificant portion of me wanted them to actually hook up just because it would have been hilarious.

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-21, 04:20 AM

When I got to that part, I was like, "He is going to die. She is going to kill him." But a not insignificant portion of me wanted them to actually hook up just because it would have been hilarious.

I like that she's wilder than she seems, too. Yes, she is now a warrior monk, but she has a past. "Killing mercenaries, running with mercenaries, and on occasion, sleep with merceneries" is how she describes her youth.

She sees right thru him, but takes it all as a compliment. I like that.

Also, she's still a great dancer, though I must say Tali's skill in dancing surprised me.

Speaking of dancing, I didn't romance Garrus this time, but I LOVE the tango scene. I think that is my second favorite scene from the DLC after seeing Wrex assault that shuttle. Unarmed.

Oh another thing... When you don't romance Traynor, you are left wondering who the "we" are that she did things with (EDI?) and who did the filming. If anyone (she can't remember).
But if you have talked to Miranda and Jack, Kasumi pops out at the end of that dialogue and says "I better get it on film, I am sure there's a market" (or something like that). If you then wake up next to Traynor... her after-party dialogue makes you realize that Kasumi most likely filmed you and Traynor... But you can't tell her off about it.

Psyren

2014-01-21, 10:53 AM

Zevox

2014-01-21, 09:10 PM

So basically I've just ordered mass effect 3 and I'm now planning a playthrough with my Shepard imported from 1 and 2.

The sentinel is probably my favourite class overall throughout the series so far, with infiltrator being a close second. I love the "bag of tricks" style of play, and gaining the ability to tank with tech armour in mass effect 2 was just the icing on the cake.

However i've been reading through the sentinel guide on mass effect 3 wiki, and it looks like they have really nerfed the class's bread and butter abilities. For example: Tech armour no longer automatically detonates, and warp no longer damages barriers.

Is this class still worth playing?
Well, you've got part of it right, and part of it wrong. Tech Armor was indeed nerfed substantially compared to ME2 - mostly because in ME2 it was extremely overpowered and made it almost impossible for you to actually die. In ME3 you'll never detonate it, because frankly the detonation sucks now, but it's still worth having for the damage reduction it provides. Although it does also slow down power recharge, which is annoying, but can be mitigated to a more manageable level by its last evolution.

Why you think Warp no longer damages barriers though I have no idea. It certainly does, and even does bonus damage to them relative to other defenses. The only reason you might find yourself not using it on them so much as in 2 is that Overload and other anti-shield powers are now just as effective against them.

Compared to ME2 however the Sentinel does get some major improvements, the biggest one being that biotic combos are now immensely easier to do and better. A Sentinel (or Adept) can pretty easily beat just about anything in the single player portion of the game just by alternating Warp and Throw, particularly if you take the Detonate evolution of each. This is because Warp's new persistent debuff effect primes combos, and Throw will detonate them, both completely regardless of the enemy's protections.

Overload has also become amazing at chain-stunning groups of unarmored enemies, as it now has evolutions that let it jump to multiple targets after the first, and it has a substantial stun effect on hit.

Also, you get Lift Grenades now. I can't aim them to save my life, but if you can, they're pretty powerful.

Snufkin

2014-01-21, 10:50 PM

Why you think Warp no longer damages barriers though I have no idea.

I read this off of mass effect wiki: "Warp in Mass Effect 3 does not remove barriers like in Mass Effect 2, though it is still potent against armor and can be detonated by Throw to create a Biotic Explosion."

Thanks for your response, I guess i'll stick with sentinel for now - chained overloads sound pretty cool and one of the only things I didn't like in me2 was needing another biotic to set up explosions.

I am going to miss being a walking bomb via tech armour though...

Zevox

2014-01-21, 11:08 PM

I read this off of mass effect wiki: "Warp in Mass Effect 3 does not remove barriers like in Mass Effect 2, though it is still potent against armor and can be detonated by Throw to create a Biotic Explosion."
Hm, maybe they mean to say that it doesn't do as much damage to barriers as in ME2, which may be the case. Been a while since I played 2. It's definitely still able to do good damage to them though.

Snufkin

2014-01-21, 11:15 PM

Meh, it sounds like can just turn overload into my new warp anyway so i'm content now.

Edge

2014-01-22, 03:51 AM

Warp in ME3 no longer does bonus damage to barriers as it did in ME2. Overload now had bonus damage against shields and barriers. Warp is now really only effective against armour and health.

Unless, of course, you follow it with Throw. Strongest biotic detonation in the game, after all.

Tome

2014-01-22, 04:36 AM

Unless, of course, you follow it with Throw. Strongest biotic detonation in the game, after all.

Not true. Shockwave is the stronger detonator and Pull, if you have a target it works on, is the stronger set up.

Mordokai

2014-01-22, 05:02 AM

Out of curiosity, where are you getting your bases on which combo is better? I'm guessing this is PC again, because I have no idea how to quantify which is stronger on PS3.

Tome

2014-01-22, 05:05 AM

Out of curiosity, where are you getting your bases on which combo is better? I'm guessing this is PC again, because I have no idea how to quantify which is stronger on PS3.

Check the descriptions for the detonate evolutions on each one. Warp and Throw add 50% while Pull and Shockwave add 75%.

SiuiS

2014-01-22, 07:28 AM

I read this off of mass effect wiki: "Warp in Mass Effect 3 does not remove barriers like in Mass Effect 2, though it is still potent against armor and can be detonated by Throw to create a Biotic Explosion."

Thanks for your response, I guess i'll stick with sentinel for now - chained overloads sound pretty cool and one of the only things I didn't like in me2 was needing another biotic to set up explosions.

I am going to miss being a walking bomb via tech armour though...

Hm, maybe they mean to say that it doesn't do as much damage to barriers as in ME2, which may be the case. Been a while since I played 2. It's definitely still able to do good damage to them though.

In mass effect 2, you can detonate barriers by hitting them with warp, apparently.

Warp in ME3 no longer does bonus damage to barriers as it did in ME2. Overload now had bonus damage against shields and barriers. Warp is now really only effective against armour and health.

Unless, of course, you follow it with Throw. Strongest biotic detonation in the game, after all.

Warp lists itself as being effective against armor and barriers, though. I do believe it does well against barriers, or at least not as bad as against shields (where it does half base damage, same as biotic detonations).

Not true. Shockwave is the stronger detonator and Pull, if you have a target it works on, is the stronger set up.

That never made it into single player, did it?

Out of curiosity, where are you getting your bases on which combo is better? I'm guessing this is PC again, because I have no idea how to quantify which is stronger on PS3.

The powers tell you?

Warp and throw both say "increase the power of biotic explosions by 50%" and are additive. Pull increases by 75%, shockwave by 65%. However, due to the reduced damage on pull/shock as opposed to warp/throw, you end up losingn out. The best combo is actually warp/shockwave because of the 115% stronger detonation, the armor weakening and the 25% greater damage period from Warp's debuff.

Or, you know, Pull then Aria's flare. NUKE.

Zevox

2014-01-22, 07:38 AM

Warp in ME3 no longer does bonus damage to barriers as it did in ME2.
Unless that's a difference between the single-player and multiplayer, that's not true. At least according to the numbers in the class builder (http://narida.pytalhost.com/me3/classes/#Adept/Human/BDAAA//////), Warp does double damage to barriers compared to what it does to health - triple if you take the Pierce evolution for the last rank (and why wouldn't you?). Also, only half damage to shields, and a 50% bonus to armor.

Psyren

2014-01-22, 03:55 PM

Meh, it sounds like can just turn overload into my new warp anyway so i'm content now.

The point to Warp is that it damages armor while Overload (almost) doesn't. Generally, armored enemies are the most dangerous in the game, or at the very least the ones you want to drop sooner rather than later. It also weakens armor, which has a multiplicative effect when combined with rapid weapon fire, particularly if you and your squadmates are all focusing one target - which again tends to happen with big armored foes. Warp also has the advantage of being one of the tiny handful of biotic powers able to both set up and detonate combos, letting you partner well with any biotic party member.

Sentinel indeed has the most radical gameplay shifts throughout the franchise. In ME3 SP there are two primary builds for it:

- The first is the caster build that relies on the armor's power damage enhancement for added punch (rendered nigh-useless now that engineers can handle all the defenses anyway, and because the power boost does not affect combo damage). Due to the massive buffs Engineers got, there's almost no reason to play this sentinel since the armor only slows down your comboing and doesn't do much for its damage, while the drone is a powerful tool for your arsenal instead. Due to having both Warp and Throw it is still very effective, but there's little reason to use this build over a pure Adept or pure Engineer.

- The second, and my preferred choice, is the "mobile fortress build," which combines the tech armor with another defensive power (Defense Matrix is good for visual effect and a great emergency button detonation while Barrier goes well with the Sentinel's theme) to hit the DR cap and have Shepard shrug off bullets and even survive grenade blasts on Insanity. I like the latter build because you can pack extremely heavy weapons and not care; you won't be using powers much (other than Lift Grenades, which pack a wallop and have no cooldown) and very fast cooldowns like Cryo Blast and Throw.

Snufkin

2014-01-22, 06:41 PM

Oh, so all this time it was just poor wording :smalltongue: Fair enough.

I've also noticed that the sentinel has been given the fitness skill, but most builds seem to ignore it. It seems like it would have a good synergy with Tech Armour however - Is it worth investing in?

Zevox

2014-01-22, 07:13 PM

I've also noticed that the sentinel has been given the fitness skill, but most builds seem to ignore it. It seems like it would have a good synergy with Tech Armour however - Is it worth investing in?
:smallconfused: "Most builds seem to ignore it?" I'd never ignore it in single-player, and only rarely in multiplayer. Fitness is where you get your health from. (Also, all classes have it, not just any one.) If you're going to ignore something as a Sentinel, Cryo Blast is the one to ignore. Now that is pretty much useless.

Or grenades, if you're like me and can't aim them to save your life.

Psyren

2014-01-22, 07:40 PM

As Zevox said, Cryo is usually on the chopping block for Sentinels. (Note however that with the tank build, you can choose to ignore Warp instead due to the extremely slow cooldown it's likely to have, and simply rely on armor-piercing heavy weapons like the Typhoon instead.)

Oh, so all this time it was just poor wording :smalltongue: Fair enough.

I've also noticed that the sentinel has been given the fitness skill, but most builds seem to ignore it. It seems like it would have a good synergy with Tech Armour however - Is it worth investing in?

Normally? Yes. On Insanity/Gold+? Hell yes!

Snufkin

2014-01-22, 08:00 PM

If you're going to ignore something as a Sentinel, Cryo Blast is the one to ignore. Now that is pretty much useless.

Or grenades, if you're like me and can't aim them to save your life.

Yeah back in ME2 i put a single, cheap point in it, and used it almost solely for taking out heavy mechs once I'd destroyed their shields and armour. All other uses were pretty much just for flavour - I think I'll do the same thing in ME3 because it's a fun ability to use. And yeah, those lift grenades don't look that great either...

Thanks for all the responses, I like to de-noobify myself as quickly as possible.

Krade

2014-01-22, 08:29 PM

Yeah back in ME2 i put a single, cheap point in it, and used it almost solely for taking out heavy mechs once I'd destroyed their shields and armour. All other uses were pretty much just for flavour - I think I'll do the same thing in ME3 because it's a fun ability to use. And yeah, those lift grenades don't look that great either...

Thanks for all the responses, I like to de-noobify myself as quickly as possible.

Lift Grenades are contenders for Best Grenades (for SP, at least). I usually go for all the radius evolutions for it, and damage second. The lift effect is insignificant because anything that might get lifted will probably die anyway.

Snufkin

2014-01-22, 08:34 PM

Lift Grenades are contenders for Best Grenades (for SP, at least). I usually go for all the radius evolutions for it, and damage second. The lift effect is insignificant because anything that might get lifted will probably die anyway.

mmm I like to have at least a single point in everything just for the sake of versatility, staying true to the jack of all trades thing. I plan on taking Javik and Garrus along for the ride mostly though, and Garrus has a mine ability as well so I'll probably just work on his instead.

Krade

2014-01-22, 08:40 PM

mmm I like to have at least a single point in everything just for the sake of versatility, staying true to the jack of all trades thing. I plan on taking Javik and Garrus along for the ride mostly though, and Garrus has a mine ability as well so I'll probably just work on his instead.

I suppose I should also mention (on the subject of grenades) that, in SP, I find that I hardly ever actually use them. MP is much more frantic and you're likely to accidently turn a corner into a group of enemies and spamming grenades is an amazing panic button. In SP, you hardly ever run into a situation that requires such a use of blunt force.

Psyren

2014-01-22, 09:34 PM

If you do the tank sentinel build they come in very handy - they do massive damage to a very wide area and have no cooldown. Useful if something is coming at you (like a Phantom, or Hunter pack) while you're reloading.

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-23, 02:35 AM

mmm I like to have at least a single point in everything just for the sake of versatility, staying true to the jack of all trades thing. I plan on taking Javik and Garrus along for the ride mostly though, and Garrus has a mine ability as well so I'll probably just work on his instead.

At lvl 60 you will have enough points to max all skills except one that you only get to lvl 4. Plan accordingly. (Please note that a skill at lvl 4 is still useful).

My Infiltrator i am playing now has cryo ammo as the "lvl 4 skill", so that I can give ammo power to those that doesn't have it.

SiuiS

2014-01-23, 05:07 AM

, there's almost no reason to play this sentinel since the armor only slows down your comboing and doesn't do much for its damage,

This is untrue. There is an absolute minimum speed on all powers regardless of numerics, which a full-armor full-fortification sentinel can still hit while at double protection. They also benefit from the armor damage boost on secondary effects, allowing a sentinel who who puts 100% firepower on a target to be vastly outperformed by one which puts only up to 70% on a target and spreads the rest around. The slow down effect is negligible by about half-time.

The drone is also only a tenth as good in SP as MP. In MP, drone = bestvolus.

Oh, so all this time it was just poor wording :smalltongue: Fair enough.

I've also noticed that the sentinel has been given the fitness skill, but most builds seem to ignore it. It seems like it would have a good synergy with Tech Armour however - Is it worth investing in?

You'll be able to have points in every skill.

Fitness is useful for soaking damage. It's melee evolutions aren't as handy in SP and often you're better off putting out more and varied damage than survive the shot from guys you should have killed, but yes. Fitness is useful.

Talderas

2014-01-23, 12:55 PM

So I'm playing ME2 again as a bro-shep adept. Romancing Jack. I knew she was antagonistic towards people but romaning her sees such a significant shift in her character. It's rather endearing.

Psyren

2014-01-23, 03:19 PM

I just re-beat ME1 on PC last night. Man that took me back. (FYI: unlimited cooldowns affects enemies too - it made my Juggernaut fights very deadly as they would spam rockets and Damping like candy.)

This is untrue. There is an absolute minimum speed on all powers regardless of numerics, which a full-armor full-fortification sentinel can still hit while at double protection. They also benefit from the armor damage boost on secondary effects, allowing a sentinel who who puts 100% firepower on a target to be vastly outperformed by one which puts only up to 70% on a target and spreads the rest around. The slow down effect is negligible by about half-time.

The drone is also only a tenth as good in SP as MP. In MP, drone = bestvolus.

You can mitigate the armor's effect, yeah - but it does still have one, and I notice it so it bugs me. Double protection makes it even worse, I just give up on a caster build at that point even though I could make it work. Far better (for me anyway) to pack massive firepower and enjoy 90% DR. (80% and 75% for Barrier and DM, respectively.)

The drone is fine in SP as it still attracts Banshees/Phantoms, turns Atlases and flushes out Nemeses. Decoy is the useless one in SP because it spawns next to you and doesn't pull aggro.

You'll be able to have points in every skill.

Note that this is only true if you have no bonus power; maxing all the skills + bonus will mean one gets left out.

SiuiS

2014-01-23, 03:51 PM

You can mitigate the armor's effect, yeah - but it does still have one, and I notice it so it bugs me. Double protection makes it even worse, I just give up on a caster build at that point even though I could make it work. Far better (for me anyway) to pack massive firepower and enjoy 90% DR. (80% and 75% for Barrier and DM, respectively.)

They're straight additive percentages, though. If one adds 80% cooldown and one adds 80%$ cooldown, and you get a -160% from armor, and then also have a +200% from weapons, you'll have the 200% from weapons. If you have no armor, have the +160%, and 200% from weapons... You still max out at 200%.

Note that this is only true if you have no bonus power; maxing all the skills + bonus will mean one gets left out.

Huh. That might be true, I don't think my most recent one has a... Wait, no. I've got every power on my vanguard, including flare, and the lowest one was at, what, three ticks from max? I'll check when I get time.

Psyren

2014-01-23, 04:04 PM

Which armor is giving you -160%? Even full Rosenkov is only -40%.

And you're right, you can max out all the powers in ME3, my bad.

SiuiS

2014-01-23, 04:08 PM

Double armor is hyperbole; I don't even have experience eto verify because I didn't spec it in a way that's relevant.

Full rosenkov is 40, but you can also get comparable from skill boost stuffs (the things on Liara's console). If you always spec speed, you'll be able to completely mitigate full tech armor. Though again, I"ll check it out with a mind to it before I just say "This is fact". I could be wrong, after all!

Krade

2014-01-23, 04:14 PM

I could be wrong, after all!

Are you sure you're doing this internet thing right? You just admitted to the possibility of being wrong. I have to assume that the real SiuiS has been murdered and you are some manner of doppelganger vanguard prepping the rest of us for invasion! I'm on to your tricks! You can't fool me!

Psyren

2014-01-23, 04:35 PM

Liara's Intel Terminal stuff only adds another -20% or so I thought. You can indeed mitigate two armors that way but only if you reduce their max mitigation by taking the power speed evo at rank 6 on both. This will get you to a max of 70% mitigation (TA + Fort), and less than that for the other two armors that you'll probably want since they add more power damage. Still, for a caster build with few control abilities that DR can be nice to have.

I guess what's disappointing about it to me is that, on its own - and even if you take the DR boost at rank 4 - tech armor isn't any more protection than having Reave. So I feel I might as well be an Adept or Vanguard, as a caster Sentinel.

For the tank build, max mitigation is 90% and well worth getting to. "Was that a grenade I stepped on just now?" And since you don't care about power recharge, you can pick neat upgrades like power damage, shield recharge, and health from Liara's terminal instead of the power recharges.

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-24, 02:23 AM

Note that this is only true if you have no bonus power; maxing all the skills + bonus will mean one gets left out.

This is false, you will be able to put points in every skill, as stated. But you will "only" be able to max all skills except one, which you will be able to get to rank 4 (first split choice). This includes one bonus power.

Plan accordingly.

Landis963

2014-01-24, 08:36 AM

What about the squadmates? What's the most efficient use of their skill points?

Psyren

2014-01-24, 09:38 AM

What about the squadmates? What's the most efficient use of their skill points?

A biotic Shep will do the most damage paired with Javik + Liara or Javik + Kaidan. This goes double for Vanguards, who can detonate combos they set up while doing what he would do anyway (i.e. ABC, Always Be Charging.) What's more, the biotic explosion will usually stagger dangerous enemies like Phantoms/Atlases and prevent you from being synched (but watch out for Banshees.)

Kaidan, apart from being a pretty cool guy, is the most well-rounded squadmate. He gets Overload for shields and barriers, Reave for barriers and armor, assault rifle proficiency, and a ton of DR with Barrier + Reave. (He is actually a tougher tank than James if he has Reave going on foes while his Barrier is active.) On top of all that, his passive also boosts the entire party's damage.

Liara's Singularity is even faster than yours (same cooldown but no travel time) so that's a good move for her to use; get it wide and she can handle entire crowds of Husks and Trooper-class enemies while you focus on meatier opponents. Spec her stasis for bubble; combine with her Warp Ammo and you should be able to ventilate dangerous/slippery shielded enemies like Phantoms, Nemeses and Hunters quickly.

For EDI focus on Overload + Incinerate - Defense Matrix isn't very useful on her (she's still fragile and it slows down her long cooldowns even more), and Decoy is also iffy since enemies tend to focus Shepard.

Garrus is useful but fragile - give him a good sniper so he tries to stay at range, and boost his Concussive Shot for area so he can keep enemies off him. I would personally leave his proximity mine for last.

Vega is tough and can do massive nova damage in an emergency with his grenades. He also has some pretty funny moments, particularly in the Rannoch missions.

Javik is powerful but unless Shep is biotic I wouldn't take him, because while he can set up combos very easily he is less adept at detonating them.

Ash I don't know much about having never had her survive to ME3, though disruptor ammo is never bad to have.