Random Bobcat said:
Firstly I have to say thank you to yourself, Nightwolf and AcacianLeaves; I've spent the last hour reading through this thread and am glad to see some debate come from what I thought was an abysmal second act.
Awww, thank you, it's always nice to be appreciated.
Also, you make good points. I'm glad you've joined the discussion.
AcacianLeaves said:
For someone with such a giant ego about his her own literary genius, you sure do like to use hyperbole for the sake of an argument.
Gigantic ego about her own literary genius? No, that's just my Literature Major education talking coupled with having grown up in the home of a father who was a sci-fi geek before any of us existed and being genuinely curious about the ways narratives are constructed across different mediums.
I've never understood this assumption that curiosity is a bad thing, normally I find that when I reach into a story and pull out the pieces, my experience is rewarded and the story becomes even more enriching. The fact that Mass Effect doesn't is a problem that speaks to it's universe being poorly constructed and it's story genuinely lacking.
And I like hyperbole, it's funny. Debates are enriched by humor, snide or otherwise and I don't recall making you the butt of the joke.
You don't think there's a theme of organic vs. artificial life?
No I don't, because as it was revealed in ME2, the Reapers are not entirely artificial and they also use client races like the Collectors and indoctrinated servants like the Asari, the Krogan, and Saren. Now, you could possibly make that argument for the Geth, being that they are essentially an in game version of the Cylons. After all, they did achieve intelligence, fight a war with their creators and exile them from their home world to wander forever between the stars in a small fleet of ships that are slowly falling apart...
Except that they don't do anything with them other than being Shepherd's enemies in the first game and then it's revealed that not all geth are in fact the enemies of all organic life and that it may be possible for a peaceful solution between them and the Quarians. They will probably be Shepherd's allies in ME3, so again, yes the argument falls through.
Not even a little bit? No? The Reapers are just obstacles to you? You don't think maybe there's a question of fate? Changing the inevitable? Fighting against a foe more powerful than any we've ever known? If you're as educated as you claim you are, you know these themes. You know what they mean, what they say about society, and what that says about human beings.
No it's not, and yes I do. But also seems that you don't. The theme of man vs machine or organic vs non-organic life means different things depending on what work it's applied to. Which means that each time, it has to be taken on an individual basis. Though they often have things in common, Man vs. Machine doesn't have a single, universally applied meaning. Also, just having humans (and whatever other organic races present) fighting machines, is not enough to make the theme applicable. For it to become relevant, you have to actually do something with it or even make it central to the story. Since the Reapers are always on the peripheral in ME1 (because you don't know what's going on) and have very little involvement other than puppeteering the Collectors so that they can...reproduce?
Reproduction is not normally a trait ascribed to machines. So maybe that wasn't exactly the best way to describe what they were doing and while that itself is not only a plot hole but a strange thought process for machines to be making, it doesn't seem all that efficient.
It's not as if Machine vs. Man is a new idea in Sci-Fi, Mr. Miss Literature.
And no it's not, but you'll notice that other stories, some of the most famous being the Terminator (the first one), Battlestar Galactica (new one more than the old one), and Isaac Asimov all do something with them. The theme is central to the stories in both a philosophical and tangible way. You can point to them and find examples and other themes within Man vs. Machine that show what it is that they are trying to say, both about human nature and society as a whole.
With ME1 the groundwork is there, again it's peripheral but it's sort of there and ME2 does nothing with it. Well, no, it stuffs it in an airlock and boots it out into space. What examples are there of the man vs. machine argument in ME? The Reapers are a machine race, great, they view all organic life as inferior to them, great, and what else? You have to take it a step further, you can't just point at that and say here it is, so it's a theme. It hasn't become a theme yet, it's an element to the story, so far purely cosmetic until one turns it into a reasonable argument.
Mass Effect has still not taken the next step.
Is Mass Effect guilty of shamelessly ripping off common elements, archetypes, and themes from classic Sci-Fi?
I don't particularly care about what they're ripping off, so much as I care that they're reusing the same character archetypes that they've used in every single game since KoTOR (at the least, Baldurs Gate and Neverwinter Nights at the worst). The only differences end up being minor tweaks in backstory, a few race and gender lifts and most people can't even tell. By this point they're stock in Bioware writing but it's stale. They continue to say that they're doing something new and interesting in their narrative but at the same time they're relying on the same old writing cliches. In ME2 some of the characters represent the same archetype instead of reaching out to try something new. If you want to get down to basics, Thane and Samara are essentially the same character, one is male and one is female and Thane is more brooding and wears a bad ass long coat, but when it comes right down to it Shepherd is still going to have to go out and save (or kill) their children.
There are no party characters on the Normandy who are without family drama. (And Zaeed doesn't count because the Blue Suns are basically his family and neither does Mordin because it falls under the same cliche with different cosmetic dressing.) This has also become a staple of Bioware's style and after at least five games it's getting old. Formula can be a good thing, but when done by the same company so many times it seems like less of a formula and more like a crutch.
While they are ripping off "themes", though those can hardly be called themes because the narrative does nothing with them, and elements from common sci-fi, that can be forgiven because there are a lot of well worn trails out there in the genre. It's when they start ripping off elements from
specific stories such as BSG, Star Wars, and Star Trek without a hint of either parody or reference in dialogue that I start to get irritated. If they handled it the way Obsidian handled KoTOR II (for all that it's an incomplete game, it's a brilliant example of doing the genre and doing it right), which had so many different references both to the SW EU at large to philosophy and pop culture while at the same time making a statement about the way RPGs are played, all of which only serving to enrich the gamers experience, then ME1 and 2 would have been interesting. If they'd even done some of it, I'd have fewer problems with it. But the story is really written without a sense of fun and by writers who are taking themselves and their story telling ability to seriously. The worse part is that it really shows.
While I choose to see Mass Effect as a way to interact with those classic themes and characters from my favorite sci-fi, you're judging it on the same standards you would judge a new sci-fi book.
That would be great except that the analysis isn't limited only to books, they're in television shows, movies, and OTHER VIDEO GAMES. Critiquing a narrative in this way is completely legitimate, I'm judging it the same way I would any book, comic, movie, or an episode on TV. If you know what you're doing and have some basic understanding of the limitations that come with the certain venue in which the story is being told, then there's really no reason not to.
I don't think you can do that when these stories cross media. Thousands of people who don't know the literature will be introduced to it with Mass Effect, and maybe even pick up a book or two.
They get a better introduction to it through Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica (new one not old one), Babylon 5, Alien, Predator, Event Horizon, Pandorum, and even V, than they do from Mass Effect. KoTOR does a better job (though KoTOR II does it better and people still hated it for being intelligent) than ME and there are other epics in Sci-Fi: the Fallout games are one example.
You're using a backwards argument here, you're saying that it's okay for the story to be bad because it's a game and it hasn't been done before in game format (you're wrong by the way). It's an excuse and a bad one. You're saying it's okay if it's bad so long as it gets people to start reading. Well, fuck that. Mass Effect is not designed to encourage people to seek out new forms of entertainment. If the game itself encouraged creative thought and the player to examine it's treasure chest to see what's inside then maybe that argument would be valid, but it doesn't. Mass Effect is a game that expects the gamer to sit back and takes what it gives them without looking any further, it doesn't try for witticism on the dialogue level there aren't really any fun pop culture references (whether or not they should be there) or examples that they have mastered the genre that they are working in. It's a cyborg constructed from parts ripped out wholesale from other (read better) series and patched together by crack and fairy dust to create a nice illusion while hoping that no one will take a closer look.
Unlike the STALKER games, KoTOR II, Fallout, and others the game doesn't reward you for being curious or intelligent. It wants you to just sit back and accept, and you know what, if it were just a stand alone game and they weren't making statements about how great and epic the story is, I wouldn't have as many problems with it. I'd write it off as a bad game, kick it to the curb and be done with it. But Bioware is making those statements.
You've made an assumption here that video game narratives don't have to be as interesting or meaningful or as well put together as a book or a movie because that's not their purpose. It's not a position that I agree with. For me, any narrative can and should be done well within the confines of what it's chosen medium allows. In those circumstances a video game's story should
serve the gameplay and not the other way around. It should be open enough to allow for free movement and not make the player feel constrained while at the same time having enough there so that if the player wants to look beyond the surface level they can be rewarded by their findings. Bioware has gone on record saying that the Mass Effect Trilogy is Shepherd's story and that is where they have forgotten something crucial.
The game is not Shepherd's story, it's the player's story and everything that is constructed within it's frame should be there to serve the player. While at the same time keeping the game world both realistic and believable (within the rules they have created for the setting) and at the same time providing explanations (good logical ones) for why things have changed. One also has to do it in a way that creates a seamless transition from one game to the next. That does not mean it can't be done well or that it excuses a poor production, but rather that you adjust the narrative so that the player can feel that they are the ones who are playing out this story. The narrative should draw them in and keep them there while providing a world in which they can explore. That is the purpose of a video game's story and I keep that in mind when I judge. However that doesn't excuse A) a bad screenplay B) a poorly constructed story and C) cliched and redundant characters. Bioware treats the story like a cosmetic element that's there to supposedly enrich gameplay, but a poor story doesn't enrich it only detracts from.
I will make the claim that Bioware has forgotten their audience while searching for greener (and more lucrative pastures) aka trading in the ones who like RPGs for the more popular shooters. Which does on some level explain the drop in quality but also doesn't excuse it. I could go a step further and say that in their success Bioware has forgotten who the story is about, Mass Effect 2 feels more like self gratification than anything else. They say that the story is about Shepherd, but who's Shepherd? The players or the canon one? If you lose Shepherd in ME 2 (and you have to work really, really hard to make sure he/she doesn't survive), Bioware will punish you for it, saying that there are consequences for your actions. (Though the punishment doesn't really hold up)
But the point of a video game is to be fun and what's the fun of playing a game the way the dev wants me to? (And to only be able to play it that way.) They talked about Dragon Age Origins being dark, but when it came right down to it, the dark options weren't there. Sure you could kill or lose your party members, but that wasn't something we hadn't seen before. Where was the option to convince the possessed lordling's mother that all the death and destruction was her fault and get her to commit suicide after you murder her son? Facing impossible odds and having lots of gore and sex isn't dark, it doesn't even make it to mature (except in game ratings). It comes off more like a fifteen year old boy stretching his wings for the first time and trying to come up with the most adult things he can think of. Well, what has he most likely not been allowed to do (or watch) at this point? Gore and sex.
That's why I say Bioware's writing comes off like a fanfic because they're writing has not matured beyond the level of a male adolescent masturbating over Buffy the Vampire Slayer (and god knows what else). I don't really care that they rip shit off, but it bothers me that they don't do anything with what they've taken except dumb it down. You can take themes and elements and even characters from traditional sci-fi, it's been done before and it will be again, what matters is what you create from it. Is what you have put out there new and interesting and saying something (whether new or different) both about the source material you've stolen from and about society at large? ME fails at that. Bioware is not on the cutting edge of video game writing (however much they'd like to pretend they are) and they're not even making games that are more complicated than previous ones. (They've yet to make a game that truly surpasses Baldur's Gate 2 in that regard.) They are regressing not advancing and people still celebrate them as something new.
Robbob1508 said:
sry to interject here, but didn't the final scene of the game show a huge fleet of reapers flying over a colony? Can you explain how an invasion fleet of reapers does not qualify as a "OMG!HOW AM I GOING TO GET OUT OF THIS" moment? Because that is exactly what was going through my head as I saw the final scene...
At the end of the second game, the Reapers are out in dark space coming in towards the galaxy. If they'd actually flown over a colony and begun abducting people for their internal slushy machines then yes it might have been a nice cliffhanger. But they didn't. It wasn't new information, we already knew that the Reapers were out in dark space (being that they were too stupid to provide themselves with another garage door opener: read Citadel). Sure, now we've actually seen them but we knew they were coming eventually. It is a trilogy after all, the final act has to involve them trying to eat the galaxy somehow and Shepherd stopping them.
I actually meant throw the player off the cliff (figuratively not physically) and leave them there, stranded, until the next game comes out. The ending of ME does not count as dark in any sense, in more ways than one it's a cop out on their promise. Especially after they compared it to Empire Strikes Back. (Note: this is a Bioware comparison, not one that I am making, people seem to keep missing that.) Well, the entire game is a cop out but that's already been debated to death.
There were plenty of ways to make the ending dark. 1) Have the Collectors abduct either Kaiden or Ashley (depending on which one survived) and either convert or indoctrinate them in such a way that you are forced to kill them on the Collector base (or they will kill you). Double points if you use that as an example of what was going to happen to Shepherd when they captured him/her. Triple if you do it in such a way that truly fucks with Shepherd's head.
2) Have any party member who is not loyal to you when on the Dead Reaper become indoctrinated while on board and you are forced to kill them (or you die).
3) No matter how fast you get there you cannot save the Normandy crew.
4) Shepherd destroying the base was actually a catalyst that the Reaper's needed all along to open a second jump gate (or send a signal that reactivates the Citadel) and have the entire Reaper fleet enter our galaxy. The Reapers have been playing Shepherd all along.
5) No matter what choices you make or upgrades you did there is no way for all your team members to survive the final assault on the Collector Base, the more you do the fewer die but you cannot save them all (or even most of them). And you should get an achievement if you managed to kill all of them off (on the same hand it should be difficult to do this). Just like you should if you fail ME 2's suicide mission.
6) Get rid of the human slushy machine and instead have the Collectors converting the humans they've taken into Reaper servants (read not husks) to send out as sleeper agents to begin deactivating the galaxy's defenses. But they are covering this by transforming the other colonists into husks as mindless foot soldiers and weapons of mass destruction. Then this becomes a plot thread in the third game.
7) Have one of the team members you collected already be an indoctrinated servant who turns on you at the last moment, killing Shepherd just as he/she has completed his mission. Have it on a rotating basis so the player cannot intentionally kill that person when they replay the game. (Don't reveal this in the player's guide) In the same vein, a writer could also make them turn on you at the Collector Base.
8) Do the Lazarus Project at the beginning of the third game instead of the second, leaving the player with the realization that Shepherd has died right as the Reapers are invading the galaxy. Bonus points if you have the Reapers clone Shepherd and fake out the player at the beginning of the third game with a Shepherd clone acting as the Reaper's messiah. Even more if Shepherd's remains were recovered by the Geth and that they are the first beings Shepherd sees when he/she wakes up (though not the only ones who brought Shepherd back). Stage One will be getting rid of Bionic Shepherd, Stage Two will be wiping out the Reapers. Wiping out the Reapers may require a huge ass pull but Shepherd will get it done.
9) Have the Reapers shut down all technology based on the Mass Effect drives (not just the drives themselves.) They should be completely capable of doing it. This will explain why the guns now need ammunition as they must revert to an older and simpler kind of technology.
10) Etc. Etc. Etc.
There are many more possibilities, it just requires that the writers be cruel capricious gods of their universe. These are options that are actually dark and not that difficult to implement into the already existing structure of the story. There also might be ways to do it so that the player doesn't feel cheated but if you do it well enough, you can always say that they'll get their revenge in the third game because after all: that's what trilogies are about. But if you want to be dark and have consequences one must do it in a way that there are no take backs, which is why every single decision made about the story should be evaluated and plotted out so that it works within the whole of the narrative. When the story is cohesive, people will still complain but they will have less to complain about.
