Mass Effect 3's Ending Won't Affect Andromeda

[Hawki]

Sure, so for me ME just doesn't qualify as sci-fi. Or, perhaps it represents what sci-fi became, and I rather resent that.

What "sci-fi became"...what? Considering that sci-fi has its origins in what we'd now classify as the "soft" end of the spectrum (Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, etc.), and is now trying to stick to the "hard" end (and all the poorer for it) bar the occassional exception, something like Mass Effect hits the ideal sweet spot for me. Hard enough to have an understanding of the rules of reality, soft enough to bend them for its benefit.

Then why, in ME2, explicitly state - aloud - to any remotely inquisitive player the basics of Newtonian law? That was a good yet all too brief example of spec-fic, or hard sci-fi (what I'd just term sci-fi); speculating rationally and logically on how life amongst the stars may really be like, specifically in this instance where military engagements are concerned - that a projectile can never be 'fire and forget' in space, given once it's moving it won't ever stop until it hits something/is affected by another force).

Disclaimer that I've only played Mass Effect 1 to completion, but I know the scene you're talking about. And as someone who's done creative writing courses, I can answer that because it's a game, they could get away with that.

In a game, the pace of the plot is at player's discretion, and it gives far more time for worldbuilding. So a scene like that, which exists for no other reason than for humour and/or worldbuilding, can exist, even if the worldbuilding is academic to the plot. In any other form of narrative, if that scene was presented in a linear one, it would likely be cut (basically the concept of "kill your darlings"/"does x serve y?" etc.) Now, you can argue that it still should meet the criteria, but this is Mass Effect 2, by which point the style of the series has been well established, said style including FTL travel, aliens, biotics, and spacecraft agile enough to make Luke Skywalker blush. Stuff like the Newtonian law lecture is a nice tidbit of information, but from a structural perspective of writing, academic to the larger piece of fiction.

When I see Newtonian law completely ignored, when I hear sound in space, and when people are wandering about alien crafts in orbit around brown dwarves with just a breather all I see is fantasy.

Well, I can't account for what you see, but by that criteria, practically any form of AV material set in space is going to be fantasy by your definition bar the odd exception, and those exceptions still have exceptions of their own. Just the presence of sound in space alone knocks the majority of that material down to fantasy in your view. So, keeping this to BioWare's roster, Mass Effect is, by your definition, in the same genre of practically every game BioWare's ever made (Dragon Age, Star Wars, Jade Empire, Baldur's Gate, etc.). You can probably understand that most people would raise an eyebrow as to this assertion.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Considering that sci-fi has its origins in what we'd now classify as the "soft" end of the spectrum (Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, etc.), and is now trying to stick to the "hard" end (and all the poorer for it) bar the occassional exception, something like Mass Effect hits the ideal sweet spot for me.

Why is harder sci-fi a negative to you? Whilst I personally see little value in softer sci-fi, variety is important - and I don't see much hard sci-fi in games or films at all.

Hard enough to have an understanding of the rules of reality, soft enough to bend them for its benefit.

Interstellar bends and in some cases outright breaks (but you need a book to delineate exactly how and why certain breaks occur, e.g. swapping out a smaller black hole for a neutron star for a minor plot point, even if the math dictates the tidal forces on the latter would shred the character's ship. ditto the visuals of Gargantua being theoretically sound, even if they then adjust the scale to make the imagery more comprehensible) the rules, but I don't think Mass Effect does anything more than casually glance in the rules general direction.

Now, you can argue that it still should meet the criteria, but this is Mass Effect 2, by which point the style of the series has been well established, said style including FTL travel, aliens, biotics, and spacecraft agile enough to make Luke Skywalker blush. Stuff like the Newtonian law lecture is a nice tidbit of information, but from a structural perspective of writing, academic to the larger piece of fiction.

It's just another - more blatant - reminder of just how wildly inconsistent and contrary ME's design actually is. In that context I just think it's poor game design. Ideally lore and game mechanics should reinforce each other.

Well, I can't account for what you see, but by that criteria, practically any form of AV material set in space is going to be fantasy by your definition bar the odd exception, and those exceptions still have exceptions of their own. Just the presence of sound in space alone knocks the majority of that material down to fantasy in your view.

Obviously it's not just sound - hence why I listed several examples of blandly squishy sci-fi that together result in me seeing far more -fantasy than -fiction.

Whilst the Battlestar Galactica reboot eventually went absolutely bonkers (I admire its zaniness and ambition in the latter season, even if I didn't always enjoy it), it at least affected - particularly in the first season and the feature length prologue - a heavily dampened sound design. That's a compromise I'd be kinda fine with, certainly in very populist media. There are moments in the ME trilogy where sound is dampened for dramatic effect (Shep space-walking between the Normandy and the geth ship in 3, for example), and--- well, I'd say it's far more 'dramatic' and (no pun intended... ) atmospheric than being tediously conventional. Far more of such moments would've distinguished it even more.

I accept this is a subjective beef, and it's sadly not one many people seem to share, but space is a very alien, hostile environment, correct? Then why depict and render it so mundanely, so relatably? Isn't there immense power and awe/wonder in the otherness of such environments? Exploit and explore that, don't wuss out and simply present reality as fantasy all the time. Films like 2001 and Interstellar stand out for what they simulate, whereas all the pew-pew's in the world just blend into one deeply unambitious romantic milieu.

Apropos sound; one cheat ME may have is auditory emulators - Cortez mentions them a few times in ME3 (I think Kaiden does, too. in Citadel Cortez also switches off the inertial dampeners during a shuttle ride. details which explore speculative realities like that are interesting, if extraordinarily rare in the series). Obviously those don't explain why the viewer/player hears sound in external cinematics, but it was a nice idea.

So, keeping this to BioWare's roster, Mass Effect is, by your definition, in the same genre of practically every game BioWare's ever made (Dragon Age, Star Wars, Jade Empire, Baldur's Gate, etc.). You can probably understand that most people would raise an eyebrow as to this assertion.

Pretty much; describing Mass Effect as a fantasy narrative set in space seems rather reasonable.

 

[Hawki]

Why is harder sci-fi a negative to you? Whilst I personally see little value in softer sci-fi, variety is important - and I don't see much hard sci-fi in games or films at all.

It's not an inherent negative, but like you, I value variety. Films are firmly in the "hard" end of the sci-fi spectrum right now (Gravity, Interstellar, The Martian, Passengers, Space Between Us, etc.), and the only "soft" ones are either adaptations (e.g. Guardians of the Galaxy) or sequels (Independence Day, Star Trek, etc.) Generally I prefer "soft" because I find that in the "hard" end, writers tend to put scientific accuracy before storytelling or characters. The Expanse (the novels) is one such example - in terms of worldbuilding, it's well done. However, it falls short in every other aspect of storytelling. It's why I've pretty much given up on the series after reading the first four books and found each was worse than the one preceeding it.

Interstellar bends and in some cases outright breaks (but you need a book to delineate exactly how and why certain breaks occur, e.g. swapping out a smaller black hole for a neutron star for a minor plot point, even if the math dictates the tidal forces on the latter would shred the character's ship. ditto the visuals of Gargantua being theoretically sound, even if they then adjust the scale to make the imagery more comprehensible) the rules, but I don't think Mass Effect does anything more than casually glance in the rules general direction.

Interstellar being another example. The film is drek. I can give it kudos for its ambition, but its characters are dull, it's got plotholes you can drive a starship through, the sound design is awful, and the writing is 50% platitudes, 50% incoherent mumbling (it's hardly a coincidence that the best scene in the film, where Cooper is watching his son's videos, is where for once, there isn't any dialogue). If you're judging Interstellar for scientific accuracy, then yes, it does fairly well there - it's at least aware of the rules of space travel (e.g. time dilation) and mostly complies to them. However, it's a work of fiction. As a work of fiction, the fiction has to come before the science.

Whilst the Battlestar Galactica reboot eventually went absolutely bonkers (I admire its zaniness and ambition in the latter season, even if I didn't always enjoy it), it at least affected - particularly in the first season and the feature length prologue - a heavily dampened sound design. That's a compromise I'd be kinda fine with, certainly in very populist media. There are moments in the ME trilogy where sound is dampened for dramatic effect (Shep space-walking between the Normandy and the geth ship in 3, for example), and--- well, I'd say it's far more 'dramatic' and (no pun intended... ) atmospheric than being tediously conventional. Far more of such moments would've distinguished it even more.

I accept this is a subjective beef, and it's sadly not one many people seem to share, but space is a very alien, hostile environment, correct? Then why depict and render it so mundanely, so relatably? Isn't there immense power and awe/wonder in the otherness of such environments? Exploit and explore that, don't wuss out and simply present reality as fantasy all the time. Films like 2001 and Interstellar stand out for what they simulate, whereas all the pew-pew's in the world just blend into one deeply unambitious romantic milieu.

This is entirely down to personal preference as you say, but per those examples:

-I very much enjoy Battlestar Galactica, but its strengths and weaknesses are different from the issues you mention. The sound muffling is something I noticed, but it's hardly make or break for me. I highly regard BSG because it's a mix of hard sci-f on one end, and spirituality/mystique on the other, and overall, it works. Season 4 is the weakest, but for me, the reason is that it feels like two seasons compressed into one (e.g. Gaeta's mutiny barely has any buildup to it). I attribute that to the writer's strike more than anything.

-Yes, space is a hostile environment, but I don't think it's beholden to the creator of a work of fiction to automatically be beholden to its limitations. That's a valid approach. But for me, I'm fine with the approach of:

a) Obey the rules

b) Acknowledge the rules, and break them

I'm fine with either option. Farscape is one such example - it acknowledges that ships can go faster than the speed of light, mentions that our understanding of the light barrier is wrong, and gets on with the story (similar to Blake's 7). I'm fine with that, because in Farscape's case, it's far more interested in telling an interesting story with interesting characters rather than using space as the be all and end all of its fiction.

-My dislike of 2001 is on the same level as Interstellar, or at least, the film version. I love the book though, and I quite like 2010 (the film), but the reasons I love the book are for reasons other than scientific accuracy. The scientific accuracy is a plus, but the book manages to have engaging characters and engaging writing. Something is always happening. Even if you judge them solely based on scientific accuracy, you have to deal with the monoliths, wormholes, and space babies.

And yes, I "get" that the protagonist of 2001 is humanity itself. If you want me to describe its plot and themes, then yes, that leaves me with a lot to talk about. However, as taboo as this may be, I just find 2001 a drear to get through. I can admire it conceptually, but in terms of execution? Not so much.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

i guess they will give us different coloured explosions for andromeda. maybe pink, yellow and brown.

Oh man, I don't wanna know what gives you the brown ending.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

Flynn said, "Dragon Age: Origins was six years. Star Wars: The Old Republic was six years. The original Mass Effect was four. Maybe we're just not the fastest at this!" Bioware has since confirmed that we won't see much more from Andromeda until until November 7, the franchise's annual N7 Day celebration.

He says this but seems to forget that Dragon Age: Origin's launch was overshadowed by Mass Effect 2 (Mustn't forget the emphasis on the Blood Dragon Armour), that TOR took that long and even longer before that because they couldn't settle on doing a single player RPG again or go with the mmo format on top of having to convince SOE to close SWGs servers and, although this may have just been personal bias, Mass Effect wasn't nearly as hyped up or advertised as it's sequels. Maybe people are impatient for up to date information after the problems they had with the last few games you've made?

Personally I've not really kept up with Mass Effect stuff since three so lack of details isn't twisting my nose.

All I know is that the Asari in this game apparently took a VERY different evolutionary turn.

Spoiler

Seriously, that is a man's face.

Or just a really bad camera angle. Maybe they decided to add some variation to the Asari this time around instead of going with default varied shade of blue space goddess?

Bad camera angle? Dude, you are looking straight at her face! And there WAS variation between Asari. It was only noticeable between the named ones but if I put a series of mugshots of Liara, Samara, Benezia, and Liara's father together you WOULD notice the differences.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Films are firmly in the "hard" end of the sci-fi spectrum right now (Gravity, Interstellar, The Martian, Passengers, Space Between Us, etc.), and the only "soft" ones are either adaptations (e.g. Guardians of the Galaxy) or sequels (Independence Day, Star Trek, etc.)

I can't comment given I've only seen one of those you cite as hard sci-fi (Interstellar, which I'd just call sci-fi).

Generally I prefer "soft" because I find that in the "hard" end, writers tend to put scientific accuracy before storytelling or characters.

I disagree Interstellar does that at all, but I'll get to that next.

Interstellar being another example. The film is drek.

Well, it's one of my favourite films (maybe my favourite sci-fi?) and I think it's arguably Nolan's best, or at least level with The Dark Knight and Inception - so we differ on that a tad.

I can give it kudos for its ambition, but its characters are dull, it's got plotholes you can drive a starship through, the sound design is awful, and the writing is 50% platitudes, 50% incoherent mumbling (it's hardly a coincidence that the best scene in the film, where Cooper is watching his son's videos, is where for once, there isn't any dialogue).

I feel it's an absolute masterpiece of sound design in particular - one of the greatest examples of sound in sci-fi contemporary or classic. They find remarkably subtle, nuanced ways to deal with the vacuum of space, imparting a sense of physicality with meticulous cuts from external to internal (or vice versa) during certain operations that would create sound. Listened to on a good set of headphones, the soundscape's absolutely incredible.

Hands down my favourite, er, launch/lift-off sequence of all time, too, given there is no bland convention catered to, i.e. remaining in a capsule for a countdown, and perhaps cutting back and forth between locations. Nolan, his editors and Zimmer instead build the entire sequence seamlessly as an emotional beat, with the inertia and momentum provided by Cooper's truck as the score rises. For me that's one of Nolan's finest sequences, and it'll likely remain so throughout his career (the [explosive] docking sequence is also phenomenal).

Interstellar arguably provided everything I could ever want from proper sci-fi, and with a sense of grandeur and humanity that I've never really seen anywhere else. In many ways it feels like a Kubrick film directed by Terrence Malick.

If you're judging Interstellar for scientific accuracy, then yes, it does fairly well there - it's at least aware of the rules of space travel (e.g. time dilation) and mostly complies to them. However, it's a work of fiction. As a work of fiction, the fiction has to come before the science.

Clearly I disagree; I believe it does what the best sci-fi should do - allow science and drama to reinforce one another. The science provides truly alien scenarios (effects of gravity/time, how a black hole could genuinely look like - with a few concessions to scale for audience readability - one of the best visual models of what a large, stable wormhole would look like, extreme tidal forces on water worlds, etc), and for me the characters and script gave a potent emotional throughline (Nolan tends to be a bit of a robotic bloke with emotionality in his films, but Interstellar's an exception).

Kip Thorne's book on the film's science (he was a producer and advisor on it. without him the film may never have even been made, at least not in its current form, given the kernal of the project came from him and a friend) is also fascinating, and makes the film even richer and more rewarding.

-I very much enjoy Battlestar Galactica, but its strengths and weaknesses are different from the issues you mention. The sound muffling is something I noticed, but it's hardly make or break for me. I highly regard BSG because it's a mix of hard sci-f on one end, and spirituality/mystique on the other, and overall, it works. Season 4 is the weakest, but for me, the reason is that it feels like two seasons compressed into one (e.g. Gaeta's mutiny barely has any buildup to it). I attribute that to the writer's strike more than anything.

Unsurprisingly, whilst I absolutely respected BSG's approach to religion and mysticism, I'd have preferred the show without most of those elements. For me it was always best when it was focusing on grounded (arf... ) material and tonality.

-Yes, space is a hostile environment, but I don't think it's beholden to the creator of a work of fiction to automatically be beholden to its limitations.

My point was more about the otherness of space. It is an alien environment - completely unrelatable to almost all humans from our beginning to right now. Why undermine it? Why ground it? Why compromise the awe inspiring reality of the cosmos to silly pew-pew's and ships banking and pitching like planes?

I'd argue it is an ignorant approach to the cosmos. Is that natural, given the level of most peoples understanding of the subject? Perhaps, and I wonder that if our species ever does spread out amongst the stars (I'm skeptical on that note), will future generations look back and see the eras of pew-pew as slightly embarrassing and delusional. In that sense I'm daft to expect anything else, but, sod it, it is what it is.

I'm fine with either option. Farscape is one such example - it acknowledges that ships can go faster than the speed of light, mentions that our understanding of the light barrier is wrong, and gets on with the story (similar to Blake's 7). I'm fine with that, because in Farscape's case, it's far more interested in telling an interesting story with interesting characters rather than using space as the be all and end all of its fiction.

Eh, I loathed Farscape (and Babylon 5), so I'm not the best person to make any comment on that show. ;-) I wonder if I'd be able to appreciate it more if I saw it now, but I'm in no rush to find out.

-My dislike of 2001 is on the same level as Interstellar, or at least, the film version. I love the book though, and I quite like 2010 (the film), but the reasons I love the book are for reasons other than scientific accuracy. The scientific accuracy is a plus, but the book manages to have engaging characters and engaging writing. Something is always happening. Even if you judge them solely based on scientific accuracy, you have to deal with the monoliths, wormholes, and space babies.

And yes, I "get" that the protagonist of 2001 is humanity itself. If you want me to describe its plot and themes, then yes, that leaves me with a lot to talk about. However, as taboo as this may be, I just find 2001 a drear to get through. I can admire it conceptually, but in terms of execution? Not so much.

Clearly it's an all time classic, but I've never been a fan of Kubrick's in general (ditto Hitchcock; they're both absolute genuises, but they gravely lack humanity when compared to someone like Kurosawa. I can only admire and respect Hitchcock and Kubrick, never love their work). I read the book as a kid, so have absolutely no memory of how it compares to the film - and I've not seen the film from start to finish for well over a decade.

I did see the first hour or so on TV a few months back and enjoyed what I saw immensely, even if it remains resolutely Kubrickian. Looking forward to seeing it on Blu-ray sometime with headphones.

 

[BoogieManFL]

Just like your playthough of Mass Effect 1 and 2 doesn't affect the ending of Mass Effect 3!

AMIRIGHT GUYS?!

 

[votemarvel]

I think that is one of the problems with the shipped endings that gets overlooked.

The game just looks at your war asset numbers and that's it. It recognises that you played but not how you played and that for me was a big disappointment.

A pure paragon or pure renegade gets the exact same conversation with the Hologram Kid, how does that make sense?

They managed it in Mass Effect 1, how you played changes how the Council or Udina speak about events after the destruction of Sovereign. Yet in the finale of the trilogy, they can't manage to change things up to even that small a degree?

The Extended Cut doesn't even change that, but at least it adds epilogue slides to you can see the results of your actions.

 

[crimsonspear4D]

Okay, the only thing I just want to know is do the REAL CHOICES in the ME trilogy matter: the Krogan genophage cure, the Quarian/Geth resolution, my FemShepard/Liara shipping damn it... will ANY of this gonna be cannon?

 

[Jute88]

i guess they will give us different coloured explosions for andromeda. maybe pink, yellow and brown.

Oh man, I don't wanna know what gives you the brown ending.

Spoilers, Shepard doesn't flush in the end.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

i guess they will give us different coloured explosions for andromeda. maybe pink, yellow and brown.

Oh man, I don't wanna know what gives you the brown ending.

Spoilers, Shepard doesn't flush in the end.

Ugh. What is it with heroes and not taking in a proper amount of soluble fiber? And I thought Wrex was bad.

 

[pookie101]

im fine with a fresh start but yeah i learnt my lesson with preordering the retail version of the collectors edition.. everything in it was a "heres a teaser now go gives us money for the full thing"

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Makes sense to me. Just think practically, you can't keep branching out forever based on previous choices. Especially when it's starting a new story, it's kind of hard to make any ME3 decisions really matter.

I think it's fair to want to start a new story with a bit more of a clean slate.

 

[ZeD [taken 0]]

All I know is that the Asari in this game apparently took a VERY different evolutionary turn.

http://i.imgur.com/cdF8z3H.png

Seriously, that is a man's face.

I don't see it.
I don't find her particularly attractive, but it's definitely a girl's face.
I'd take her over Liara's "dad".

 

[MythicMatt]

This is actually the best thing I've heard about ME:A, and it's the only confirmed information.

But, if Andromeda ends up part of a series where the final part pays as much attention to your actions as ME3, it's gonna be another shitstorm.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

All I know is that the Asari in this game apparently took a VERY different evolutionary turn.

http://i.imgur.com/cdF8z3H.png

Seriously, that is a man's face.

I don't see it.
I don't find her particularly attractive, but it's definitely a girl's face.
I'd take her over Liara's "dad".

With THAT Jawline? Good gravy man, without my bear I have a more feminine face than that!

 

[ZeD [taken 0]]

All I know is that the Asari in this game apparently took a VERY different evolutionary turn.

http://i.imgur.com/cdF8z3H.png

Seriously, that is a man's face.

I don't see it.
I don't find her particularly attractive, but it's definitely a girl's face.
I'd take her over Liara's "dad".

With THAT Jawline? Good gravy man, without my bear I have a more feminine face than that!

I honestly can't tell if you're being funny or not.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

All I know is that the Asari in this game apparently took a VERY different evolutionary turn.

http://i.imgur.com/cdF8z3H.png

Seriously, that is a man's face.

I don't see it.
I don't find her particularly attractive, but it's definitely a girl's face.
I'd take her over Liara's "dad".

With THAT Jawline? Good gravy man, without my bear I have a more feminine face than that!

I honestly can't tell if you're being funny or not.

I'm not. I even showed that pic to just about every woman I know. That is a dude's jaw.

 

[ZeD [taken 0]]

All I know is that the Asari in this game apparently took a VERY different evolutionary turn.

http://i.imgur.com/cdF8z3H.png

Seriously, that is a man's face.

I don't see it.
I don't find her particularly attractive, but it's definitely a girl's face.
I'd take her over Liara's "dad".

With THAT Jawline? Good gravy man, without my bear I have a more feminine face than that!

I honestly can't tell if you're being funny or not.

I'm not. I even showed that pic to just about every woman I know. That is a dude's jaw.

It's a coarse one, but still too soft to be a man's jaw.
Plus, every other feature is positively female.

You're exaggerating this.

 

[Street Halo]

All I know is that the Asari in this game apparently took a VERY different evolutionary turn.

Seriously, that is a man's face.

I've had this conversation elsewhere and most say she looks like the average woman and I just thank my lucky stars the average woman in Melbourne doesn't look like Shrek.