• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Mass Effect Community Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

foxtrot3d

Banned
Mar 28, 2013
9,212
0
0
Holy crap. I have to assume that many of those employees aren't developers at all, but that's still massive. Did they grow their staff like crazy after the EA acquisition, or were they big even when they were independent?
Well you're forgetting the amount of studios BioWare has, there is BioWare Edmonton, Montreal, and Austin, plus they acquired Victory Games studios. Thrown in an HR department for everyone and I think 800 seems about right.

Ah, you mean Rodam Expeditions? I know that place! It's Shepard's favorite!
He named his first son after me, or at least he said he would, he better (assuming he wasn't turned into Reaper sludge).
 

DOWN

Junior Member
Aug 2, 2011
24,378
6
835
EAST COAST, USA
Really? I've only ever heard it called Mass Effect 4... pretty generic considering it's starting a new storyline.
They said it isn't called Mass Effect 4. The game hasn't been officially revealed yet. Expect the name to come in whatever magazine or teaser they choose to announce with.
 
Apr 18, 2007
13,104
495
1,220
Something I've been wondering... you know one of the music that plays on the barren planets on Mass Effect 1?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTIyliInJPY

I've played ME1 on PC a lot of time, but never heard the bit after the first minute. Was it only on the 360 version?
I've played it on the 360 and PC. I don't remember that second part at all, it almost sound like it should be a different song. Maybe it was cut down in the game? But left it in for the sound track (I have it and its there).
 
Nov 11, 2014
2,889
0
0
Something I've been wondering... you know one of the music that plays on the barren planets on Mass Effect 1?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTIyliInJPY

I've played ME1 on PC a lot of time, but never heard the bit after the first minute. Was it only on the 360 version?
I'm not 100% certain, but I'm pretty sure that played for me when I was doing the "Find Liara" mission. In particular, the Geth Colossus fight. 360 player here btw.
 

foxtrot3d

Banned
Mar 28, 2013
9,212
0
0
I'm not 100% certain, but I'm pretty sure that played for me when I was doing the "Find Liara" mission. In particular, the Geth Colossus fight. 360 player here btw.
Yup, I've played Mass Effect way TOO MANY times (actually replaying ME2 right now), that first part plays during Liara's mission. I don't think I've ever heard the second part.

Pathfinder might be a legit subtitle tho.
That seems likely. However, I do have to say the idea of exploring a whole new galaxy really doesn't appeal to me so I kinda hope the rumors arent true. The Milky Way is fuckin MASSIVE, so I hope "Pathfinder" refers to opening new Relays into different parts of the galaxy and contacting newer species. Afterall, less than 1% of the galaxy had been explored during the original trilogy.
 

DOWN

Junior Member
Aug 2, 2011
24,378
6
835
EAST COAST, USA
That seems likely. However, I do have to say the idea of exploring a whole new galaxy really doesn't appeal to me so I kinda hope the rumors arent true. The Milky Way is fuckin MASSIVE, so I hope "Pathfinder" refers to opening new Relays into different parts of the galaxy and contacting newer species. Afterall, less than 1% of the galaxy had been explored during the original trilogy.
This is the most arbitrary complaint I've seen about the new game. As if we need them to create a hypothetical 100% of the Milky Way before they're allowed to make hypothetical locations of another galaxy that is relayed to.

Why the opposition to a new galaxy? It's not like there were many real places in the supposed 1% of the Milky Way that is known in canon. And it's not like they have much choice in whether they find a jump that links to a different galaxy. The places they travel in the original trilogy were largely discovered because of where the relays decided to throw them.

Seriously, the only think bothering people about this is that they may be told that some of the locations are in a different galaxy. That's it. It's not like you would know any other way since ME locations are made up places. The only reason we know somewhere like Illium or Omega were places we were traveling in the same galaxy was because they said so. There's nothing different creatively about making up locations that the game will say are in the Milky Way vs. whatever new galaxy may be available for relay.

And they're never going to try and make 100% of the Milky Way (aka they are never going to attempt dragging us and themselves to video game hell), so why even mention the supposed percentage they say was known during our jump travels in the original trilogy? It's not a continuous travel game, nor will it ever be, so there's no reason to complain about where the game claims you've jumped to as if one style of jump from the originals is realistic in the first place.
 

Bornstellar

Member
Jan 18, 2012
7,361
0
0
Playing through the trilogy again, ME3 for the second time.

It's pretty good, but I feel like it's missing a sense of urgency as compared to the first two games. Which is weird considering the events in the game.
 

DOWN

Junior Member
Aug 2, 2011
24,378
6
835
EAST COAST, USA
Playing through the trilogy again, ME3 for the second time.

It's pretty good, but I feel like it's missing a sense of urgency as compared to the first two games. Which is weird considering the events in the game.
I think ME 1 handled urgency/exploration balance the best by far. Saren was both an immediate threat, but also a covert one. It was in the nature of going after him that you were going to have to test the waters and search around.

The main campaign planets were all given a sort of guised tie to Saren so you could explore around without having to feel like you were neglecting major trouble. All you knew was that his associate was seen on Noveria, Liara on Feros, etc. They made sure it was indirect threats in many cases so that you had a sense of investigation and hunting.

ME2 and 3 were a bit more direct in making you feel like the exploration contradicted the main threats, with supposedly thousands dying at predictable locations if you were slow.
 

DOWN

Junior Member
Aug 2, 2011
24,378
6
835
EAST COAST, USA
Mass Effect : Arkcon

http://8pic.ir/images/850p3l0vmfaefbuhltfp.jpg[/IG]
[IMG]http://8pic.ir/images/3syxo9uyg7i19orbqjnw.jpg[/IG][/QUOTE]

That is a terrible name. It's a poorly constructed word. Double hard k sounds are bad. ARK-KON. Gotta stop the tongue and reset to get the immediate second hard K sound out.

Arkon would be smoother, but I don't suspect we know the title yet regardless.
 

foxtrot3d

Banned
Mar 28, 2013
9,212
0
0
This is the most arbitrary complaint I've seen about the new game. As if we need them to create a hypothetical 100% of the Milky Way before they're allowed to make hypothetical locations of another galaxy that is relayed to.

Why the opposition to a new galaxy? It's not like there were many real places in the supposed 1% of the Milky Way that is known in canon. And it's not like they have much choice in whether they find a jump that links to a different galaxy. The places they travel in the original trilogy were largely discovered because of where the relays decided to throw them.

Seriously, the only think bothering people about this is that they may be told that some of the locations are in a different galaxy. That's it. It's not like you would know any other way since ME locations are made up places. The only reason we know somewhere like Illium or Omega were places we were traveling in the same galaxy was because they said so. There's nothing different creatively about making up locations that the game will say are in the Milky Way vs. whatever new galaxy may be available for relay.

And they're never going to try and make 100% of the Milky Way (aka they are never going to attempt dragging us and themselves to video game hell), so why even mention the supposed percentage they say was known during our jump travels in the original trilogy? It's not a continuous travel game, nor will it ever be, so there's no reason to complain about where the game claims you've jumped to as if one style of jump from the originals is realistic in the first place.
Why you ask, I'll tell you, it breaks my immersion. I ask what is the point of allowing us to explore a new galaxy? Simple, to allow us to explore new worlds. Okay, how is that already not easily accomplished within our own galaxy? We've barely even scratched the surface of the know Mass Effect universe, that is to say the known races, and now theoretically they want to add in a whole other galaxy. Why? Do people understand how MASSIVE a galaxy is? I've never believed they would ever make "100% of the Milky Way," but the massive nature of galaxies meant that BioWare allowed for endless expansion of the ME universe within the Milky Way. There is absolutely no need whatsoever to drop another galaxy on top of the Milky Way.

This also reminds me of a small thing that bugged me about "Interstellar," (Minor Spoilers)
the wormhole allows them to travel to a different galaxy to search for a habitable world and again I was left wondering, why? Why couldn't it lead to other systems within our own galaxy, why add in another galaxy into the mix? Plus, the movie is called "Interstellar" (as in traveling between stars) traveling to another galaxy means the movie should technically be "Intergalactic."
 

VisceralBowl

Member
Sep 30, 2012
7,384
1
490
earth
That is a terrible name. It's a poorly constructed word. Double hard k sounds are bad. ARK-KON. Gotta stop the tongue and reset to get the immediate second hard K sound out.

Arkon would be smoother, but I don't suspect we know the title yet regardless.
Arkcon is an acronym.
 

DOWN

Junior Member
Aug 2, 2011
24,378
6
835
EAST COAST, USA
Arkcon is an acronym.
I assumed so lol. But like SPECTRE, it is also intended to be pronounced.
Why you ask, I'll tell you, it breaks my immersion. I ask what is the point of allowing us to explore a new galaxy? Simple, to allow us to explore new worlds. Okay, how is that already not easily accomplished within our own galaxy? We've barely even scratched the surface of the know Mass Effect universe, that is to say the known races, and now theoretically they want to add in a whole other galaxy. Why? Do people understand how MASSIVE a galaxy is? I've never believed they would ever make "100% of the Milky Way," but the massive nature of galaxies meant that BioWare allowed for endless expansion of the ME universe within the Milky Way. There is absolutely no need whatsoever to drop another galaxy on top of the Milky Way.

This also reminds me of a small thing that bugged me about "Interstellar," (Minor Spoilers)
the wormhole allows them to travel to a different galaxy to search for a habitable world and again I was left wondering, why? Why couldn't it lead to other systems within our own galaxy, why add in another galaxy into the mix? Plus, the movie is called "Interstellar" (as in traveling between stars) traveling to another galaxy means the movie should technically be "Intergalactic."
Okay so it is as arbitrary as I said. You acknowledge they'd never be showing us that much of the Milky Way because it's just massive and realistically we'll only ever see made up pinpoints, yet you are saying their made up jump technology isn't allowed to send anyone to a neighboring Galaxy for more made up pinpoints because that would break immersion.

Despite the fact that most of the Milky Way isn't ever realistically explorable and the game centers around these jump relays, you don't think they should be allowed to jump around space as far as another galaxy. You know there's no intention to expansively explore the Milky Way in the grand scale, yet those places we'll never see are reason not to let them imagine a future where we visit another galaxy.
 

Mindlog

Member
Aug 31, 2007
21,002
0
0
www.youtube.com
I'm not 100% certain, but I'm pretty sure that played for me when I was doing the "Find Liara" mission. In particular, the Geth Colossus fight. 360 player here btw.
I was also certain about it so I found video proof. I thought it was a pretty common combat stinger.

As far as the title goes.
Mass Effect: Vanguard
Same theme as pathfinder and whatnot, but might as well name it after the best class in the game.
 

Bornstellar

Member
Jan 18, 2012
7,361
0
0
Just finished Rannoch. Rewrote the heretics and Tali was exiled so I wasn't able to convince the fleet to back down like I was able to my first time round.

Tali....

:'(
 

EatChildren

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Jan 29, 2008
36,153
3
0
Australia
Just finished Rannoch. Rewrote the heretics and Tali was exiled so I wasn't able to convince the fleet to back down like I was able to my first time round.

Tali....

:'(
Space gypsies are nothing but trouble anyway.
 

EatChildren

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Jan 29, 2008
36,153
3
0
Australia
Making peace there shouldn't have been an option anyways.
It happens about a bit too quickly, but the dichotomy of peace divided between Tali and Legion is fairly well done I think, across the games. Tali is one of the few characters that, based on your conversations and her interactions, can show real growth and development within the narrative. Young, naive and fanatical, given a bit of worldliness and perspective and sees the errors of what she learned and what her people taught. It sells her character very well. Meanwhile Legion provides some necessary perspective on the Geth as a sentient species and becomes arguably one of the most important figures in Tali's life.

It's a shame BioWare had to ham it up with a dumb pinocchio climax to the Geth, and made Legion a last minute optional character to Mass Effect 2 despite having arguably the most intriguing exposition of all companions across the three games. But, you know. BioWare gonna BioWare.
 

Daemul

Member
Jan 26, 2014
6,651
0
0
Just finished Rannoch. Rewrote the heretics and Tali was exiled so I wasn't able to convince the fleet to back down like I was able to my first time round.

Tali....

:'(
Don't worry, I had the heretics rewritten and Tali exiled in my main save as well , so she and her people had to go.

RIP

Making peace there shouldn't have been an option anyways.
I never even knew that peace was possible until months after I had finished ME3. I played default Shepard first, where peace was impossible, then I imported my main Shepard into ME3, and like I said above peace was also impossible, so I just assumed that you could never have both. It was something which I was very happy with, because it meant Bioware had finally decided to follow up on their promises of "hard choices" they made before ME1 released.

You can probably guess that I was extremely disappointed to find out this wasn't the case, and that Bioware, had once again bottled it.
 

Bisnic

Really Really Exciting Member!
Dec 5, 2008
21,751
0
920
Tuchanka
Don't worry, I had the heretics rewritten and Tali exiled in my main save as well , so she and her people had to go.

RIP



I never even knew that peace was possible until months after I had finished ME3. I played default Shepard first, where peace was impossible, then I imported my main Shepard into ME3, and like I said above peace was also impossible, so I just assumed that you could never have both. It was something which I was very happy with, because it meant Bioware had finally decided to follow up on their promises of "hard choices" they made before ME1 released.

You can probably guess that I was extremely disappointed to find out this wasn't the case, and that Bioware, had once again bottled it.
I'm not sure I understand your disappointment simply because the peace option does exist. Unless you've made a perfect trilogy run, you won't get it. If you made a(or multiple) wrong decision in the past, it could make the peace option impossible. It's still "hard choices", no? You made a mistake, and an alien race will be wiped.

It's a bit the same thing with the option of keeping Mordin alive. Most of people will see him die, but with the "right" past decisions, you can manage to convince him that curing the genophage is wrong and to flee. Your "hard choices" actually kept your friend alive, at the cost of the krogans not being cured.
 

Ralemont

not me
Mar 26, 2014
7,293
0
0
You can probably guess that I was extremely disappointed to find out this wasn't the case, and that Bioware, had once again bottled it.
Similar to finding out you can use the Circle to save Connor and Isolde in Origins, for me. Which is funny since David Gaider (lead DA writer) was spot on in suggesting ME3's Rannoch peace doesn't gel with the rest of the game, especially the ending.

Still, I don't think I'd want to give Rannoch peace up because it's actually a great example of how you can do an arc across multiple games that meaningfully incorporates previous choices.
 

WanderingWind

Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Feb 4, 2009
34,666
0
0
I'm not sure I understand your disappointment simply because the peace option does exist. Unless you've made a perfect trilogy run, you won't get it. If you made a(or multiple) wrong decision in the past, it could make the peace option impossible. It's still "hard choices", no? You made a mistake, and an alien race will be wiped.

It's a bit the same thing with the option of keeping Mordin alive. Most of people will see him die, but with the "right" past decisions, you can manage to convince him that curing the genophage is wrong and to flee. Your "hard choices" actually kept your friend alive, at the cost of the krogans not being cured.
But the hell with the Krogans, tbh.
 

foxtrot3d

Banned
Mar 28, 2013
9,212
0
0
Similar to finding out you can use the Circle to save Connor and Isolde in Origins, for me. Which is funny since David Gaider (lead DA writer) was spot on in suggesting ME3's Rannoch peace doesn't gel with the rest of the game, especially the ending.

Still, I don't think I'd want to give Rannoch peace up because it's actually a great example of how you can do an arc across multiple games that meaningfully incorporates previous choices.
This is absolutely true, while I still think the Synthetics v. Organics theme/reason for everything is retarded, I would have been more warm to it had I not just created peace between the Quarian and Geth. When Star Child is there babbling about the inevitability of conflict between Synthetics and Organics I kept wanting to scream at him, "LOOK right over there idiot, Geth and Quarians fighting together." But, alas it is of no use. The same weirdness happens right after you achieve peace on Rannoch and speak to the Reaper, you tell him "Synthetics and Organics don't have to kill each other." The statement itself is pretty weird since we know at that point that Reapers are half organic, but regardless the Reaper replies along the lines "observe the efforts to maintain control," referring to the planet Rannoch. And again, I'm standing there like "ughh yeah, I just achieved peace so it seems our efforts paid off."

I prefer being able to make peace along with all the other outcomes but the ending really destroys the peace option.
 

Ralemont

not me
Mar 26, 2014
7,293
0
0
I prefer being able to make peace along with all the other outcomes but the ending really destroys the peace option.
Well, I'll actually backtrack and say that the Rannoch peace makes perfect sense if you pick Control. It wouldn't have happened without Shepard forcing it to happen, so a Control Shepard does make sense there.

In many ways the Control ending is just what Shepard has been doing the whole series taken to its extreme. Had the game let you openly support and work with the Illusive Man's plans you might even call it a coherent playthrough.
 

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,599
1,846
755
Well, I'll actually backtrack and say that the Rannoch peace makes perfect sense if you pick Control. It wouldn't have happened without Shepard forcing it to happen, so a Control Shepard does make sense there.

In many ways the Control ending is just what Shepard has been doing the whole series taken to its extreme. Had the game let you openly support and work with the Illusive Man's plans you might even call it a coherent playthrough.
This makes sense I think.

Though I still vehemently disagree with the post you quoted on the whole... basically a variation on the xzibit "yo dawg" meme. One conflict settled by Shepard doesn't necessarily trump a million years of (potential) evidence the Reapers may have regarding why they do what they do. (Just because the game doesn't spell that out for us doesn't make the xzibit argument automatically valid.)

That said, I'm on record as disliking the endings/starchild/etc for various other reasons.
 

Ralemont

not me
Mar 26, 2014
7,293
0
0
This makes sense I think.

Though I still vehemently disagree with the post you quoted on the whole... basically a variation on the xzibit "yo dawg" meme. One conflict settled by Shepard doesn't necessarily trump a million years of (potential) evidence the Reapers may have regarding why they do what they do. (Just because the game doesn't spell that out for us doesn't make the xzibit argument automatically valid.)

That said, I'm on record as disliking the endings/starchild/etc for various other reasons.
No, I'm with you. I dislike the ending but it's not because the Catalyst's reasoning is flawed. The yo dawg meme has always been stupid and wrong.

I also don't think the Destroy ending is meant to represent synthetics and organics can't get along. Rather if you listen to what the Catalyst says, he frames it in a way that makes it sound like he believes the player is picking Destroy because he or she believes the cycle can be broken ("the chaos will return!"). Of course, they needed some narrative hostage to try and force the player to consider the other endings, so they decided the Crucible beam destroys all synthetics instead of just Reapers. I don't think it occurred to them that the player would interpret this as "the Catalyst is right in what he says," which speaks to the lack of peer review on the ending.
 

Maledict

Member
Feb 16, 2013
8,780
1
0
To be fair, I don't think peoples issues with the Destroy option were that they believed the Crucible - I certainly didn't, and no-one I know did. It was clearly talking gibberish hogwash because it's a broken genocidal AI. People disliked destroy because of the death of EDI and the Geth - a *totally* unnecessary FU to players to try and make the ending more of a choice than it was.

Partly that's because of the clusterfuck that is the ending overall though. Rather than stick to the genre, they tried a massive tonal shift in the last 15 minutes (Star Wars to 2001) and it utterly failed. Instead of destroy being the easiest ending to unlock, and synthesis the hardest, it should have gone:



Easy option: Control. You're losing badly against the reapers, life is facing extinction. You make it to the crucible, and in a desperate race for time your only option is to take over the machines and stop the slaughter. The galaxy is saved, but you have an ancient fleet of god like power still around under the control of Shepherd who becomes more and more isolated from humanity.

Middle option: Synthesis. With greater force behind you, you carve out enough time for a full assault against the reapers and take the crucible. Using the technology in there, you alter the reapers on a galactic scale so they understand organic life, bringing some of the chaos and uncertainty that organic life brings to their systems. The galaxy is saved, but the Reapers remain an existant threat - no longer united, but each still capable of destroying worlds.

Best option: Destroy, a.k.a. "Get the hell out of our galaxy". By doing something that has never happened before, and building on the knowledge and legacy of the Protheans, you unite all the races of the galaxy. Working together as one on a galactic scale, you fight the reapers to a temporary standstill, and then assault the crucible. With the force of a dozen major species, and ships from every race in known space behind you, you uncover the key to ending the Reaper threat once and for all. The reapers are destroyed and the galaxy can, for the first time in 2 million years, forge its own future free of the technology and interference from ancient gods.


(Could swap control and synthesis round actually. Synthesis I struggle with because the option presented in game remains, to me, the most morally appalling choice out of all of them and I just cannot see any possibility of *any* Shepherd, Paragon or renegade, choosing to alter the basic building blocks of life at a fundamental level for every single living thing in the galaxy without their permission),
 

Ralemont

not me
Mar 26, 2014
7,293
0
0
I don't really have an issue with permission. I'm being trusted by the galaxy to end the Reaper war, and the alternative - as far as the galaxy knows - is utter destruction. If they'd prefer I go around and get everyone to sign waivers before the assault on Earth about how and why I end the apocalypse they can eff off.
 

Maledict

Member
Feb 16, 2013
8,780
1
0
But it isn't ultimate destruction. We know that most life will survive. In terms of morals, I absolutely believe I would rather die than do what synthesis did to everyone. Beings on planets no-where near interstellar travel suddenly finding out their toaster has feelings and they have to charge up at a plug socket every morning?

Heck, I don't think many of *my* companions would agree with that choice never mind the rest of the galaxy.

But then again, I always chose destruction even with EDI / the Geth dying. When we went into this fight it was with the knowledge some wouldn't make it through, and I was ready and willing to kill off humanity itself if it ended the Reaper cycle once and for all. everything considered, in pure utilitarian terms, EDI + the Geth is not a bad loss. I also, absolutely, think that EDI and the Geth would have agreed with that given the choice.
 

Ralemont

not me
Mar 26, 2014
7,293
0
0
But it isn't ultimate destruction. We know that most life will survive.
To be harvested in the next cycle.

EDI and the geth would absolutely not prefer Destroy over Synthesis. There's nothing in the game that supports this and the epilogues for Synthesis (as well as the way EDI and the geth behave during the series) contradict it.

I don't care what my companions think. This was never a democracy. Viewpoints change as well: Ask Tali in ME1 and Tali in ME3 and you might get 2 different answers.
 

Maledict

Member
Feb 16, 2013
8,780
1
0
But again, I utterly refute the synthesis option because it is the most insane, stupid ending to any game I have ever played - and the fact we know the reasoning behind it (LOTS OF SPECULATION!) shows that the designers put as much thought into it as I did rejecting it.

And re harvesting, lets remember the timescales here. 50K years is a long time. Entire species, races and empires will rise and fall in that time. If in our galaxy right now this happened, it would have absolutely no impact on us or anyone we met or any descendants of ours for multiple generations.

The objections remain - I think fundamentally changing every single lifeform (not even sentient species!) is a monstrous act beyond anything else possible. If you honestly think that's better than the option of shooting space ghost in the head and then letting the *next* cycle destroy the reapers then I think we're just coming at it from a completely different moral viewpoint.
 

Schreckstoff

Banned
Nov 5, 2014
403
0
0
Anyone else have specific world states in mind they tend to recreate with a ME trilogy on next gen?

I'm still planning to make a Shepard Lives playthrough

  • Shepard alive at the end of 3
  • Mordin Solus alive
  • Jacob Dead
  • Zaeed dead
  • Ashley and Kaidan dead
  • A Human council
  • Rachni alive
  • bunch of other stuff I can't remember atm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.