Dave Taste Tests Some Russian Wines

[oledavy]

Shamus Young of "DM of the Rings" has a great critical analysis of the Mass Effect games on his site: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=27792 (warning: 50 parts long). I highly recommend it, if you're interested in game design and storytelling. One major thing he asserts (which I had felt myself but could rarely find someone to agree with me) is that the story went off the rails in 2 moreso than it did in 3: that's where the real structural flaws were introduced (Cerberus retcon, a wild shift in tone and stakes from ME1, all your efforts ultimately just leaving you where ME1 ended, just to name a few).

Also, I went hunting and found your PBEM38 thread, and the first page made me laugh enough that I'm saving it to archive binge later. That sort of player profile seems like the best gift you can give your opponents in a community like this. If you don't want to repeat pindicator too much, maybe "unloved franchise elements"? Scrappy Doo, Wesley Crusher, Turian Councilor... :P

(god I hope Andromeda doesn't suck)

Still waiting on my civ selection to do a thread title.

I did start reading Shamus's writings today.

And I have to say, its making me want to go with a ME naming scheme again, just for nostalgia's sake.

No though, that being said, (and with the caveat that I have not read it all yet), I find his points very compelling.

It actually exposed an internal inconsistency for me, as I think of myself who loves details-first style sci-fi. My first act on hearing about a new movie/book/video game with a sci-fi setting is to find a wiki explanation of the media's universe and devour it all. I really like discovering fleshed-out worlds, and few things make me happier than ones that maintain a high degree of internal consistency (ASOIAF, for one).

That being said, with the ME series, I just remember being annoyed with gameplay for most of the first game, despite liking the story.

I think he answers this question for me in his discussions of ME2, in that a lot of the game is devoted to recruitment and loyalty missions. Some of my favorite moments from the game were Tali's loyalty mission, or the mission to recruit Garrus. I don't like RPG-style combat systems. I keep trying to play Transistor - which I love for it's art-style, humor, and music - but I can't get past the fact that combat in that game feels like a chore to me. ME2's much-improved combat system made the core gameplay loop significantly more enjoyable for me. I would be more forgiving of ME1's combat if combat wasn't such a big portion of the game. I remember thinking at the time that the core plot (Cerberus made no sense to me) and the ending (human reaper?!?!) was dopey, but was willing to accept it with a hand-wave that it might be elaborated on in the third game. So, in that, I would agree that the problems do begin here.

But in conclusion, why I remember ME2 most fondly is because 75% of the game was spent on character missions that I really enjoyed, and the improved combat meant the core gameplay loop was more enjoyable for me. Enjoyable so much that I could forgive the hackneyed plot and count on ME3 to sort out its issues.

Except it didn't

Also, as an aside, I really liked his breakdown of the tension in the Reaper's creation - stuck halfway between Star Trek and Lovecraft. One of my problems with the ending was that I (thought?) I never wanted to know why the reapers did what they did. I would just rather it be "beyond our comprehension." I do think now though, upon considering some of his points, that would have wound up being equally unsatisfying. Perhaps there was not completely satisfying way to resolve what the reapers were in a genre-crossing project like ME.

[picklepikkl]

I know I'm in the minority on this, but I found the Star Child's explanation pretty satisfactory. This is probably because I'd been exposed to the notion of unfriendly AIs, like paperclip maximizers, well before playing Mass Effect, and so finding out that that this was all the result of a primordial civilization messing up the utility function on the genie they built made a lot of sense to me and neatly brought together both the Lovecraft and Star Trek strands of the story. I don't, however, think writing directly to people who read a lot of Yudkowsky in the late aughts is a good choice for a major franchise.

And yes, I hate RPG-style combat systems, and ME1's inventory management made me actively miserable. ME2's storytelling and themes are terrible, but everyone remembers it fondly because of the emphasis on interesting and awesome characters whose own stories went through arcs with satisfying resolutions (THANE IS MY HUSBANDO), so the fact that Shepard's own story went kind of nowhere wasn't as obvious. I'm glad you're digging the Shamus posts, in any case .

A Mass Effect naming theme would be fun! I expect you'd start with The Citadel, then the capital worlds of the various Council races, then other interesting planets as strikes your fancy? Or would you do a human-focused ME scheme?

[oledavy]

I know I'm in the minority on this, but I found the Star Child's explanation pretty satisfactory. This is probably because I'd been exposed to the notion of unfriendly AIs, like paperclip maximizers, well before playing Mass Effect, and so finding out that that this was all the result of a primordial civilization messing up the utility function on the genie they built made a lot of sense to me and neatly brought together both the Lovecraft and Star Trek strands of the story. I don't, however, think writing directly to people who read a lot of Yudkowsky in the late aughts is a good choice for a major franchise.

And yes, I hate RPG-style combat systems, and ME1's inventory management made me actively miserable. ME2's storytelling and themes are terrible, but everyone remembers it fondly because of the emphasis on interesting and awesome characters whose own stories went through arcs with satisfying resolutions (THANE IS MY HUSBANDO), so the fact that Shepard's own story went kind of nowhere wasn't as obvious. I'm glad you're digging the Shamus posts, in any case .

A Mass Effect naming theme would be fun! I expect you'd start with The Citadel, then the capital worlds of the various Council races, then other interesting planets as strikes your fancy? Or would you do a human-focused ME scheme?

If I'd spent a lot of time reading Asimov per say, I might have been more accepting of the idea. I'll even accept it as a potentially good motivation for the Reapers. I feel like why I didn't like it as an explanation (besides my preference for something more Lovecraftian) was that the series didn't really build up synthetic/organic conflict as being a defining feature for the universe. The explanation comes a little out of left field. While obviously you have the Geth-Quarian conflict and some stuff with EDI, it doesn't seem to be an in-universe focus. I think perhaps if we'd had one more sub-plot over the trilogy that dealt with synthetic/organic issues, it would have been more set up and felt more earned. That could have even been a fun conversation with Star Child

"Conflict is inevitable"
"We resolved Geth-Quarian and the Blank/Blank conflicts peacefully"
"Don't delude yourself into thinking they'll last"
etc.

It could also be better teased in the way that a possible Krogan regression to trying to take over the galaxy is. But Legion and EDI are both just so goddamn likable and well-intentioned, I don't think any player really ever feared them acting in a way the Reapers decided is inevitable.

As an aside, I think Star Child was a great design for the 'head Reaper AI.' It creates a great juxtaposition with the menacing Sovereign hologram in ME1.

No though, it also might be I'm a little fatigued by "Evil robots rise up and kill us all" storylines. I find it more refreshing when a series like Halo, for example, has a more optimistic take on the notion of AIs.

The Shamus posts are a lot of fun! I'll let you know when I finish.

If I do end up using a ME theme, I would probably use most of the names I used in PBEM38:

The Citadel
Thessia
Palaven
Sur'Kesh
etc.

Maybe throw in some mission world names. Wouldn't need too many, since Civ 5 features less cities per civ.

At the very least, I'm putting Thessia in a better place this time

[picklepikkl]

I feel bad about having completely derailed your thread into ME discussion; glad it seems the game is moving forward a little, at least to the point of letting you think about civs.

One quick final note: I completely agree that the Star Child's explanation of its utility function failed horribly if you resolved Geth-Quarian conflict and didn't get the chance to point it out. This is a case of not having their ducks in a row in advance, I think; the second game in particular does a lot to disrupt the notion that synthetic-biological conflict is inevitable.

[oledavy]

I feel bad about having completely derailed your thread into ME discussion; glad it seems the game is moving forward a little, at least to the point of letting you think about civs.

Don't sweat it, gave us something to talk about here while waiting for civs to roll #Winningthepostcount

And I'll probably post more thoughts as I go through the Shamus article, I don't mind having a couple discussions going on in this thread.

For now though, the civ choices:

Assyria, Russia, Ottomans

[oledavy]

Okay, stream of consciousness thoughts on the picks I have available (will probably talk about other's options as well at some point).

Assyrians would be hella fun. Lately, I've been a lot more buildery in my 4X games/board games, but I would be down for breaking character and trying something else out.

I don't see many good reasons to pick Russia. Their UA is best used to exploit AIs for gold. Cossacks are nice but late, and the Krepost is just really meh.

Whereas Assyrians would have me go try and attack someone early with Siege Towers, if I were to play the Ottomans I would be emphasizing building an angry swarm of triremes and galleys early. Janns and Sipahis come later, but are both really fun. Janns are one of the better UUs in the game imho.

When I was thinking of civs I wanted to play, I was honestly kinda hoping I would get Ottomans. I love the idea of farming barb camps for boats and having a huge ancient era navy to throw around. The gameplan here would be to exert pressure early on with my navy, then if no opening appears before gunpowder, go hell to leather with Jannisaries and try to take over the world.

So, I'm going to have to be aggressive this game, and it comes down to being aggressive early or being aggressive later. Going to ponder this for awhile.

Rest assured though lurkers, there will be blood (which would be a welcome change after how placid PBEMs 1 & 2 were for me. Although watch Chumchu start us lightyears apart....

[oledavy]

I'm going to boot up Civ 5 and give the Assyrians a try tonight if I have a moment before I go to bed. At the moment, I think I'm going to make my decision based on the starting screenshot:

1)If coastal or option available for strong coastal capital -> Ottomans
2)If no water -> Assyrians

[Commodore]

I instinctively knew I should have turned off the Xbox and removed the disk for ME3 when Shepherd and Anderson were bleeding out to the sounds of the Citadel powering up; fade to black, fin. Alas...

Shamus is pretty spot-on in his analysis; ME2/3 went back in time and wrecked the first. It's a bummer, but ah well. Back to the Golden Age game of choice for replaying...

[oledavy]

I have half a mind now to pick Assyria, go with a 'Reaper'/Lovecraft theme, and just play the entire game basically AW.

Going honor, barb hunting, bullying city states, trying to raze players' cities constantly. Maybe not the winning-est strategy, but it sounds kinda fun....

We'll see what the starting screenshot shows us this weekend.

[Jowy]

I liked Mass Effect 3 :< (or, at least, don't think it's as bad as popular opinion would have it).

But, then, I also feel the same way about Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions, so what do I know.

Mass Effect 3 was a good game, best of the trilogy. People just buy too much into the marketing hype, then get mad when the video game is just a video game. See also: No Man's Sky.