Mass Effect General Discussion (spoilers)

(I do apologize for posting a hell of a TL;DR-worthy page topper).

For me, the most a reviewer can do if they dislike something that I'm fond of is cause me to realize, "Huh, never noticed (Plot hole/ other issue) was here before, I must concede you may have at the very least one semi-decent point," but I don't end up hating it all of a sudden (same goes for liking stuff). For me, aside from The Lore and whatnot, observing the mechanics was surprisingly a major factor in influencing my opinion of each part of the Mass Effect trilogy.

Mass Effect 1 to me felt like it had bits of early installment weirdness I knew Bioware tended to have. It felt like they were still stuck in KOTOR while trying to offer a third person shooter, which isn't necessarily a bad thing but their common pitfalls at the time were still there (Possibility of perpetually-looped dialogue, awkward movement, really fixed dialogue trees). Another thing I noticed was the insanely large amount of stats one could invest in, including the ones that would have very little to do with one's own class, which is great for people who are into mixing it up a bit and trying to "Multi-class", but some parts seemed redundant. Fortunately it was good enough for me to get invested. (Another thing was the class I chose forced me to get REALLY well acquainted with both my powers and my pistol. Imagine the When All You Have Is a Hammer… scenario, only with handguns. Kind of fecking hilarious to take down heavy foes wielding rocket launchers with a single handgun, some tech and biotic powers.)

Mass Effect 2 didn't feel so much like a sequel as it did a massive expansion pack. I mean yes the story did continue in chronological order, many past actions affecting it to some extent, but it felt like the "Story of 1000 Sidequests" (Which I went out of my way to complete most of for the XP). At this point I admired that they tried to fix and change the mechanics, but it seemed like they went a little too far with a significant reduction in abilities to choose from. To me whatever message they were trying to get across worked mostly well, as I went very much out of my way to try and strive for the best ending, and had two casualties in the end (Miranda which I didn't give two spits about, and Grunt which was rather..inconvenient as it screwed up a part I felt I had to make a hasty decision on in the third game as a result.)

Mass Effect 3...I'm not finished with it. Surprisingly the backlash against certain parts of it didn't discourage me completely. Then again I found it absurd I felt forced to obtain both the Extended Cut and Citadel DL Cs to make it feel like it sucks less (Thank goodness the former is free.) I feel like ME 3's mechanics were a compromise of the previous two games, feeling more like an RPG with elements of Gears Of War. I'm not quite done with it yet, will be eventually but so far the only person I've lost so far that I cared about was Mordin (in the honorable way at least.)

edited 25th May '15 8:42:09 AM by ParadoxialStratagem

Mind if I ask how did you handle Tali and Legion's loyalty missions?

Also, found this, and I can say I give my aproval.

The defenses and precautions are one thing but Anderson outright says the geth aren't the bogeymen they used to be. They certainly don't present a big enough fear factor to cow the other species into accepting what is essentially a human coup.

Control of C-Sec doesn't mean control of the station or the Council, they are other factors that would make human only rule impossible. Humanity simply lacks the political clout to make that happen. If the humans truly took over the Council it would effectively delegitimize the entire political structure of Council Space.

I am liking that link so far.

Most of that was made before 3, and that means extra points.

Actual political science is almost completely ignored in Mass Effect and replaced with guesswork and cliché. It's difficult to get a good reading on political situations in the game because the story simply treats it as a plot device that Shepard must overcome.

And yeah, renegade decisions seem to be actively discouraged in Mass Effect as a trilogy, which seems counter to the entire idea of giving player choice.

EDIT: I like that design for female salarians. I'm not sure if it's canon that female salarians are taller than males, since we don't see a female salarian and a male salarian next to each other, but I do like the headcanon.

edited 25th May '15 10:19:38 AM by CalamityJane

At some point, the Council would have returned. They're called Council Species for a reason.

You know, that deviantart reminded me of one thing:

Why the heck quarians were in fan art portrayed with purple skin just because purple is color of Tali's visor?

Well, I would expect Salarian females to be taller than the males (and more robust as well). After all, sexual dimorphism is quite noticeable in real species that exhibit that kind of sexual determination◊ (workers are females unable to reach sexual maturity IIRC).

EDIT: I guess purple is associated with quarians. I for one tend to think gray would be a more appropiate choice, but, then again, I played quite a bit of Skyrim before starting with ME, and may have made some subconscious connection to a certain character of that game.

edited 25th May '15 10:27:22 AM by Eriorguez

I'm not sure insects are good comparison when talking about reptilian-ish aliens

Haplo-diplo sexual determination is straight out of bees, and chromosomic count tends to influence the size and fitness of the adult individual.

Would that mean salarians have drone females who don't reproduce but are still socially female? Or are all males simultaneously workers and all females queens?

^^I'm pretty sure there is non insect hive related sexual determination that fits the bill If I only remembered where in tumblr that picture where there are several of them caricatured existed...

In bees, drones are male, workers are female. Salarians seem to have drones that double as workers, and seem to not quite adhere to eusocial societies. I'd like to see more about how their social dynamics work, because, even if they have a 9:1 sexual rate, that still means a billion females in Sur'Kesh, and that the males are not as expendable nor the females as precious.

Haplodiploidy also means that females are more closely related to their sisters than to their sons, so it is a very good eusocializing tool.

edited 25th May '15 10:58:58 AM by Eriorguez

In what way would salarians be closer to their sisters than their sons? I don't think I understand what you mean there.

It's a matriarchal society, for one.

Haplodiploidy means that a given female will statistically share more alleles with a full-sister than with a son. That's the reason behind the supposed altruism of eusocial species that show that kind of sexual determination, the genes of an individual have a higher chance of surviving by caring for the colony than by having offspring on their own.

I see.

I wonder, are the salarians the only matriarchal society in the mass effect universe? I imagine the asari don't count because they're genderless, not female.

One could argue that the krogan are matriarchal; the female shamans hold a lot of sway, and they choose who they want to breed with. During the genophage, being able to breed, and successfully sire a child would have most likely been considered a great honor for both the male and female.

As for when the genophage gets cured, I don't doubt that the more level-headed females would be more likely chosen to be the ambassadors and diplomats of the krogan, especially with Wrex and Bakara leading the show.

Well, with the genophage cured and the female no longer being a vital ressources to the krogans, there could be a deep societal shift in the works. Unless traditions manage to keep everything in place.

One question : It's mentioned that krogan female typically lay clutches of thousand eggs at once. And they live for thousands of years. So :

• Even if only one egg in a thousand hatches (I think this figure was stated at some point), how are they not still overrunning the galaxy ?
• How can long lifespan and explosive breeding appear in the same species ? Evolution either makes you tough enough to survive to breeding age and stay there for a while, or says "fuck it, let's throw thousands of babies at the wall and see what sticks". A death world would likely result in the latter, not the former.

Krogan are naturally a prey species. The evolved to explosively breed, but what counts as "super tough" on other worlds is still prey on Tuchunka.

They may honestly be functionally immortal: unable to die from age.

This is exactly what I'm saying : it doesn't make sense for a prey species. Why should your body be able to self-repair ad infinitum if you're going to be a steak in a few year anyway ?

edited 26th May '15 4:51:35 AM by Aetol

Being able to regen instead of bleeding out means a higher chance of getting laid instead of dying in the spot. Ergo, a favourable trait ought to be selected for.

Species out of the apex predator niche have more stuff going on than waiting to be eaten. Even if they are r-strategists who use quantity over quality to ensure offspring survival. And remember, a wild boar is more dangerous than a lion.

Also, turtles are explosive breeders and live for centuries. Crocodiles are explosive breeders and live for many decades. Sauropods were explosive breeders and lived for many decades.

Again, do not fucking underestimate r-strategists and prey species. Check your privilege, you K-strategist, only recently apex predator scum.

edited 26th May '15 5:26:57 AM by Eriorguez

The krogan aren't a prey species. Trivia: in development, they originally had eyes on the sides of the head, but this was changed to the front because side-eyes was a prey species trait.

They have lots of babies because that's just how harsh Tuchanka is. Even the predators breed in bunches, and they have to deal with higher predators like thresher maws.

edited 26th May '15 5:42:17 AM by Lavaeolus

Eriorguez : being able to sustain wounds doesn't mean you won't age. Unless both are taken care of by "super-regenerative cells" of some sort, but this is a recipe for cancer.

Also yes, sea turtles are both r- and K-strategist. But they lay eggs on beaches and leave the hatchlings to fend for themselves, hence horrible infantile death rate. Krogans, as a civilized species, presumably didn't do that even before the genophage.