Mass Effect 3

[Dullyanna]

Fucking awesome.

 

[RT0wn]

I think ME1 had better character interaction, in that I didn't have to talk to my party members at certain times. No Miranda, I don't feel like talking to you about your Michael Jackson face right now. No Thane, I don't feel like talking to you about your alien cancer right now. No Grunt, stop headbutting that window.

I felt like a babysitter. So I'm wary about ME3.

 

[Ghengis_John]

I think you misunderstand. I LOVE intellectual plots; in fact most of my friends think I'm a little too stuck up about senseless movies without them (such as the shit Expendables or Inglorius Basterds).

Nothing wrong so far. Totally agree with you.

For example, lets take a look at Stargate Universe (I hated the first half of the first season because of these very issues, but they cleaned it up very well after the 10th episode). In an episode, their ship is out of control and flying into a sun. So because they see their inevitable end, they put a few of their most important people (and a few more, through lottery) onto a space pod with supplies and stuff to colonize a planet and survive on their own, while everyone else heads to their doom, including a character named Dr. Rush. As it turns out, the ship was flying into the sun on purpose, and it uses the sun's power to refuel.

So at the end of the episode, they are talking about the result and how Dr. Rush excluded himself from the lottery and that was an act of benevolence. So someone says "maybe Dr. Rush knew the ship was going to refuel from the start?". And of course, everyone looks around at each other thinking to themselves, "yeah, that could be true, he is a dick after all". And you can tell from the way the show is directed, that the creators of the show wanted the viewer to think this too. But WTF? What is the motivation of this? Dr. Rush sacrifices some of the most important people on the ship, including some scientists and the ship's medic, as well as a ton of supplies... for what? Spite?

Actually Jaxel, this is all a part of your own interpretation of events. Nobody shares Young's opinion when he says this, and while Rush does not accept the congratulations nobody but Young seems to hold it against him. I think the comment was more made to display the fact that Young absolutely does not trust Rush. I cannot claim to be an expert on the show. I only watched a few episodes because you brought it up. But it sounds like you really like Rush and hate Young and you may be letting that sway your opinion.

Shit like that doesn't make sense, and the creators of these shitty stories expect the viewers to just take it at face value thinking, "yeah, he's a dick". But myself, who likes to judge genuine actions you expect from normal people just could not accept it. Dr. Rush is the ONLY realist on the show, and its the reason why everyone thinks he's a dick. Because he's logical and he's always looking out for himself. Everything Dr. Rush does on the show is to extend his OWN life. And sacrificing the people on this space pod is totally against that basic ideal of this character. The sad part is, I feel that almost no one except myself questioned this... and people like this shitty sci-fi.

You also have to remember though that Rush is a person. He cries over a picture of his wife, who's death he was not even present for due to his obsession with the project he was working on. He may have felt that dying with the ship could serve as some measure of atonement to her. Or perhaps because the ship would be lost in this instance he saw no reason to continue. I have no idea why he is obsessed with his own survival, but it doesn't seem to be for the sake of life itself. Sometimes people defy your conceptions of them. You can't tell me people you know have never done things that confuse or surprise you. If he always acted a particular way, then there would be no depth to his character. He would be two dimensional, a cartoon character.

Another thing I hate about sci-fi is leadership. You guys have heard this from me for many years now, ever since the SC3 days... but what makes a good leader? Do you think Captain Janeway from Star Trek Voyager was a good leader? Ask a female Star Trek fan who they think the best captain was, and most of them will say Janeway. Why? Because she's female? She was a terrible leader, who flip flopped her ideals and couldn't make the hard decisions. It's her fault the Voyager was in such a shit predicament in the first place, because she couldn't do what needed to be done.

Colonel Young from Stargate Universe is another example of an extremely poor leader (at least during the first season). I mean to the point where MacGuyver is yelling at him during one episode for being a shitty leader. A leader makes the hard decisions; it doesn't even have to be the right/moral decision, but a decision must be made. By the end of the series, every episode starts with a subordinate saying to him "You are a good leader"; as if the creators of the show are trying to convince the viewer that its true. Say it enough, and people will believe it.

It sounds to me like you simply have a problem with humanist leaders. You commended Rush earlier for his pragmatism, but the fact of the matter is leaders take on all shapes and sizes. Nobody ever says "You know why Mahatmas Gandhi was a great leader? Because he wasn't afraid to get his hands dirty!" "Yeah, John Paul II, he made the decisions that got people killed!" Sometimes what "needs to be done" is just what you think "needs to be done", usually to be followed by the unspoken parenthesis "as long as it isn't done to me". You can't tell me smashing the way back home was not a "hard decision". What you mean to say is "it wouldn't have been my decision and I never forgave that". Would it have been mine? No. I would have went back through the gate and sent a photon torpedo through it on a timer if I really wanted to blow it up. But now I'm arguing about star trek on the internet and I've reached an all-time low.

This is a fundamental problem with the sci-fi genre, writers and directors believe they can do anything because its "science fiction" and the viewers will accept it. Overly complicated plots, and political intrigue that don't actually have any logical merit tend to bog down even the more simple of sci-fi stories. They can simply create mythos and people are forces to accept them as fact. Just look at Star Wars... a senate would never WILLINGLY give up it's power to supreme dictator (emperor). Political power corrupts, and trying to shoehorn something different into your story is just bad sci-fi.

Actually they voted to give the chancellor emergency powers. He then seized authority. Which has actually happened from Rome to France to Berlin. It wasn't really a stretch of the imagination that a senate might do that. It has before.

 

[Ghengis_John]

So what? Now we're going to be pumping the Scissor Sisters on every deck of the Normandy?

"Battlemaster, there is a problem. No... I have a problem."
"Oh Grunt, don't tell me you're a homophobe?!"
"No battlemaster, it is simply... I ... I do not know how to dance!"
"Oh honey, no!"
"There was never anyone to teach me... Warlord Okeer... he taught me many things in the tank. How to find my enemies and then where to strike them where it hurts most! And yet... He told me nothing of how to move to music!"
"Or how to co-ordinate!"
"Hey!"
"Relax sweetie, just move like I do... And let the healing begin."

 

[MrGruntsworthy]

Fox news is going to LOVE this.