#because it implies that william had like. A Goal outside of the interpretation where he's trying to get michael scooped or whatever | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

zandoct · 7 years

Text

Why Mass Effect Andromeda is Great

So I finished MEA the other day, and I loved it to pieces. Easily top 5 games of all time, and only ten good games have ever been made. So imagine my surprise when I, the Discourse Liker, logged on and discovered that this beautiful work of art hadn’t been received very well. Who let the critics get away with that? Anyway, I’m going to explain why I love the game and why it’s really good and even some things it did better than the original trilogy.

Spoilers for the new alien species ahead

The Magnificent Ten

One of the great strengths of MEA compared to its predecessors in the franchise is the small cast of intimately written characters that form the Tempest crew. The Tempest is approximately one half the size of Normandy SR-2 and smaller than the SR-1, which means that there aren’t any faceless, nameless crewmembers. Instead, you have what I call the Magnificent Ten, because I’m bad at naming things.

To me, keeping the crew small and tightly knit is a fantastic improvement over previous games. This gives more space for the interrelationships (i.e. the way characters interact with characters other than the player) and helps you feel like you have greater agency over the Tempest, as a home. Which is one of the major themes of the game. Come on now. For instance, Lexi’s character is explored by her interaction with Drack as much as it is with Ryder, or Kallo with Suvi.

Compare that to ME2, which had a brilliant but very large cast that hardly ever interacted with each other. As discussed in this video, the only way a player can have agency in RPGs is if the NPCs have agency, and a great way to achieve that is to explore their relationships outside of the player. Using the banter system from Bioware’s other major modern title Dragon Age is one great way of making a team a family. WHICH IS THE OTHER MAJOR THEME OF THE GAME.

A rigorous analysis of the characterisation of the Tempest crew would take an entire other essay, but I’ll just comment that I found the interplay of themes shared between the crew – especially their loyalty missions – to be one of the best expressions of theme, tone and allegory in any game I’ve played.

For instance, Cora’s arc is (partially) about how you deal with being rejected, and Peebee’s arc is about how you deal with rejecting others. Liam represents your own mistakes and Jaal represents the mistakes of others. Vetra represents letting go of a role and Drack represents stepping forward into a role. Obviously this is just my interpretation but the very fact the narrative can be interpreted in so many fascinating ways is testament to its… beauty.

The supporting cast outside of the Tempest family are also a diverse, fascinating bunch. The Angara are represented on Aya by Commander Evfra, Moshae Sjefa and Governor Paaran. They have an interesting chemistry and each represents an individual, subtle example of Angaran culture. This makes the introduction to Aya a little overwhelming, filled as it is with so many important characters and unknown conflicts. But it’s a great way to be immersed in your Ryder, who’s probably also blown away by one of the game’s major discoveries.

A significant problem some critics have with the game is that only two sapient species were introduced in this new galaxy. While it would have been cool to see one or two more, the intense focus on two cultures is more reflective of the how the game interrogates having a smaller crew.

Plot Course, Setting Course (or; The Process of Renewal)

Another key criticism of MEA is that it is very iterative of the original series: keep in mind though that the original series is also iterative in its own way, drawing inspiration from a number of sci-fi/fantasy sources (KOTOR I’m side-eyeing you big time)

I think it can be refreshing to examine the themes of the original series with a new perspective granted by the different events and characters of MEA. Fundamentally, stories are only compelling because of what it tells us about humanity. Yes, the ancient Prothean tech is reminiscent of the Remnant. But they have different goals, different culture and most importantly, their two commentators – Liara and Peebee, respectively – are affected by them in different ways. As William Faulkner said:

“The only thing worth writing about is the human heart in conflict with itself.” What I mean by this is that the similarities between the Protheans and the Remnant are less important than the different effect they have on the player and our companions.

The same goes for the Reapers and Kett and their twisted idea of uplifting other species. The Kett’s semblance of Ur-fascism is part of what makes them thematically distinct from the Reapers, rather than their superficial aims. Throughout the series, the Reaper’s philosophy was vague and mainly gathered from piecemeal exposition of the supporting cast, especially Legion and Saren rather than the Reapers themselves. The Kett are also enigmatic for most of the game, but what you learn about them is more concrete than their all-powerful Milky Way counterparts.

A fantastic scene, demonstrating that there's a niche for moments with no dialogue in Bioware games.

Discussing ‘the Kett as fascists’ is worthy of its own article so I will only briefly explore it here. In 1995, Umberto Eco provided a great analysis of fascism, both past and future. He states that fascist ideologies can be extrinsically and intrinsically contradictory while also being equally valid under the umbrella of fascism, something he calls Syncretism. For instance, Nazism and Mussolini’s fascism disagree in their treatment of religion, but both are quite clearly forms of fascism. He goes on to describe the theoretical qualities of ‘ur-fascism’, a hypothetical social order that could potential arise from any of the aforementioned qualities. I propose that the Kett are best analysed from the perspective of these qualities:

1. Cult of Tradition. The Kett oppose developing their philosophy. For instance, The Archon is harshly scrutinised by the Primus for trying to develop a new strategy for exalting the Angara. “We will take Heleus the way we always have.” To Archie’s credit, he’s hardly a true progressive, just an example of syncretism in action, and he’s also more of a practical leader than an ideological one.

2. Fear of difference (or diversity). The Kett only wish to integrate the aspects of species they deem appropriate, in a carefully predetermined way. They do not allow actual species into their hierarchy and they do not tolerate unexpected diversity. Eco refers to this as “an appeal against the intruders” but this can equally apply as “an appeal against the conquered” – that strategy is just as common in human history as the former.

3. Irrationalism (or, action for action’s sake). The Archon is not compelled to justify his actions to the player, and instead simply acts. To criticise himself would be to generate difference, or imply that his ideals may be unworthy, and that is unacceptable.

It is difficult to consider the Reapers so politically, as their motivations are left more ambiguous. For instance, one cannot draw a comparison between the Reapers and the Citadel Council as easily as one can between the Kett and the Andromeda Initiative, who both arrived from beyond Heleus. The differences between the Kett and the Reapers, then, are subtle but still significant.

Me looking at the discourse surrounding Andromeda

It’s also worth keeping in mind the struggle Bioware faced in producing a game that incorporated the themes of the original series (discovering ancient things to lead into the future, the interaction between technology and humanity) while also doing something new. In fact, MEA very clearly is trying to revisit the concepts of the first game in a new and improved light, and I think from that perspective MEA excels.

But there is plenty new here, don’t forget that! They were damned if they didn’t incorporate enough of the original series and if they didn’t innovate enough, and I think this lies at the root of its lukewarm reception. That and the complaints about cinematics. WHICH ARE BASICALLY ON PAR WITH THE ORIGINAL SERIES SO SHUT YOUR MOUTHS

S.A.M., INTERFACE

Paragon and Renegade, eat your heart out

As you can probably tell, this essay has focused much more on narrative and metaphor than on gameplay, purely because I find gameplay the least compelling part of all games. However, most would agree that the combat of MEA is the most fun of the franchise and the difficulty is very well gauged. I also think the dialogue interface (no pun intended, hahahaha get rid) is a real improvement. The demise of Paragon/Renegade system is finally here, and the game is better for its loss. Every decision must be judged on its own merits and the tone of dialogue options is much easier to predict by having four consistent possibilities.

The psych profiles Lexi compiles are also a much cooler way for the game to express how your Ryder is developing than a coloured bar. It’s a shame that ‘persuade’ abilities are lost: a system similar to Dragon Age Inquisition, where perks in history, politics, academics etc can increase your character’s expertise and hence persuasiveness would have been nice. But MEA doesn’t give you an easy way out, and sometimes you have to make a decision knowing it’s the wrong one. That’s very cool.

Also, right lads, no listen right, they actually FIXED side quests in MEA. Don’t you dare look me in the eye and say the side quests were anything but trash in ME, ME2 and ME3. Don’t you dare. Other than the fetch quests, ME3 wasn’t too bad, but MEA gets them really right. I would have liked a bit more cinematic dialogue in some of them, but it’s SO much better than Shepard and co silently jogging around a heartless rock jungle, pressing buttons. Also, who are these folk who love ME2 but attack Dragon Age Inquisition? What the hell is going on?

We Made It (to a conclusion)

One of the key differences between the original series and MEA is the scale. MEA is about a small supercluster of the galaxy (a piece of a corner of the universe, as Suvi calls it) and the few factions that are influential there. In ME1-ME3, life as we know it is at risk on a galactic scale. There are hundreds of different factions and a broader cast. Which you prefer is a matter of personal taste, but the intensity and detail of MEA’s story is a refreshing change for the franchise. I’ve often felt the vast, vast lore of the original series is done a disservice by the main plot, which renders all of it largely futile because all that matters is defeating the Reapers. Both games are about survival, but Andromeda’s smaller stakes allow for a variety of factors – political, environmental, military, philosophical etc – to influence that survival. In the original series, the only thing that influences survival is resolving the reaper threat. The original series is about heroes of legend rising to the challenge of saving the galaxy from an ancient conflict. On the other hand, Andromeda is about an inexperienced, relatively ordinary group of people who are prematurely forced into difficult situations and have to make a home out of them. I know which one I’d rather believe in.* Let me know what you think, send an ask or reply or w/ever

*Just kidding I love every Mass Effect game. Righto, cheers

See ya

8 notes · View notes