EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Mass Effect 1 is absolutely retrospectively romanticized, and I say this as someone who adores it and have played through more times than I can count. But I can see why; it approaches science fiction themes and touches on narrative beats a bit differently to its successors. It also comes with the huge benefit of being an entry point into a rich, well developed original IP, where almost every single conversation and engagement is deeply committed to world building and lore. Garrus, Tali, and Wrex for example really didn't become richer characters until Mass Effect 2. Tali in particular is a Quarian information dump, and Wrex and Garrus aren't much different. Compared to the sequels the time devoted to fleshing out your squad is minimal.
And that's fine, because the experience is deeply engaging and romantic. That's the faux intellectualism component; exploring a rich new IP where so much of your discourse is committed to learning about and developing ideas.
It's why I've always said you'll never, ever get an experience exactly like Mass Effect 1 again from the franchise. You're never going to get that utterly unique, fresh entry into a new IP. In all honesty the template for Andromeda is as close as you're going to get, being a new location, but even that won't hit those same notes. The nuances are debatable, but Mass Effect 1 is not just unique for what it is, but for when it came about too, relative to the rest of the series.
My bias due to fandom is obvious, but I also feel I can approach my critiques reasonably. My inherent interest in Andromeda simply because it's Mass Effect isn't the only reason I'm excited. BioWare has been coy to be sure, but I also feel there's a lot of room to grow and tell new stories. I'm not going to judge a cast based on the extremely limited content we've seen, not when it's their personalities that'll define them, and our point of comparison is an excellent cast that has already been developed across 2 to 3 games. I'm not going to judge the game as being shallow and aimless in world building when, in reality, we know so very little about the Andromeda context and lore already. Quite the opposite; I'm excited, despite the obvious homages, to see how exactly Andromeda is structured lore-wise and how events will play out. There's no trilogy baggage, and I welcome that with open arms. Similarly for "Archon"; how can I possibly know his/its motivations, or where the Kett fall, without learning more? Maybe he'll be a boring villain bigbad archetype, but I've got a shred of hope he wont. Similar for the Remnants: ancient machines, but apparently not like Reapers at all?
Context matters, and we're comparing a game where the context is still sweeping unknowns, with a trilogy that had a decade worth of games to establish and grow its lore and cast.
And that's fine, because the experience is deeply engaging and romantic. That's the faux intellectualism component; exploring a rich new IP where so much of your discourse is committed to learning about and developing ideas.
It's why I've always said you'll never, ever get an experience exactly like Mass Effect 1 again from the franchise. You're never going to get that utterly unique, fresh entry into a new IP. In all honesty the template for Andromeda is as close as you're going to get, being a new location, but even that won't hit those same notes. The nuances are debatable, but Mass Effect 1 is not just unique for what it is, but for when it came about too, relative to the rest of the series.
My bias due to fandom is obvious, but I also feel I can approach my critiques reasonably. My inherent interest in Andromeda simply because it's Mass Effect isn't the only reason I'm excited. BioWare has been coy to be sure, but I also feel there's a lot of room to grow and tell new stories. I'm not going to judge a cast based on the extremely limited content we've seen, not when it's their personalities that'll define them, and our point of comparison is an excellent cast that has already been developed across 2 to 3 games. I'm not going to judge the game as being shallow and aimless in world building when, in reality, we know so very little about the Andromeda context and lore already. Quite the opposite; I'm excited, despite the obvious homages, to see how exactly Andromeda is structured lore-wise and how events will play out. There's no trilogy baggage, and I welcome that with open arms. Similarly for "Archon"; how can I possibly know his/its motivations, or where the Kett fall, without learning more? Maybe he'll be a boring villain bigbad archetype, but I've got a shred of hope he wont. Similar for the Remnants: ancient machines, but apparently not like Reapers at all?
Context matters, and we're comparing a game where the context is still sweeping unknowns, with a trilogy that had a decade worth of games to establish and grow its lore and cast.
