| noname2200 said: I hear what you're saying, but I maintain each of those were simply better execution, not better worldbuilding. To wit: We've known the Krogan are deeply destructive, even towards each other. We know they almost committed racial suicide, and that the number one cause of death for Krogans was violence, even before they met other races. Once the Krogan Rebellions happened, it became clear that they were more than willing to wipe out everyone else in the name of their own expansion. We were told time and again that they're feared and despised throughout the galaxy for being barely above rabid dogs, and that many people think the Genophage was too merciful. Shoot, our introduction to one of the most level-headed Krogans in the galaxy, Wrex, has him getting cornered by security officials due to his vicious reputation and responding by threatening them with 'great bodily harm.' He then follows up by assassinating someone. Again, he's the Krogan paragon. Relatively speaking. As for the Salarians, the first game also emphasized that they operated on the basis of meddling via commando strikes, that they use their superior scientific knowledge to impose their will on other races, that they're patronizing of other races, and that they think they're entitled to make decisions for others. First they raise the Krogan to be their meatshields, then they launched a preemptive strike against said Krogan, then they raised the Turians as their new meatshields, then they created the Genophage. Even in ME 1, they're still using their STG groups to do the same things they'll do in later games. Said STG group was openly the inspiration for Spectres, i.e. individuals who are above the law and who possess the skill and authority to do whatever they think is best. Their actions in the next two games shouldn't be unanticpated: I saw them as being their natural reaction to events, based on the worldbuilding done in ME 1. The Turians not being uniform in their beliefs was also known. Garret is a prime example. Although maybe you forgot that because 1 made him. So. Damn. Boring. I'd whine that they made his character do a 180 in the later games, but he was so bad in the first game, and so awesome in the later ones, that I'll cheerfully go along with it. As for that conversation, I admit I don't really remember it. Noveria in general kind of bored me though, so that might be why. And I have to say that I never liked the Asari in 1. I get what they were going for, but I never really appreciated it, especially for a race that's supposed to be one of the pillars of the galaxy. I'm glad they moved past that. |
I posit that writing and presentation of ideas, the form that the presentation takes and how effectively those ideas are communicated, is an aspect of worldbuilding. Worldbuilding is more than the sense of being in a world, and I hold that the way we interact with the various races in ME2 and ME3 recontextualizes our interactions with them in ME1 - the Consort is actually kind of sinister when I go back to her now, when she was just Super Hooker Number 1 previously.
The codex, by itself, isn't proper worldbuilding; certainly it's all there, all the things we've talked about, to be read between the lines. However, as you mentioned, showing instead of telling is better; that's part of worldbuilding too.
Yeah Noveria in general, man. At least Lorik Quinn is there, he's still cool.
