I agree. In an otherwise fairly believable universe, the asari stood out to me as contrived fan service. I think the writers pretty much started with "lesbian scene! :D :D" and worked backwards from there.

I'm not sure I understand the whole 'derivative' or 'predictable' game setting critique. There are tropes in each game that we play that resemble some other book or myth that came out before. The difference should, of course, be HOW the author/team present the story. Allow me to break it down in familiar terms.

Layer 1: the world is imbalanced. Be it a ring, a reaper invasion, a darkspawn invasion, or just to ensure that humans remain mortal. Luckily, there is a hero who is uniquely qualified to re-balance the world and his potential team will provide the necessary support to succeed. This is true when we talk about Shepherd and his team, Frodo and his team, or King Leonidas and his team.

Layer 2: Our hero is 'called' to 'save the world/universe' This hero's past effects the way that he is treated in the early part of the game - whether reviled, belittled, ignored, or with a chip on his shoulder/something to prove. In some cases he may have been a "Hero" before (as in Beowulf). From humble beginnings, the hero must find a way to break the cycle - i.e. 'end the story' properly.

Layer 3: those who assist are drawn from varied - and sometimes antipathetic - backgrounds. demi-liches, tieflings, Krogan, Asari, dwarves, elves, assassins and bun bakers - their profession and background are mere window dressing meant to set up the age-old lesson that underneath it all, we are all "human" (even if our ears are pointy). This team may - usually is - the source of mini-adventures or conflict. Think of Odysseus' crew on the Cyclopes' island; they were both victims and assistants that were necessary to ensure Odysseus got off the island.

Layer 4: Wise council must always be sought. This is typically from a quasi-mysterious entity, often with aspects that transcend humanity - Gandalf, surreptitious messages from a chained god, or even a trio of witches with dark appetites. This council, regardless of its
origin, provides the hero with the most important tool to overcome the nigh-insurmountable odds; a chink in the armor of the enemy.

Finally, the hero is ALWAYS the hero and is the protagonist. There are very few books, movies, or other entertainment which breaks this mold; John Gardener's Grendel or 2011's Sucker Punch. These sometimes receive critical acclaim and sometimes are roundly criticized - of course the reception depends upon the ability of the author to turn the 'villain' or 'support character' into the protagonist - Grendel makes the beast into a foul-mouthed protagonist unjustly persecuted by a barbarous Beowulf while Zach Snyder's sudden abrupt focus in his film set the fanboys a-howlin' - the majority of critiques of Snyder's film seems to be a 'lack of focus' which can be read as "hey! you tricked me" (though the clue was in the title, duh!)

Drawing from Joseph Campbell's 'Hero with a Thousand Faces' we should recognize that the same CORE story has been told time and time again since the very beginning of time. Romance of the Seven Kingdoms, the Odyssey, or Song of Roland are replaced with Dragon Age, Star Wars, or Baldur's Gate. All in all, our favorite stories are exactly like Yogi Berra's famous quip "it's deja vu all over again." We actually come to expect certain adherence to convention; fantasy settings that have elves (or elf-like beings), science fiction that has robots (or robot-like beings, such as Spock), Westerns with gunslingers, and so on. We have not matured much beyond the three year old who wants to hear Sandra Boynton's "Oh My! Oh My! Oh Dinosaurs!" read EXACTLY the same way over, and over, and over again. Those games, stories, or films which fail to conform to these pre-conceived assumptions often lands the story author in hot water.

In my opinion, Mass Effect (both 1 and 2) do a much better job of re-skinning the story with new window dressing while Dragon Age is less successful but at the core it's all the same old song and dance that we humans have enjoyed since time immemorial.

Star Trek post original series is as guilty of it as any. Klingons are Orcs. Sadly, they started off as Communists. How they became Orcs is lost on me.

Ahahaaha, I have really bad eye sight. I thought the topic = "I only now realized that Aussies are actually Elves"

They became allies to mirror the end of the Cold War and warming of relations with Russia rather than them becoming Orcs. Although the scene in the DS9 episode "Trials and Tribbilations" is hilarious (if you've seen the episode, you know the one). :)

They became Orcs in the movies. They weren't obsessed with battle when they first appeared, but that grew and became the defining element of their culture. Then they became allies later on, but that was more of the "noble warrior race" variation, which is something that often happens to Orcs after a few years. Both Forgotten Realms and Warcraft experienced the same phenomenon.

Communists don't decide their leaders via duel. Orcs do.

Right, and the Romulans and Cardassians are the Chinese and North Koreans. Like I said, they represent ideologies and real world nations more than they represent archetypal "Fantasy races".

Eh ... I agree that grew as part of their culture, but the warrior theme is there even if much less pronounced in TOS. Plus the noble warrior motif is not really an "Orc" thing, it's just that in Warcraft the Orcs also became noble warriors rather than villains. However, I do agree that former villains becoming noble warrior allies is a story telling trope.

Of course if you really wanted to point out archetypes in Star Trek, the Romulans have their archetype built right into their name.

Again, more of a warrior-culture thing. I don't believe we got to see much of internal Klingon politics before the movies ...

I agree with this ... although the Romulans are a hybrid since really they are pretty much Romans internal-structurally but are set up in the same position as the Chinese are to us geo-politically. And of course geo-politically the Cardassians are more powerful than the North Koreans (thankfully for all concerned), though I suppose I should use something else other than "geo" since this is space.

Ehh. I don't want to go around pointing them out. My original point is that the "race as archetype" thing is widespread in Space Opera. Which is what Star Trek turned into. Arguments on if it started that way can wait.

And I think it's pretty stupid. The only way an entire species widespread enough to cover a planet, let alone to start up colonies on other planets, can maintain such a homogeneous culture is if they're they're genocidal.

Maybe I'm diverging onto a tangent. It's more tolerable in fantasy, since you can limit the populations to just a few cities. But when people start talking about humans as special simply for not being so homogeneous (which they will), it grinds my gears.

When culture is decided by race, it's splitting hairs.

Like I responded to predcon, the races in Star Trek are often set up on two levels 1) a geo-political level to mimic goings on in our world 2) societal structure based on some Earth culture taken to an extreme, not necessarily the same culture/society that the geo-political one is taken from. To be fair, the humans in Star Trek are also pretty much a mono-culture with only a few exceptions and one that has spread to several other alien species via the Federation. Eddington was in some ways not far wrong ... :) although the Maquis were also pretty similar to the Federation in many ways. So you could say that even the humans in Star Trek are a mono-culture.

Yes the mono-culture of alien species present in all Space Opera is a little silly and is far too rampant (Babylon 5, as good as it is, was the worst for that in some ways - humans being the only one with a varied culture), but as much of a trope as that is, predcon's point, I believe, was that it is different from the High Fantasy setting. Which one you find more tolerable is more a matter of taste. :)

Star Trek wasn't meant to be a "Space Opera" like Star Wars was. It was meant to be a sort of "Space Western". Hence everyone's description of Kirk's behaviour as "Cowboy Diplomacy". Later, in TNG, as the Federation Starfleet grew and there were more ships available, there wasn't a need for such reckless behaviour on the Frontier. The show became a mystery, a military/political thriller, and whatever other genre is applicable to each individual episode.

wait ... Bioware recycling basic fantasy conventions into generic clones and proclaiming "ours our unique because we gave them complicated gibberish names" is somehow noteworthy?

that's like screaming "OMG Obsidian is doing the sequel to a series that someone else started!"

Go and play Dawn of War, it'll blow your mind!

I guess I would agree with this. Although Space Opera itself has such a wide possible definition, especially given how many definitions one might ascribe to it, that Star Trek could easily be seen to fall under the aegis of Space Opera as well. However, I would agree that relative to Star Wars and Babylon 5, Star Trek was much less "operatic". Whereas the former were really about larger than life characters in epic struggles of good vs. evil, order vs. chaos, with large themes, Star Trek tended to focus less on mythic storytelling than the other aforementioned series. Star Trek certainly had some aspects of that mythic storytelling, but it was never really about that.