555 réponses à ce sujet

[theelementslayer]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

theelementslayer wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

InvaderErl wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

inb4 someone calls LOTR a trilogy because its not

Do tell.

The Lord of the Rings was written as one book.  It was split up into three because it was too damn long, for sales purposes really.

Ummmmm and where is the proof of this, as I remember there is 4 books in the series however The Hobbit, a prequel to the three that are usually thought of as the trilogy, and as for them splitting them up I think Tolkien did write them as a trilogy because they do follow the exact outline of one.

First book-Establish the threat-The ring, the orcs, ect
Second book-Prepare for the threat-Sure the fellowship is broken but Gandalf sets off to ask for help from the white wizard, damn I forget his name. Rohan is introduced to fight for man, the elves come in full force to defend helms deep ect,
Third book-Deal with the threat-They hold at Minas TIrath (sp?) and then at the black gates and destory the ring. Pretty nicely diced up.

I read it on research on Tolkein when I read the Two Towers back in high school, about the only resource you would need to look at nowadays would be the author, the book LOTR and "Trilogy" on Wikipedia.  And any releated resources to the author.

It was written as one story.

A trilogy "should" be three independent but related stories.   IE Complete tales.  LOTR is three parts of an incomplete tale.  It is the sequel to the Hobbit.  

Oh well, that really doesnt change the fact that it follows a very similar storyline to the ME series with the whole one main threat through the whole storyline. The reapers and the all seeing eye/ring

[Onyx Jaguar]

inb4 Wikipedia is not a credible source. That site wasn't around (I think) when I was in high school, I just listed it because it is easy.



And yes I have read the Two Towers without reading the Fellowship or REturn of the King. I already knew the story.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Oh well, that really doesnt change the fact that it follows a very similar storyline to the ME series with the whole one main threat through the whole storyline. The reapers and the all seeing eye/ring

Well its similar, but its a core problem with Mass Effect and anything that tries to base itself off of LOTR's structure.

Look at The Matrix, you had one film and two incomplete halves
POTC, you had one film and two incomplete halves (though Dead Man's Chest is good on its own imo)

While conversely look at Marathon. They are closely related to each other, but they stand on their own. The third can be a bit confusing however to say the least.

Mass Effect is caught in between of being a complete story in each of the games and an incomplete story as it expects to tie itself together in the end.  This is a problem and unnaceptable

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 12 juillet 2010 - 03:06 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

Any chance we could reach a concensus on what is actually the worst 'trilogy'?

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 12 juillet 2010 - 03:06 .

[Pacifien]

Shandepared wrote...
*snip*
Another thing is that Shepard doesn't really seem important to the plot. In ME1 he was essential because only he had the visions from the Beacon. ME2 lacks anything like that.

I think it's rather interesting to play a character that was initially integral to the plot as someone whose role has diminished as the plot continues forward. The Prothean Beacon made Shepard special, but the knowledge it contained only got him so far. Now he needs to depend on others to finish the job.

Of course, then you have the Illusive Man thinking Shepard is so important to the job he'll even bring him back from the dead to finish it. That... I don't get that. I suppose he feels inspiring leaders are so rare, he better make sure he keeps the ones he finds alive.

I snipped too much of your post. I also wouldn't have minded if you played as another character in ME2, though maybe not to the same degree. The initial plotline as Legion intrigues me. The idea that you could kill Shepard once and for all intrigues me, but seems they've cut off any further development of that in ME3. What a kick in the quad for Understudy Shepard to be told he's not as great as his predecessor.

[InvaderErl]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Any chance we could reach a concensus on what is actually the worst 'trilogy'?

The Matrix.

[NICKjnp]

If you want a rip off of LOTR... then read the Shannara books.

[Onyx Jaguar]

The Matrix is really only two movies marketed as a trilogy



I will say that Episodes 1-3 of a certain series is tops

[smudboy]

theelementslayer wrote...
Well I never really thought of shepard as an intelligence officer, more thought of her as a spec ops soldier so really wouldnt take part in all that intellegince gathering, but that is speculation. However when they did get the intel I do think that they want a great team to take it on, whatever the threat. Sheps team is diverse enough to deal with really anything, and I think that was the point of getting all those people, kinda like TIM eluded to. (dont know if that the right word for it but it sounds cool )

How Shepard gathers intel or what kind isn't too important, but that when he does, he then enacts a plan that would require the proper measures to take, like getting trustworthly people together to help stop the bad guys.

It's like baking a cake without knowing a recipe, but getting random sous chefs because your head chef told you you have to go make a steak dinner elsewhere.  Well, the steak dinner is magically and unknowingly put together, but we still have to bake that cake.  We don't know how or what to use, but we've got 12 sous-chef's to help, but no one knows the first thing about cake baking, let alone what a cake is.

[theelementslayer]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Any chance we could reach a concensus on what is actually the worst 'trilogy'?

Matrix, I'll probably get flamed but the last movie was horrible. I loved the first, such a new idea and then well downhill

[Pacifien]

InvaderErl wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
Any chance we could reach a concensus on what is actually the worst 'trilogy'?

The Matrix.

Prequels trump Matrix. At least with the Matrix I can say the Wachowski brothers were working on some level of existentialism beyond my comprehension. Or anyone else's comprehension. Or even within the realm of comprehension. The Prequels have no excuse.

[Onyx Jaguar]

The third film of the Matrix movies makes the second one bad



I did not feel this way about Pirates for some reason even though I do not like the 3rd

[Pacifien]

NICKjnp wrote...
If you want a rip off of LOTR... then read the Shannara books.

Or hey, watch Babylon 5.

[InvaderErl]

theelementslayer wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Any chance we could reach a concensus on what is actually the worst 'trilogy'?

Matrix, I'll probably get flamed but the last movie was horrible. I loved the first, such a new idea and then well downhill

Why would you be flamed? It IS the worst "trilogy"

[theelementslayer]

smudboy wrote...

theelementslayer wrote...
Well I never really thought of shepard as an intelligence officer, more thought of her as a spec ops soldier so really wouldnt take part in all that intellegince gathering, but that is speculation. However when they did get the intel I do think that they want a great team to take it on, whatever the threat. Sheps team is diverse enough to deal with really anything, and I think that was the point of getting all those people, kinda like TIM eluded to. (dont know if that the right word for it but it sounds cool )

How Shepard gathers intel or what kind isn't too important, but that when he does, he then enacts a plan that would require the proper measures to take, like getting trustworthly people together to help stop the bad guys.

It's like baking a cake without knowing a recipe, but getting random sous chefs because your head chef told you you have to go make a steak dinner elsewhere.  Well, the steak dinner is magically and unknowingly put together, but we still have to bake that cake.  We don't know how or what to use, but we've got 12 sous-chef's to help, but no one knows the first thing about cake baking, let alone what a cake is.

I think its more "Id rather have the people and not need them, or at least have someone there even if it is the wrong people, then have no one there when the reapers come" kind of approach. And I think TIM knows more then he lets on, just he always seems right. WIth the collectors, with Horizon, the derilict repear ect.

[Pacifien]

I took Shepard's death in ME2 as the world's easiest method of dumping a ship and a character design so they could make it all new again. I look forward to them destroying the Normandy and killing Shepard again in ME3.

That is a joke.

[Kaiser Shepard]

I honestly have to say that I actually liked the Matrix sequels, as they were pretty much what I expected after seeing the first film.



Pirates of the Carribean is probably my personal worst, because they went way downhill with the sequals compared to Curse of the Black Pearl. The only redeeming quality of Dead Man's Chest was the island battle at the end.

[Onyx Jaguar]

I know there is a horrible trilogy out there that we are missing, Book/film/video game

[theelementslayer]

Pacifien wrote...

I took Shepard's death in ME2 as the world's easiest method of dumping a ship and a character design so they could make it all new again. I look forward to them destroying the Normandy and killing Shepard again in ME3.
That is a joke.

If thats and EDI reference then , I love EDI she is hilarious

[smudboy]

MadInfiltrator wrote...
I just said it. Some people were upset that the plot is presented differently in the second, as compared to the first. To these people, I say, it is different on purpose. It is supposed to be a more typical second entry in a trilogy. Try to see that if that is your problem with the story.

At this point, I have answered you too many times, I won't take more space. We can't agree with each other.

I don't see how the plot is presented differently than in the first.  The main difference is the 4 main plot missions are in series and in the previous game you can select them in any order.

I too agree that it is different on purpose, but i don't think it's that big an issue.

But what is a "more typical second entry in a trilogy"?  Is it that 2/3's focus more on character development?  I'm still not sure what ME2 should be doing according to the role you believe it should be seen in.

Well I am agreeing with you.  I'm merely asking for clarity, since that is what you asked of people.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Half-Life

Has two token incomplete trilogies

One incomplete and one incomplete story

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 12 juillet 2010 - 03:16 .

[Pacifien]

theelementslayer wrote...
I think its more "Id rather have the people and not need them, or at least have someone there even if it is the wrong people, then have no one there when the reapers come" kind of approach. And I think TIM knows more then he lets on, just he always seems right. WIth the collectors, with Horizon, the derilict repear ect.

I tend to think The Illusive Man was covering his bases with the varied crew. Jack and Samara have two very different styles of biotics. If the mission called for brute strength, you had Jack. If the mission called for finesse, you had Samara. Unfortunately, the mission simply called for them to make a bubble. But there's also the dichotomy of Mordin and Okeer. Thane and Zaeed. Tali and Kasumi. Similar skills, but somehow quite different.