106 réponses à ce sujet

[Mike2640]

I don't think it wouldn't be nearly as big an issue if Bioware hadn't gone on about it being an "Epic Trilogy" where every choice has dire consequences. They sold it that way, and it was only way after the game was released did they start with the whole Stand-Alone Trilogy talk.

So it's not that they got it wrong, it's that they never intended to "get it right" in the first place, or if they did they abandoned it while making ME2.

[Monochrome Wench]

One of the issues as I'm seeing from the posts above it is in ME1 the main enemy you fought for most of the game was the geth but not so much in ME2. Problem is after killing Saren and Soverign you've made the geth a non issue anymore. So going from ME1 to ME2 there was always going to be changes in who the enemy was.

My personal issue is the big change in who you got your orders from. I can tell what Bioware were trying to do with the story, but the way they actually wrote it leaves a lot to be desired. Too many characters seemingly have had large personality changes (including Shep) for ME2 to properly work with good continuity from ME1. New characters nor new enemies are an issue at all for me. Changing the way the characters act on the other hand, bad bioware!

Modifié par Monochrome Wench, 28 août 2010 - 03:04 .

[gunswordfist]

ExtremeOne wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

Tychu9 wrote... As a fan of star wars for 70% of my life I have

to say that the characters don't always fight

the empire in the Original Trilogy. In fact Han Solo's story is driven by Jabba the

Hutt in the original trilogy. Every action he

takes is in response to his enemy Jabba the

Hutt. Luke's story is actually about finding out who

he is and then how he can reconcile the

mistakes his father made Leia is actually the only one who has been

fighting the Empire her whole life. If George Lucas made a movie for each of the

main characters as listed above you would get

a very similar story and games much like

Mass Effect 1-3. With R2 and C3P0 making

cameos in all three of course

thats true but in the original Star Wars Trilogy

the main enemy The Empire and Storm

Troopers were always in the movies even.

Mass Effect 1 had the geth and reapers as the

main story and in ME 2 it seems like its a

replay of the first game with out any real reaper part .

You did't fight the Reapers at all in ME until

like the last hour, you only fought the Geth. In

ME2 it's the same, you fight the Collectors,

tools of the Reapers however you learn more about Reapers, will this be used in ME3? Let's

hope so.

at least the reapers appeared in ME 1 at the

end . in ME 2 all you see is the scene of the

reaper fleet. they made a mistake by leaving

the reapers out of ME 2. we should have been

fighting both the collectors and reapers. that

way it would have connected to ME 1 much better.

There's 2 reapers in ME2 and you fight and destroy both of them.

[smudboy]

gunswordfist wrote...

There's 2 reapers in ME2 and you fight and destroy both of them.

"Hello, my name is gunswordfist, and I am an alcoholic."

[Gyroscopic_Trout]

ShadoX_LV wrote...
Also, did the "tried" reffers to the fact that Valve takes a long time to make those or..?

Well, the whole point of Half Life 2 was to release shorter games more often for less money.

Mike2640 wrote...
I don't think it wouldn't be nearly as
big an issue if Bioware hadn't gone on about it being an "Epic Trilogy"
where every choice has dire consequences. They sold it that way, and it
was only way after the game was released did they start with the whole
Stand-Alone Trilogy talk.
So it's not that they got it wrong, it's
that they never intended to "get it right" in the first place, or if
they did they abandoned it while making ME2.

Any game series is always a work in progress, with later chapters trying to improve upon gameplay, graphics and storytelling (unless you're Nintendo or Blizzard or something, then you can just repackage a decades old product with shiny new graphics and make bank I guess).  Also, the only precedent for carrying over game decisions from one sequel to the next is...Mass Effect itself.  Since ME3 won't have to tie anything into a fourth game, it should logically be easier to show consequences to your choices in game.  But it's to be expected that their vision of the series would shift during production.

Modifié par Gyroscopic_Trout, 28 août 2010 - 04:32 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

gunswordfist wrote...

There's 2 reapers in ME2 and you fight and destroy both of them.

Either you're joking, or we're playing a different game.

Modifié par FieryPhoenix7, 28 août 2010 - 04:33 .

[Fhaileas]

(Reposting my post from this thread)

Usually whenever a game or film comes out, a lot of reviewers will put forward the same thought in a sort of mass critical redundancy (not that they read each other, necessarily, just that many people write up the same obvious idea). With ME2 the critical meme was “the story might not seem so epic on its own, but as the second act in a larger trilogy it’s great.”

What utter drivel! It’s a horrible second act. The second act is when the problem introduced in the first act gets worse and worse until it looks like all is lost for our heroes at the second act’s conclusion. The proper second act to follow ME1 would be Reapers taking over half the galaxy, exterminating a few of the races you met in the first game, the council being hopelessly lost in their own petty squabbles and trying to save their own races, etc., and things looking their worst right at the end of game. Maybe you have to blow up the Citadel as the Reapers start taking it over, or something like that. And half your crew dies. Roll credits!

I would like to play that kind of game, where you fought a losing fight the whole time, where you won battles but lost the war. You can still do a traditional three-act structure within my nightmare vision of the second game, but the overall story could be about you losing everything you were counting on to save you. (But you pull something together in the third game.) That would be an interesting story! But of course, they couldn’t do a crazy thing like that.

Instead, you get a second act in name only. This isn’t Act 2, this is Episode 2: More of The Same. (Plot-wise, not mechanics-wise.) After defeating the fairly overwhelming threat in ME1, you defeat a rather underwhelming threat in ME2, and now it’s humans 2, reapers (and allies) 0. The game ends with you winning, and you get a little cinematic saying “oh, they’re on their way.” So what? Act 2 is supposed to make you worried , you should have some creeping unease going on as you see the societies of your allies falling apart and Reaper influence starting to screw everything up. ME2 only contains the lightest suggestions of these kinds of things. You’re steamrolling the other side.

So yeah, I don’t think people should ever call ME2 a second act, or pretend that the trilogy has been plotted as a whole unit. Bioware’s PR people do, but nobody should listen to them.

ME3 might prove me wrong on this, but I very much doubt it. In fact, after hearing about how they’re planning to “bring some fun and lightness back into it,” I am kind of morbidly curious about what the hell they are doing. (http://www.oxm.co.uk...le.php?id=19778). The next installment will have “a lot more darkness but also a lot more humor”? Haha. What a brilliant narrative direction: “a whole lot more of everything.”
 

Modifié par Fhaileas, 28 août 2010 - 05:13 .

[Eradyn]

Fhaileas wrote...

(Reposting my post from this thread)

Usually whenever a game or film comes out, a lot of reviewers will put forward the same thought in a sort of mass critical redundancy (not that they read each other, necessarily, just that many people write up the same obvious idea). With ME2 the critical meme was “the story might not seem so epic on its own, but as the second act in a larger trilogy it’s great.”

What utter drivel! It’s a horrible second act. The second act is when the problem introduced in the first act gets worse and worse until it looks like all is lost for our heroes at the second act’s conclusion. The proper second act to follow ME1 would be Reapers taking over half the galaxy, exterminating a few of the races you met in the first game, the council being hopelessly lost in their own petty squabbles and trying to save their own races, etc., and things looking their worst right at the end of game. Maybe you have to blow up the Citadel as the Reapers start taking it over, or something like that. And half your crew dies. Roll credits!

I would like to play that kind of game, where you fought a losing fight the whole time, where you won battles but lost the war. You can still do a traditional three-act structure within my nightmare vision of the second game, but the overall story could be about you losing everything you were counting on to save you. (But you pull something together in the third game.) That would be an interesting story! But of course, they couldn’t do a crazy thing like that.

Instead, you get a second act in name only. This isn’t Act 2, this is Episode 2: More of The Same. (Plot-wise, not mechanics-wise.) After defeating the fairly overwhelming threat in ME1, you defeat a rather underwhelming threat in ME2, and now it’s humans 2, reapers (and allies) 0. The game ends with you winning, and you get a little cinematic saying “oh, they’re on their way.” So what? Act 2 is supposed to make you worried , you should have some creeping unease going on as you see the societies of your allies falling apart and Reaper influence starting to screw everything up. ME2 only contains the lightest suggestions of these kinds of things. You’re steamrolling the other side.

So yeah, I don’t think people should ever call ME2 a second act, or pretend that the trilogy has been plotted as a whole unit. Bioware’s PR people do, but nobody should listen to them.

ME3 might prove me wrong on this, but I very much doubt it. In fact, after hearing about how they’re planning to “bring some fun and lightness back into it,” I am kind of morbidly curious about what the hell they are doing. (http://www.oxm.co.uk...le.php?id=19778). The next installment will have “a lot more darkness but also a lot more humor”? Haha. What a brilliant narrative direction: “a whole lot more of everything.”
 

Oh...wow.  I really wish you'd been on the team helping to write something like that...because that would have been a damned good "edge-of-your-seat" heart-pounding second act.  And damn, the "your choices having real consequences" and the chance of losing team members throughout a gripping war with Reapers encroaching...

Maybe that'll be the final act, but you're right that it would have been a kickass second act.

[MassEffect762]

Fhaileas wrote...

(Reposting my post from this thread)

Usually whenever a game or film comes out, a lot of reviewers will put forward the same thought in a sort of mass critical redundancy (not that they read each other, necessarily, just that many people write up the same obvious idea). With ME2 the critical meme was “the story might not seem so epic on its own, but as the second act in a larger trilogy it’s great.”

What utter drivel! It’s a horrible second act. The second act is when the problem introduced in the first act gets worse and worse until it looks like all is lost for our heroes at the second act’s conclusion. The proper second act to follow ME1 would be Reapers taking over half the galaxy, exterminating a few of the races you met in the first game, the council being hopelessly lost in their own petty squabbles and trying to save their own races, etc., and things looking their worst right at the end of game. Maybe you have to blow up the Citadel as the Reapers start taking it over, or something like that. And half your crew dies. Roll credits!

I would like to play that kind of game, where you fought a losing fight the whole time, where you won battles but lost the war. You can still do a traditional three-act structure within my nightmare vision of the second game, but the overall story could be about you losing everything you were counting on to save you. (But you pull something together in the third game.) That would be an interesting story! But of course, they couldn’t do a crazy thing like that.

Instead, you get a second act in name only. This isn’t Act 2, this is Episode 2: More of The Same. (Plot-wise, not mechanics-wise.) After defeating the fairly overwhelming threat in ME1, you defeat a rather underwhelming threat in ME2, and now it’s humans 2, reapers (and allies) 0. The game ends with you winning, and you get a little cinematic saying “oh, they’re on their way.” So what? Act 2 is supposed to make you worried , you should have some creeping unease going on as you see the societies of your allies falling apart and Reaper influence starting to screw everything up. ME2 only contains the lightest suggestions of these kinds of things. You’re steamrolling the other side.

So yeah, I don’t think people should ever call ME2 a second act, or pretend that the trilogy has been plotted as a whole unit. Bioware’s PR people do, but nobody should listen to them.

ME3 might prove me wrong on this, but I very much doubt it. In fact, after hearing about how they’re planning to “bring some fun and lightness back into it,” I am kind of morbidly curious about what the hell they are doing. (http://www.oxm.co.uk...le.php?id=19778). The next installment will have “a lot more darkness but also a lot more humor”? Haha. What a brilliant narrative direction: “a whole lot more of everything.”
 

I specualate here, this happened either due to insufficient funds or lack of vision. Take your pick.

[Mister Mida]

I always thought that the scene Bioware showed before ME2 got released of Shepard dying was gonna be a possible end of the game, and that the Normandy was under attack by another Reaper. Now that would be a dark ending to the game.

[crimzontearz]

Phaileas the problem with your scenario is that it would leave no room for post game DLC because of the implication of your ending....and a lot of people did not like that about ME.



Also, a lot of people do not like the feeling of playing a game of which they already know the ending (E.G. "I'm gonna fail anyway") nor they would want to re-play it over and over getting to the same dead end....that is what games like Halo: Reach and "The Darkness" do not get....I played all the Halo games more than once but I am not gonna play a Halo game (reach) in which I KNOW I am fighting a lost cause and I already know I am going to lose in the end. and I played The Darkness ONCE...because there is literally no way to come out on top in that game. Call me naive or whatever I just do not like that sort of ending/feeling and neither do a lot of other people.

[Punahedan]

Fhaileas wrote...

(Reposting my post from this thread)

Usually whenever a game or film comes out, a lot of reviewers will put forward the same thought in a sort of mass critical redundancy (not that they read each other, necessarily, just that many people write up the same obvious idea). With ME2 the critical meme was “the story might not seem so epic on its own, but as the second act in a larger trilogy it’s great.”

What utter drivel! It’s a horrible second act. The second act is when the problem introduced in the first act gets worse and worse until it looks like all is lost for our heroes at the second act’s conclusion. The proper second act to follow ME1 would be Reapers taking over half the galaxy, exterminating a few of the races you met in the first game, the council being hopelessly lost in their own petty squabbles and trying to save their own races, etc., and things looking their worst right at the end of game. Maybe you have to blow up the Citadel as the Reapers start taking it over, or something like that. And half your crew dies. Roll credits!

I would like to play that kind of game, where you fought a losing fight the whole time, where you won battles but lost the war. You can still do a traditional three-act structure within my nightmare vision of the second game, but the overall story could be about you losing everything you were counting on to save you. (But you pull something together in the third game.) That would be an interesting story! But of course, they couldn’t do a crazy thing like that.

Instead, you get a second act in name only. This isn’t Act 2, this is Episode 2: More of The Same. (Plot-wise, not mechanics-wise.) After defeating the fairly overwhelming threat in ME1, you defeat a rather underwhelming threat in ME2, and now it’s humans 2, reapers (and allies) 0. The game ends with you winning, and you get a little cinematic saying “oh, they’re on their way.” So what? Act 2 is supposed to make you worried , you should have some creeping unease going on as you see the societies of your allies falling apart and Reaper influence starting to screw everything up. ME2 only contains the lightest suggestions of these kinds of things. You’re steamrolling the other side.

So yeah, I don’t think people should ever call ME2 a second act, or pretend that the trilogy has been plotted as a whole unit. Bioware’s PR people do, but nobody should listen to them.

ME3 might prove me wrong on this, but I very much doubt it. In fact, after hearing about how they’re planning to “bring some fun and lightness back into it,” I am kind of morbidly curious about what the hell they are doing. (http://www.oxm.co.uk...le.php?id=19778). The next installment will have “a lot more darkness but also a lot more humor”? Haha. What a brilliant narrative direction: “a whole lot more of everything.”
 

Although that'd be interesting, regarding installment 2 (I'm reminded of the Original Trilogy in Star Wars by your description), I don't see what they did in ME2 as entirely wrong, either. ME2, to me, shows that it's as much a personal story as it is an epic story.

IMO, the reason we're seeing Humans: 2 Reapers: 0 is because Shepard's supposed to be a hero, a winner, a savior. You could, theoretically, play it as a hero that screws up a bit before he gets his act together, but the main purpose would be, imo, to have Shepard show himself to be a hero time and again. It's meant to be epic and uplifting, though you could lose people and do everything the wrong way.

[JRCHOharry]

gunswordfist wrote...

There's 2 reapers in ME2 and you fight and destroy both of them.

You destroyed one reaper

but you broke the others heart.

[MajesticJazz]

JJ Long wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...

It is funny because Bioware tried so hard for Mass Effect 2 to be their version of Empire Strikes Back, but instead we got Matrix Reloaded.

What a bunch of garbage.

Care to clairfy?

[Foolsfolly]

Fhaileas wrote...

(Reposting my post from this thread)

Usually whenever a game or film comes out, a lot of reviewers will put forward the same thought in a sort of mass critical redundancy (not that they read each other, necessarily, just that many people write up the same obvious idea). With ME2 the critical meme was “the story might not seem so epic on its own, but as the second act in a larger trilogy it’s great.”

What utter drivel! It’s a horrible second act. The second act is when the problem introduced in the first act gets worse and worse until it looks like all is lost for our heroes at the second act’s conclusion. The proper second act to follow ME1 would be Reapers taking over half the galaxy, exterminating a few of the races you met in the first game, the council being hopelessly lost in their own petty squabbles and trying to save their own races, etc., and things looking their worst right at the end of game. Maybe you have to blow up the Citadel as the Reapers start taking it over, or something like that. And half your crew dies. Roll credits!

I would like to play that kind of game, where you fought a losing fight the whole time, where you won battles but lost the war. You can still do a traditional three-act structure within my nightmare vision of the second game, but the overall story could be about you losing everything you were counting on to save you. (But you pull something together in the third game.) That would be an interesting story! But of course, they couldn’t do a crazy thing like that.

Instead, you get a second act in name only. This isn’t Act 2, this is Episode 2: More of The Same. (Plot-wise, not mechanics-wise.) After defeating the fairly overwhelming threat in ME1, you defeat a rather underwhelming threat in ME2, and now it’s humans 2, reapers (and allies) 0. The game ends with you winning, and you get a little cinematic saying “oh, they’re on their way.” So what? Act 2 is supposed to make you worried , you should have some creeping unease going on as you see the societies of your allies falling apart and Reaper influence starting to screw everything up. ME2 only contains the lightest suggestions of these kinds of things. You’re steamrolling the other side.

So yeah, I don’t think people should ever call ME2 a second act, or pretend that the trilogy has been plotted as a whole unit. Bioware’s PR people do, but nobody should listen to them.

ME3 might prove me wrong on this, but I very much doubt it. In fact, after hearing about how they’re planning to “bring some fun and lightness back into it,” I am kind of morbidly curious about what the hell they are doing. (http://www.oxm.co.uk...le.php?id=19778). The next installment will have “a lot more darkness but also a lot more humor”? Haha. What a brilliant narrative direction: “a whole lot more of everything.”
 

I will say this, with that kind of plot we could finally have something one of the first trailers for ME1 promised....

Pick one planet or another to live.

A Human Colony is under attack but so is a Turian Colony. Which do you save?

A Human Colony with your crew member is under attack and so is a Human Colony without a crew member...which do you save? How will the fallout over you picking a friend over thousands of lives go over?

The road behind us should have had many choices and none of them easy. The hardest choice in that game was do I sleep with Jack or Tali?

I ended up with Tali for the first run because I put too much thought into the game and thought that Jack might go postal or attack Miranda.

Modifié par Foolsfolly, 28 août 2010 - 07:00 .

[SmokePants]

A trilogy is an arbitrary construct. There is nothing about the number three that optimizes storytelling. We, as humans, simply like the number three! We like triangles and triangular symmetry.

With symmetry in mind, a trilogy SHOULD be three standalone parts that are interconnected on some level. The LOTR is a bad example of a trilogy, because it's really just one long book that was broken into three parts for practical reasons. Star Wars? The first one was standalone, the next two were much more closely connected. That's bad symmetry, so that's also a bad example of a trilogy.

Most trilogies you've ever heard of are bad examples of the concept of a trilogy. They are simply dubbed trilogies as a marketing exercise and it works. As such, Mass Effect is well on its way to becoming a true trilogy, rather than one of  the many 3-part series that people mislabel as trilogies.

[Raizo]

KainrycKarr wrote...

CH already said they were meant to be as "standalone" as possible. Which is lame, and will end up hurting the franchise more than helping it, but that's where it is. Hopefully ME3 won't be "too" standalone. I won't buy it if it's an entirely new squad again.

This is not what I originally signed on for although deep down I always knew things would turn out this way.

Back when I first heard about ME and Biowares plans to make a trilogy of games where the decisions you make in one game will have serious repercussions in the later ones I thought "that is too ambitious, there's no way anyone could make a game like that" and yet I still bought into it, I thought it would be foolish to miss out on possibly the greatest, most ambitious rpg story ever told. Then ME2 came out and while I do think ME2 was an awesome game ( better than ME1 ) I couldn't help but be dissapointed, where were all the repercussions for the decisions I made in ME1. Sure some were obvious, Wrex still alive, Kaiden dead, Council still alive, Anderson on the Council but having played the game both with my imported paragon Shepard from ME1 and without there isn't that much of a differnce between the 2 games. To add insult to injury, ME2 didn't really feel like a sequel to ME1, more like a side story since it didn't really move the story forward much from the first game.

I get why Bioware would want to make each ME game as "standalone" as possible afterall Bioware is a bussiness ( owned by another bussiness called EA ), video game development isn't cheap and it can be very time consuming buliding a quality product, obviously Bioware and EA want as many people to play ME2 and ME3  as possible and that means attracting gamers who may not have purcahed ME1 ( and in ME3's case have not purcahed ME1 or ME2 ) but I also don't want to see these games dumbed down. I want Bioware to be ambitious and i want them to delver somthing truly Epic for ME3.

Modifié par Raizo, 28 août 2010 - 07:26 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

MajesticJazz wrote...

It is funny because Bioware tried so hard for Mass Effect 2 to be their version of Empire Strikes Back, but instead we got Matrix Reloaded.

Sigh, I still don't get everyone's beef with the Matrix sequels. I mean: c'mon, the first movie wasn't that much better than the rest of the trilogy. Guess it's because I was rather late to the party so I missed out on the hype, but still.

Also, the lack of a Back to the Future mention so far makes me sad.

[heretica]

Sorry to pop your bubble...



But Mass Effect IS a triology and before they started making the first game they knew already how the 3rd game would end.



They needed to develop the story and make everything fit, but the main idea/storyline was there ever since Mass Effect 1.



If they were meant to be stand alone games I don't see why would they make the effort to write over 1000 choices for you to enjoy.



Playability is one thing. Stand alone games are another.

[NvVanity]

smudboy wrote...

gunswordfist wrote...

There's 2 reapers in ME2 and you fight and destroy both of them.

"Hello, my name is gunswordfist, and I am an alcoholic."

I think he's a lot more then just that.

[Tychu9]

ExtremeOne wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

Tychu9 wrote...

 As a fan of star wars for 70% of my life I have to say that the characters don't always fight the empire in the Original Trilogy.

In fact Han Solo's story is driven by Jabba the Hutt in the original trilogy.  Every action he takes is in response to his enemy Jabba the Hutt.  

Luke's story is actually about finding out who he is and then how he can reconcile the mistakes his father made

Leia is actually the only one who has been fighting the Empire her whole life.

If George Lucas made a movie for each of the main characters as listed above you would get a very similar story and games much like Mass Effect 1-3.  With R2 and C3P0 making cameos in all three of course

   


thats true but in the original Star Wars Trilogy the main enemy The Empire and Storm Troopers were always in the movies even. Mass Effect 1 had the geth and reapers as the main story and in ME 2 it seems like its a replay of the first game with out any real reaper part . 

You did't fight the Reapers at all in ME until like the last hour, you only fought the Geth. In ME2 it's the same, you fight the Collectors, tools of the Reapers however you learn more about Reapers, will this be used in ME3? Let's hope so.

  


at least the reapers appeared in ME 1 at the end . in ME 2 all you see is the scene of the reaper fleet. they made a mistake by leaving the reapers out of ME 2. we should have been fighting both the collectors and reapers. that way it would have connected to ME 1 much better. 

I'm not attacking you (just so we're clear) but what you said got me thinking again.  You said that in Mass Effect 1 we saw the Reapers, and in Mass Effect 2 we just see their fleet.  We are expected to see the Reapers in 3 and be fighting them for the majority of the game.  Well if you plug Star Wars in again,  The Reapers can be the Death Star.  In Episode IV, there is the Death Star.  Episode V, Wheres the Death Star?  Episode VI, Oh there it is.

[Gyroscopic_Trout]

Fhaileas wrote...
The proper second act to follow ME1 would be Reapers taking over half the galaxy, exterminating a few of the races you met in the first game, the council being hopelessly lost in their own petty squabbles and trying to save their own races, etc., and things looking their worst right at the end of game. Maybe you have to blow up the Citadel as the Reapers start taking it over, or something like that. And half your crew dies. Roll credits!
 

Or maybe we could save all that for part 3.
1.  Fans of the first game liked the side missions and exploring the galaxy.
2.  You can't really do that story-wise if the galaxy is being torn apart around you.  Many of ME2's detractors have flat out stated that all the flying around recruiting and doing loyalty missions detracted from the larger Collector threat.  So ME3 probably won't have as much of that.
Solution:  save all the mucking about for ME2, and all the big plot stuff for ME3.

Seriously, your suggestion for what ME2 should have been is pretty much one big over used cliche.  If we've gotten to the point where we're not so much writing stories as we are assembling them from prefab kits, then please just shoot me now.

[Fhaileas]

Tychu9 wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

Tychu9 wrote...

 As a fan of star wars for 70% of my life I have to say that the characters don't always fight the empire in the Original Trilogy.

In fact Han Solo's story is driven by Jabba the Hutt in the original trilogy.  Every action he takes is in response to his enemy Jabba the Hutt.  

Luke's story is actually about finding out who he is and then how he can reconcile the mistakes his father made

Leia is actually the only one who has been fighting the Empire her whole life.

If George Lucas made a movie for each of the main characters as listed above you would get a very similar story and games much like Mass Effect 1-3.  With R2 and C3P0 making cameos in all three of course

   


thats true but in the original Star Wars Trilogy the main enemy The Empire and Storm Troopers were always in the movies even. Mass Effect 1 had the geth and reapers as the main story and in ME 2 it seems like its a replay of the first game with out any real reaper part . 

You did't fight the Reapers at all in ME until like the last hour, you only fought the Geth. In ME2 it's the same, you fight the Collectors, tools of the Reapers however you learn more about Reapers, will this be used in ME3? Let's hope so.

  


at least the reapers appeared in ME 1 at the end . in ME 2 all you see is the scene of the reaper fleet. they made a mistake by leaving the reapers out of ME 2. we should have been fighting both the collectors and reapers. that way it would have connected to ME 1 much better. 

I'm not attacking you (just so we're clear) but what you said got me thinking again.  You said that in Mass Effect 1 we saw the Reapers, and in Mass Effect 2 we just see their fleet.  We are expected to see the Reapers in 3 and be fighting them for the majority of the game.  Well if you plug Star Wars in again,  The Reapers can be the Death Star.  In Episode IV, there is the Death Star.  Episode V, Wheres the Death Star?  Episode VI, Oh there it is.

SW2 and ME2  comparisons won't hold. Empire developed the characters and advanced the story in huge leaps: Luke progresses on the path of Jedi knightship and faces Darth Vader. Han starts courting Leia and progresses from rogue to rebel. The victory at Yavin turns into utter defeat following Hoth. The true antagonist, Palpatine, is revealed.

In comparison, ME2 delegates two thirds of the original team to supporting characters. In their place, lots of new characters are introduced, including loyalty missions etc. This is character exposition, not development! For example, Jack is a powerful biotic, but mentally instable and deranged. It is implied the loyalty mission is her character development, but it actually doesn't change her a bit. The same is true for any other character. The loyalty missions all tell a story, but they don't lead to a character change, hence they don't develop the character. Empire got lots of flak in its time because of its dark cliffhanger ending, but not because it failed to progress the story.

If Empire had been anything like ME2, then Hoth would never have happened. Instead, the movie would have started on Yavin where Chewie, Han and R2D2 would have been delegated to supporting roles. Leia would have traveled the galaxy for 90 minutes recruiting half a dozen new rebels such as a robot seeking its creator, a former starfighter pilot dealing with parenting issues, or other disturbed individuals who make great characters in and of itself but have no apparent value for the rebellion other than pure strength or skill (meaning they are more mercenary than rebel). The movie plot would have revolved about dealing with each of their issues, much too briefly at that and again with little to no visible connection to the rebellion, the empire or anything, before finally turning to the imperial antagonists who have been quietly flying attacks on Yavin in the background. Nothing is said about what the Empire was up to after the death star's destruction, instead the carefully selected and "developed" team destroys a number of star destroyers for ten minutes and the movie ends.

[Fhaileas]

SmokePants wrote...

A trilogy is an arbitrary construct. There is nothing about the number three that optimizes storytelling. We, as humans, simply like the number three! We like triangles and triangular symmetry.

With symmetry in mind, a trilogy SHOULD be three standalone parts that are interconnected on some level. The LOTR is a bad example of a trilogy, because it's really just one long book that was broken into three parts for practical reasons. Star Wars? The first one was standalone, the next two were much more closely connected. That's bad symmetry, so that's also a bad example of a trilogy.

Most trilogies you've ever heard of are bad examples of the concept of a trilogy. They are simply dubbed trilogies as a marketing exercise and it works. As such, Mass Effect is well on its way to becoming a true trilogy, rather than one of  the many 3-part series that people mislabel as trilogies.

The trilogy concept is also known as the three act structure which is the standard in drama. It dates back to Aristotle and is seen in everything from Shakespeare to the latest summer block buster. The three act structure is the most widely used because it is the most logical. Reduced to its simplest, the three act structure says a story must have a beginning, middle, and end. 

ME was "meant" to conform to these conventions as per Casey Hudson:

"As a trilogy we have our three acts. So Mass Effect 2 is the dark act. It's an opportunity to really explore the tougher, more brutal parts of the universe," producer Casey Hudson told IGN. "They say in the first act you put a guy in the tree, in the second act you throw rocks at him, and in the third act you get him down."

Modifié par Fhaileas, 29 août 2010 - 12:57 .