103 réponses à ce sujet

[Alphyn]

Dougy Fresh wrote...

i know it makes so much sense

all we know is that the reapers are attacking earth, thats it

so naturally we speculate the worst in a game... makes so much sense

I don't trust BioWare after they sidelined Ash/Kaiden/Wrex/Liara.

[Bourne Endeavor]

Bishna wrote...

Archereon wrote...

Considering that the Reapers are beyond saving from the villain decay they suffered in ME2, I really can't take this series seriously anymore. Mercs were the real villains of ME2, not the Reapers, or the collectors.

How were mercs the real villains? Just because you fought alot of them? If you just went around blowing the heads off of reapers the entire time they would lose any sort of impact as the techno-gods that they are. Reapers are more about controling things from afar and using mercs as puppets to carry out their master plans. They only ever show up in person if its some serious ending the universe stuff thats happening and thats what makes them so scary and mysterious.

This is because in ME2, the Reaper plot was entirely marginalized to adhere to potential newcomers and retain the standalone label Bioware has affixed on the series. Whereas in Sovereign was imposing and intimidating, Harbinger was irritating and irrelevant. With the former, we discovered the basis for the Reapers, what their intended goal was and ultimately their existence. Everyone beyond the immediate was vague. What should have been the focal point of the main story for ME2 was discovering their purpose. Case in point, were I to separate and describe the ME series from Mass Effect's plot onward. I would do so in the following manner...

Mass Effect - Discovering the Reapers and their cycle of genocide.
Mass Effect 2 - Discovering the purpose of the cycle and what had become of species preceding our own.
Mass Effect 3 - Discovering, and ultimately preventing their cycle once and for all.

Notice how each game is highlighted by "discovering" as the forefront for the explanation, yet maintains complete focus on the Reapers at all times? Mass Effect 2 did not accomplish this, at least not in as a captivating a sense as it could. It partially used my aforementioned description when we learn of the Prothean's fate. Unfortunately, this was referenced to vaguely, if at all and became largely irrelevant by the game's conclusion.

Mass Effect 2 stagnated the Reaper plot. We did not discovery anything new about them and by the end, were no less ahead as when we finished Mass Effect. If the characters and collectors of ME2 have any similarities to what happened to ME's characters. ME2 will have been completely irrelevant. Hence, why I have begun to cite it as a "gloriously developed expansion game," because that is all it is.

I should note, this does not immediately regulate the Reaper plot to ill-redeemable dribble. It merely prevents it from having a larger impact due to skipping a stage. The purpose of the Reapers is now a less than necessary venture and frankly one that should be slightly marginalized as to properly dedicate the core story of ME3 as preventing the cycle. Unless Bioware has the intention of making a 40-50+ hour storyline, both cannot be successfully accomplished.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 12 décembre 2010 - 11:41 .

[Reptilian Rob]

I'm worried at the lack of faith the community has...

[Urazz]

Bishna wrote...

Archereon wrote...

Bishna wrote...

Archereon wrote...

Considering that the Reapers are beyond saving from the villain decay they suffered in ME2, I really can't take this series seriously anymore. Mercs were the real villains of ME2, not the Reapers, or the collectors.

How were mercs the real villains? Just because you fought alot of them? If you just went around blowing the heads off of reapers the entire time they would lose any sort of impact as the techno-gods that they are. Reapers are more about controling things from afar and using mercs as puppets to carry out their master plans. They only ever show up in person if its some serious ending the universe stuff thats happening and thats what makes them so scary and mysterious.

If we, you know, actually saw the collectors doing anything, at all, besides harvesting horizion or chilling on their staiton, the game would have felt so much more urgent.  ME1 had this great sence of suspence in its plot, things kept getting more and more urgent as you learned more.

It went from: There's this guy who wants to kill humans for his brother's death in a war with the human race

To

That guy has a ship that controls minds...And stuff...And is planning to bring back a race of super machines.

To

That guy is the pawn of a race of mind warping machine gods that descend from beyond the galaxy every 50,000 years to destroy all civilization in the galaxy.

This i agree with to a point. I think you are right in saying that ME1 helped create a better sense of urgency in its story than ME2.

ME1 had horrible sense of urgency.  You were basically trying to hunt down clues to Saren's location and then the sense of urgency went up with the the mission to Virmire and then going to Ilos once you steal the Normandy.

ME2 was pretty much getting a team to fight the Collectors and then preparing said team to attack the Collectors in a suicide mission.  ME2 had the sense of urgency when it dealt with missions on the Collectors at least as it forced you to do that mission and not any others once you reach a certain point.  The only part where there was a sense of urgency to move on but you had the option to do something else was when the Normandy crew was abducted by the Collectors and you paid a price for putting it off in favor of other missions. 

[Dougy Fresh]

Alphyn wrote...

[I don't trust BioWare after they sidelined Ash/Kaiden/Wrex/Liara.

im pretty sure they will all play a part in ME3

[AdmiralCheez]

Alphyn wrote...
I don't trust BioWare after they sidelined Ash/Kaiden/Wrex/Liara.

Play Shadow Broker.  It totally makes up for Liara.  As for Wrex, the bro-hug with Vigil's theme playing the background was enough for me.  I do expect more of him in ME3, mind you, and if Garrus doesn't get his skinny butt back on the Normandy, there will be hell to pay.

[Bishna]

MegaRekyyli wrote...

I love it when everyone seems to have a good grasp about what ME3 is going to be based on the very first teaser trailer.

im not sure that anyone here has said what was absolutely going to happen based on the trailer. Most of the comments here have been about our opinions on how they want the story to go. I have no idea if shepard will die or not. But in my opinion i think he should and i have given reasons to support my opinion.

[Alphyn]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

I'm worried at the lack of faith the community has...

I'm sure BioWare will do a good job, but I'm not sticking my neck out.

[Alphyn]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Play Shadow Broker.  It totally makes up for Liara.  As for Wrex, the bro-hug with Vigil's theme playing the background was enough for me.  I do expect more of him in ME3, mind you, and if Garrus doesn't get his skinny butt back on the Normandy, there will be hell to pay.

I have played SB.

I just don't want my squad to be dumbed-down into cameos. Is that too much to ask?
I played through the suicide mission with everyone surviving. I don't want it to be all for nothing.

Modifié par Alphyn, 12 décembre 2010 - 11:43 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Urazz wrote...

ME1 had horrible sense of urgency.  You were basically trying to hunt down clues to Saren's location and then the sense of urgency went up with the the mission to Virmire and then going to Ilos once you steal the Normandy.

ME2 was pretty much getting a team to fight the Collectors and then preparing said team to attack the Collectors in a suicide mission.  ME2 had the sense of urgency when it dealt with missions on the Collectors at least as it forced you to do that mission and not any others once you reach a certain point.  The only part where there was a sense of urgency to move on but you had the option to do something else was when the Normandy crew was abducted by the Collectors and you paid a price for putting it off in favor of other missions. 

Huzzah, I'm not the only one that thinks this!  ME1 seriously dragged, while ME2 actually threw you into the plot-essential missions whether you liked it or not (even though the missions themselves were lackluster), and punished you for not rushing in to save the day fast enough.

ME1 had a more epic scale and better bad guys, but ME2 blows it out of the water when it comes to pacing.

[AdmiralCheez]

Alphyn wrote...

I just don't want my squad to be dumbed-down into cameos. Is that too much to ask?
I played through the suicide mission with everyone surviving. I don't want it to be all for nothing.

It won't.  Don't worry about it.  These forums are just pessimistic as hell.

[Alphyn]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

It won't.  Don't worry about it.  These forums are just pessimistic as hell.

How can I be sure when BioWare did it already?

[AdmiralCheez]

Alphyn wrote...
How can I be sure when BioWare did it already?

Garrus and Tali came back, didn't they?  The only one they really screwed up on was the VS, but that may be corrected with the next DLC.

[Yojimbo_Ltd]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Urazz wrote...

ME1 had horrible sense of urgency.  You were basically trying to hunt down clues to Saren's location and then the sense of urgency went up with the the mission to Virmire and then going to Ilos once you steal the Normandy.

ME2 was pretty much getting a team to fight the Collectors and then preparing said team to attack the Collectors in a suicide mission.  ME2 had the sense of urgency when it dealt with missions on the Collectors at least as it forced you to do that mission and not any others once you reach a certain point.  The only part where there was a sense of urgency to move on but you had the option to do something else was when the Normandy crew was abducted by the Collectors and you paid a price for putting it off in favor of other missions. 

Huzzah, I'm not the only one that thinks this!  ME1 seriously dragged, while ME2 actually threw you into the plot-essential missions whether you liked it or not (even though the missions themselves were lackluster), and punished you for not rushing in to save the day fast enough.

ME1 had a more epic scale and better bad guys, but ME2 blows it out of the water when it comes to pacing.

How many plot-essential mission were there in ME2? How many in ME1? what was the percentage of non-essential missions to essential missions in both cases? 

[Alphyn]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Garrus and Tali came back, didn't they?  The only one they really screwed up on was the VS, but that may be corrected with the next DLC.

I'm happy that Tali and Garrus came back, but if they're cameos in ME3 and not actually doing anything, I will be massively disappointed. <_<

[Eradyn]

Alphyn wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Garrus and Tali came back, didn't they?  The only one they really screwed up on was the VS, but that may be corrected with the next DLC.

I'm happy that Tali and Garrus came back, but if they're cameos in ME3 and not actually doing anything, I will be massively disappointed. <_<

"Disappointed," for me, would be a massive understatement.

Oh, great.  It's the wait up to ME2 all over again. D;  *prepares the Tums and Tylenol for the months ahead*

[Bourne Endeavor]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Alphyn wrote...
I don't trust BioWare after they sidelined Ash/Kaiden/Wrex/Liara.

Play Shadow Broker.  It totally makes up for Liara.  As for Wrex, the bro-hug with Vigil's theme playing the background was enough for me.  I do expect more of him in ME3, mind you, and if Garrus doesn't get his skinny butt back on the Normandy, there will be hell to pay.

While I may be a vocal advocate for returning squad mates. Realistically, it is not likely to happen. Fortunately, in both our cases. Our particular favorite happens to have attracted arguably the largest fanbase in the series. So if there are even two returning characters, Garrus will be among them. Tali, of course, would be the second.

In any event, I could accept a cameo of even Garrus, if, and only if, he was given the LotSB treatment. I once mentioned an indoctrination angle wherein we have to eventually oppose our beloved friend. For non-import players, this could merely be a generic scene that has a group of formingly innocent people, opposing Shepard. For only those importing is the truly unique and personal possession of Garrus ever explored.

And no, I will not accept a stand in, akin to Wreav. Terror and I discussed this, and I agree, it does an injustice to the character.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 12 décembre 2010 - 11:52 .

[Bugsie]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

I'm worried at the lack of faith the community has...

Pessimism abounds Rob, don't worry you and I can still be excited and optimistic.

[Alphyn]

Eradyn wrote...
"Disappointed," for me, would be a massive understatement.

Oh, great.  It's the wait up to ME2 all over again. D;  *prepares the Tums and Tylenol for the months ahead*

As for me.

You'd think that maybe people would be pissed at BioWare who sidelined their romances (assuming you had one with Liara/Ash/Kaiden) for a stupid 5 minute cameo.

If that happens to Tali and Garrus... I swear, they will know my name is the Lord, when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

[HydroSpectrum]

Alphyn wrote...
I don't want them to be cameos.

I want them to fight alongside Shepard.

There's no reason why they shouldn't, and if they don't, that just makes the entire suicide mission pointless. It just means that you don't get to see a cameo of that character. <_<

What about LIs? Are they doing to be sidelined, too?

Shh, don't joke about that. They're listening...

Honestly, as pure speculation, I do expect a number of the party members from ME2 to return, if not all. Bioware should have the money to afford all the VA, especially after the success of Mass Effect 2. I doubt LIs will be sidelined. After seeing the Ashley/Kaiden rage previously, they probably don't want to go that way again, considering this is the last of "Shepard's story".

It'd be nice to see the game being affected by decisions you made and loyalty. For example, Zaeed may have been DLC, but he still is a badass merc, and he was free. I'd like to think that it's safe to say he has a high probability of returning. Hence, it may come down to your decision during his loyalty mission. Perhaps if you did one or the other, it'd change certain circumstances regarding his appearance and dialogue in the game (if only temporarily). It'd definitely be awesome to see. And if he wasn't loyal, perhaps he may have decided to "retire".

Of course, that's just my opinion. Still a good year away from the actual game, and plenty more trailers and teasers to speculate on as we go.

[AdmiralCheez]

Yojimbo_Ltd wrote...

How many plot-essential mission were there in ME2? How many in ME1? what was the percentage of non-essential missions to essential missions in both cases?

I was talking about the speed at which the story moved, not the content of the story itself, but I'll answer your question anyway:

ME1: Eden Prime, Recruiting Tali (evidence against Saren), Therum, Feros, Noveria, Virmire, Ilos, and a ridiculous amount of sidequests.  Seven plot-essential missions with great length and depth.  No sense of urgency.  Sidequests were boring and repetitive.

ME2: Freedom's Progress, Recruiting Mordin (anti-Collector tech), Horizon, Collector Ship, Reaper IFF, Omega 4, and a ridiculous amount of sidequests.  Six plot-essential missions that were sort of lackluster in length and depth.  Sense of urgency not only exists, but game actually punishes you for dragging your feet.  Sidequests were actually fleshed-out and interesting.

Neither one is obviously superior, but ME2's pacing, or the speed at which the story moved, is definitely an improvement over ME1.  The actual story, however, was lackluster.

[Reptilian Rob]

Buggirl70 wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

I'm worried at the lack of faith the community has...

Pessimism abounds Rob, don't worry you and I can still be excited and optimistic.

Indeed, you and I can build an excitment fort!

[The Big Nothing]

Ghost-621 wrote...

For the love, Shepard does NOT have to die for his story to end...I'm sick of these endings where the protagonist dies or makes the "ultimate sacrifice.." It would be rather anticlimatic, and Shepard has built a habit of overcoming the overwhelming, him dying in the end wouldn't really make sense.

Sure it would. What is more tragic than the death of Superman? Shepard seems unkillable, and what better way to emphasize the gravity of the Reaper threat than to have him die in order to stop it?

[AdmiralCheez]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

While I may be a vocal advocate for returning squad mates. Realistically, it is not likely to happen. Fortunately, in both our cases. Our particular favorite happens to have attracted arguably the largest fanbase in the series. So if there are even two returning characters, Garrus will be among them. Tali, of course, would be the second.

In any event, I could accept a cameo of even Garrus, if, and only if, he was given the LotSB treatment. I once mentioned an indoctrination angle wherein we have to eventually oppose our beloved friend. For non-import players, this could merely be a generic scene that has a group of formingly innocent people, opposing Shepard. For only those importing is the truly unique and personal possession of Garrus ever explored.

And no, I will not accept a stand in, akin to Wreav. Terror and I discussed this, and I agree, it does an injustice to the character.

Agree with everything you said; I just think a squaddie return is more likely than you think.  Am I deluding myself?  Maybe, but someone has to brighten up all the doom and gloom on these damn boards.

But seriously, Garrus and Miranda would not only be perfect as your advisors/second-in-command (a non-essential, but rewarding role), but they had the highest survival rates.  My money's on them.  And Tali.  Because God forbid Bioware incite the rage of the Talimancers.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 13 décembre 2010 - 12:01 .