174 réponses à ce sujet

[Fiery Phoenix]

I'm sorry.

[jlb524]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

The thing is, the guy who's writing ME3 is a comic writer, and he's the same guy who wrote ME2's main story. Also, this guy consults the Mass Effect Wiki to get his facts straight during the writing process. Furthermore, he didn't lay a single hand on LOTSB, but merely reviewed it.

/rant

'tis true.

[Bourne Endeavor]

sumoaltus wrote...

I'm still not seeing where ME2 was remove from ME1. ME2 is a continuation of ME1 and picks up two years after it's predecessor left off. Shepard is searching outside of coucil space for any remaining Geth forces when his/her ship is attacked by an unknown enemy - at that juncture - who becomes known once the Lazarus project is complete and it is brought to Shepards attention by the illusive man.

Now yes, the entire game is based off of recruiting characters in Order to save humans from abduction and recreation into a human shaped "Reaper".

In what capacity is there any continuation? We discovery virtually nothing in regards to the Reapers. Hilariously, ME2 even trivializes the one reveal about the Collectors we could attach to the Reapers. We are instantaneously shoehorned into working for Cerberus and are not even the option to refuse or inquire about the experimentation Cerberus conducted. Even a moment of defiance that led to Shepard seeking out the Council or Anderson on the Citadel and coming to the realization Cerberus, and only Cerberus, would assist her would have served an example of melding the story. Instead the Citadel is a backdrop that is completely optional alongside our previous mentor.

Another plausible example of proper continuality would be depicting reasons why the Reapers may not exist, at least not in the eyes of anyone excluding Shepard and her former crew. Depict scenes of Shepard's struggles, her frustration that she cannot discover efficient evidence despite engaging Sovereign. Perhaps have her even question the Reapers herself momentarily; an ample opportunity for Liara to be the voice of reason by the way. Instead of killing her for a cheap retcon, ruin her creditability. This allows Shepard to develop as a character, to go through the motions.

Continuing along the "no death" angle. What if Shepard later met Miranda/Jacob and joined Cerberus in an act of desperation? The Council has ruled out her theories, she has no evidence of the Reapers, even partially questions them herself and Cerberus offers not only resources but believes the Reapers are really.

That is merely two possibility for ME2 and ones I derived on the fly. There have been others and many more that do not completely rewrite ME2's plot. The fundamental difference is these alternates she character develop to Shepard. We see her emotions and can influence them in a positive manner through strength of will (Paragon), through unbridled arrogance (Renegade), something in between or even partial wallow. The conclusion is Shepard grows as a character.

Citing Mass Effect 2 as a filler is, in fact, insulting it. I filler indicates a deviation from the main story, a distraction. It "fills" the gap because the main plot either is still in development and requires a lengthier delay or because the writers did not have enough content overall and something was required to stretch the story to adhere the "trilogy" terminology. Filler is only good in small doses, not as a main story because it is not meant to be crafted in such a capacity. Therefore, if Mass Effect 2's plot is "filler" as has been stated. It falls into the two aforementioned categories.

Now, at this point I can not predict what will occur in ME3. But, if Bioware is smart, they will make everyone that you recruited and made loyal, and every side mission you did a significant portion of ME3. Furthermore, I can tell you right now that by rule of trilogy we probably will be witnessing a lot of aspects from ME1 in ME3.

Trust me, everyone we recruited and every main point that we went over in ME2 will have something to do with ME3. Remember the news that we got earlier about there being more than a thousand variables from ME1 and ME2. So that should solidify that what we have done in the past 2 titles will matter in this final installment.

Bioware claimed Mass Effect 2 used 700 variables, an exaggeration undoubtedly but there claim nonetheless. Consider now the ramification of their respective outcomes. Worthless text in email form or a five second cameo for the fortunate few. They now boast over 1000 variables will be in Mass Effect 3. That is only 300 more than its predecessor and must accommodate thirteen characters in comparison to five; almost three times the amount. We then have the choices from Mass Effect, if their importance has any weight. Unless Bioware was horrifically inaccurate by that number. Those variables are not likely to differ much from ME2's.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 01 janvier 2011 - 05:57 .

[SithLordExarKun]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

(...)
Come on, iakus! Cheer up. BioWare has had months and months to absorb fan feedback for ME2. Do you really think none of that is going to count? That they're going to make another game that makes the same mistakes?

ME3 is the end of the series, it can let it all hang out, choice outcomes can go crazy and every issue can be resolved.

The thing is, the guy who's writing ME3 is a comic writer, and he's the same guy who wrote ME2's main story. Also, this guy consults the Mass Effect Wiki to get his facts straight during the writing process. Furthermore, he didn't lay a single hand on LOTSB, but merely reviewed it.

/rant

Where did you learn he consults the wiki to get the facts sraight and what happened to ME1's writers?

[DylanZeppelin]

I don't want to go in detail as I think Bourne, Bianco, iakus among other have done a great job, but I would just like to point out that ME1 didn't have Reapers (just bare with me) it had Saren, your main antagonist was Saren and only through him did you uncover the real big plot being the Reapers. In ME2 they gave us the collectors which felt like an excuse to be honest to hold the story, stall it till ME3 and the story didn't go anywhere real. Imagine it this way: ME1's story on a chart went up (or diagonal) where as ME2 went in a circle and ended up where it began more or less. I find this to go hand in hand with their direction of making ME2 more streamlined and casual oriented if you will in comparison to ME1.



From stripping the game of a lot of the elements it had going for it self and making it streamlined and all the game overall became less intelligent if you will and this I think all went hand in hand with the story and game design even things like the poor and a bit cheesy boss fight (you know the one) to the romances which felt childish in comparison to the weight they had in ME1



I think its funny how LOTSB, a short DLC has a lot of story content in it where as ME2 the full sequel didn't have much, I mean even as pure speculation there's a lot that LOTSB tells us about ME3 if you look a bit closely.



Also yes, calling it a filler is not actually a good thing at all. I was waiting to read this going through the pages of this thread. Now I am not saying that I didn't love ME2, I did, but its cons are more than its pros and even more so with the existence of ME1.



As for Patriot's response I have to say that actually this is the case with nearly all Bioware games, they all follow the same structure that you could just change the characters, setting etc and will end up with games that are extremely alike in all forms and so its not about change its about how, but this is self explanatory and again there are great posts out there about this.

[SithLordExarKun]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...


Another plausible example of proper continuality would be depicting reasons why the Reapers may not exist, at least not in the eyes of anyone excluding Shepard and her former crew. Depict scenes of Shepard's struggles, her frustration that she cannot discover efficient evidence despite engaging Sovereign. Perhaps have her even question the Reapers herself momentarily; an ample opportunity for Liara to be the voice of reason by the way. Instead of killing her for a cheap retcon, ruin her creditability. This allows Shepard to develop as a character, to go through the motions.

 

You know this is the idea that i have thought pretty much a while back. I felt Shepard is essentially an undeveloped uncompelling character. No struggles, no acts of defiance and everything that she has to do or  go through is "sure np, cool bro" and acts as if nothing has happened(you know a ship getting blowed up with you along it would drastically change even the strongest people).

[DylanZeppelin]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...


Another plausible example of proper continuality would be depicting reasons why the Reapers may not exist, at least not in the eyes of anyone excluding Shepard and her former crew. Depict scenes of Shepard's struggles, her frustration that she cannot discover efficient evidence despite engaging Sovereign. Perhaps have her even question the Reapers herself momentarily; an ample opportunity for Liara to be the voice of reason by the way. Instead of killing her for a cheap retcon, ruin her creditability. This allows Shepard to develop as a character, to go through the motions.

 

You know this is the idea that i have thought pretty much a while back. I felt Shepard is essentially an undeveloped uncompelling character. No struggles, no acts of defiance and everything that she has to do or  go through is "sure np, cool bro" and acts as if nothing has happened(you know a ship getting blowed up with you along it would drastically change even the strongest people).

Yes I thought of that too, I think Shepard can be a bit robotic with his resposes

[SithLordExarKun]

DylanZeppelin wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...


Another plausible example of proper continuality would be depicting reasons why the Reapers may not exist, at least not in the eyes of anyone excluding Shepard and her former crew. Depict scenes of Shepard's struggles, her frustration that she cannot discover efficient evidence despite engaging Sovereign. Perhaps have her even question the Reapers herself momentarily; an ample opportunity for Liara to be the voice of reason by the way. Instead of killing her for a cheap retcon, ruin her creditability. This allows Shepard to develop as a character, to go through the motions.

 

You know this is the idea that i have thought pretty much a while back. I felt Shepard is essentially an undeveloped uncompelling character. No struggles, no acts of defiance and everything that she has to do or  go through is "sure np, cool bro" and acts as if nothing has happened(you know a ship getting blowed up with you along it would drastically change even the strongest people).

Yes I thought of that too, I think Shepard can be a bit robotic with his resposes

This flaw wasn't just with ME2, i felt it was in ME1 too(at the very least it had a moment at the locker where shepard is shown frustrated). I just hope that in ME3 that shepard DOES actually have some character development. I can't take Shepard as a character seriously if she could go through so much garbage like getting her ship blowned up, council rubbing her face, being forced to work for cerberus etc etc and acts like nothing happened.

Even Reznov in COD had 10x more development and was far more compelling.

[AlanC9]

tonnactus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...


I'm half-though and haven't had this happen yet. OTOH that's because at the higher difficulty levels I really don't like Charge at all.

Whats the point of playing as vanguard then?

None, except that's the character I imported and I don't like reconstructing class.

[Terror_K]

The problem is if you give Shepard too much personality in-game without enough control on the part of the player then you run the risk of having players get annoyed that their Shepard is getting too defined for them. Shepard is purposefully a blank slate who we rarely explore personality wise so that the player can fill in most of the blanks themselves rather than having the game dictate who Shepard is to the player.



That said, both games have demonstrated that it can be done in an unobtrusive manner before on rare occasions, and have let players define their Shepards to some degree beyond mere Paragon/Renegade choices. In the first game we had the Virmire survivor talking to Shepard and asking him/her how he/she deals with decisions like that, and in LotSB we had Liara chilling with Shepard and asking him/her how all the Reaper stuff has been for him/her. These were great moments that let us define our Shepards a little and actually let us show some personality, so --simply put--- more of this, please.

[Fiery Phoenix]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Where did you learn he consults the wiki to get the facts sraight and what happened to ME1's writers?

Guess you haven't been around much. Here:

> LINK

In particular:

But I have to be honest with you, I need to thank the fans. One of the best sources of information on Mass Effect is the Mass Effect Wiki. I often use it myself.

Now this isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but its implications are ugly. Real ugly.

And by the way, I'm an editor on the ME Wiki myself.

[SithLordExarKun]

Terror_K wrote...

The problem is if you give Shepard too much personality in-game without enough control on the part of the player then you run the risk of having players get annoyed that their Shepard is getting too defined for them. Shepard is purposefully a blank slate who we rarely explore personality wise so that the player can fill in most of the blanks themselves rather than having the game dictate who Shepard is to the player.

That said, both games have demonstrated that it can be done in an unobtrusive manner before on rare occasions, and have let players define their Shepards to some degree beyond mere Paragon/Renegade choices. In the first game we had the Virmire survivor talking to Shepard and asking him/her how he/she deals with decisions like that, and in LotSB we had Liara chilling with Shepard and asking him/her how all the Reaper stuff has been for him/her. These were great moments that let us define our Shepards a little and actually let us show some personality, so --simply put--- more of this, please.

Im not really asking bioware to give shepard too much of a personality but shepard feels far too unrealistic for me at least. You know like theres no option to really defy cerberus or bring up certain issues and show a sense of vulnerability. We don't really get to define Shepard that much.

The warden in DAO was slightly different as there are moments you can choose your character to show some sense of vulnerability and insecurity, what i'd like is shepard to have more of these options so we can define him/her much better to flesh out his/her character. You knpw like how Shepard was helping squadmembers solve their issues but what about Shepards problems and issues?

Now i haven't played LOTSB yet(because my friend refuses to return my copy of ME2) so i can't really comment on anything there.

@Fieryphoenix

Yeah well thanks, so i assume its mostly you doing the editing?

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 01 janvier 2011 - 03:19 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

@Fieryphoenix

Yeah well thanks, so i assume its mostly you doing the editing?

Irrelevant. And no, not even close.

My point is even as an editor on the ME Wiki, I have the decency to admit that the ME Wiki is not the best source of ME information out there when it comes to BioWare. As a writer and apparently creator (at least partially) of the universe of an epic space opera, you are in no position to consult the fan's work because you are supposed to be the top source of information there is.

I could be wrong in my assessment here, but I think that implies Walters doesn't know enough about what's going on in the ME universe, and therefore he feels obligated to visit the ME Wiki every now and then to verify his work, which is quite sad, really.

[SithLordExarKun]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

@Fieryphoenix

Yeah well thanks, so i assume its mostly you doing the editing?

Irrelevant. And no, not even close.

My point is even as an editor on the ME Wiki, I have the decency to admit that the ME Wiki is not the best source of ME information out there when it comes to BioWare. As a writer and apparently creator (at least partially) of the universe of an epic space opera, you are in no position to consult the fan's work because you are supposed to be the top source of information there is.

I could be wrong in my assessment here, but I think that implies Walters doesn't know enough about what's going on in the ME universe, and therefore he feels obligated to visit the ME Wiki every now and then to verify his work, which is quite sad, really.

Who ever said writers are and should be infallible?

[Fiery Phoenix]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Who ever said writers are and should be infallible?

Which is exactly why I said "supposed" in my post.

The fact remains, Mass Effect is first and foremost a story-focused trilogy. With no story, it is no longer Mass Effect. This story is currently in the hands of Mac Walters since Karpyshyn's recent departure. If Walters relies on the ME Wiki for anything while writing the final chapter of a trilogy, it is indeed a sad thing, as it could potentially ruin a lot.

If anything, it should be the other way around. Look at the closest example of David Gaider with Dragon Age and you will see what I mean.

That being said, I seriously hope I'm wrong and that Walters is a smarter writer than he appears to be. After all, I'm only assuming the worst here, as you can probably tell.

[glacier1701]

sumoaltus wrote...

I ran a search on all of the threads that contained an ME2 argument and there are just too many to post in, so I figured I'd make my own thread on this.

I'm sure everyone here has read millions of posts along the lines of "ME2 sucks ME1 is better", "ME2 has lost it's core RPG elements", "ME2 is too character driven", or "ME2 is too much of babysitting game than an RPG". I think a lot of the gamers and fans on this forum are missing the point of the whole second part of the trilogy concept. As all of you know, ME has been labeled as a trilogy since Casey and his team announced it. ME1 started off by introducing us all to the ME universe and it's numerous inhabitants, along with the story that will unfold before us in three seperate installments. Now, I'm not going to go too deep into the story because everyone on here has at least played ME1 once, and understands the overall synopsis. Plus, I want to avoid any spoilers that will get this thread closed.

Anyway, getting to the point. ME2 is supposed to be the so called "bridge" with in the trilogy. ME1 introduced us to key characters for the first time and the overall story, where as ME2 mainly focused on characters. Here's where my rebuttle for the countless ME2 story bashings comes into play. Based on what I'm seeing ME2 is all about building a team of deadly assassins, biotics, and warriors for the so called "suicide mission" that is stated in the description on the back cover and all over the internet. Now, I'm not going to lie, that is the game, but there is a reason why you're only recruiting a team. Look further into the future plot, you're recruiting all of these pcharacters in ME1 and ME2 to help you out in the ultimate battle for survival of the entire Milky Way Galaxy in ME3.

So how does the make ME2 sub-par or lack luster? The sole purpose of ME2 was to set up your playthrough for the ultimate conclusion of the trilogy. And to me, it goes above and beyond many trilogies that I've watched. It also adds a perfect mix of shooter and RP(Role Playing) quaities. Shaping the universe is still there, exploration is still there, resources for upgrading is still there, currency is still there, important decisions and dialogue is still there, and basic shooter elements are still there. And keep in mind, All of this has been upgraded along with a more streamlined approach to upgrading and customizing. Think about it, who really wants to be toying around with five sets of weapon upgrades that have minscule differences? I'll reiterate something that has been stated countless times on this forum, inventory cluttr does not make an RPG, an RPG. Strong character development and a universe shaped solely on your decisions makes an RPG what it is supposed to be.

 You are wrong on many counts. To start I will use one example that BioWare itself used in the lead up to the release of ME2 to show you were you started down the wrong track.

 BioWare stated numerous times that ME2 was supposed to be something like "The Dirty Dozen". I hope you have watched that movie because you should realise that even allowing for a lot of hyperbole the ONLY thing in common is that you have a dozen squadmates. In the movie you are shown HOW the squadmates bond togther  - we got none of that in ME2 which shows how little character development there was. In the movie the squad is going after a small limited objective that is within its capabilities. In ME2 its as if we are told that the whole D-Day invasion force is to consist of 1 frigate and Shepard's squad and that they are to go in at the most obvious point where the defences are strongest without any foreknowledge of what those defences actually are. This is supposed to make perfect sense - I think not. Moreover it is ONLY after you get through the Relay that you find out what you have is going to be enough yet this is not mentioned anywhere prior to this point. In other words the whole thing was blown way up because the reality of what you were to face was so much more mundane and uninspiring. 

 BioWare or to be more exact Casey Hudson made the statement that we got new squadmates because players love new squadmates and working on new squadmates was more fun for the developers. Nothing in that implies that the characters we got were there to help the story but rather their place in the game is something to point to and say Hey, you got new squadmates. It does not matter that they make no sense storywise we got new characters.

 Casey also stated that the 'old' squadmates would be off doing their own thing and that it would make sense and that when come across they would have react accordingly. For the potential LIs from ME1 this was NOT true in any sense of the word. The scenes with them were so badly flawed that the main reaction from most ME1 players is that they barely recognised them as being the same person. Hardly meshes well with them reacting accordingly. Indeed we also learnt that the reasons for this was that this allowed these characters to be in ME3 and for no other reason than that!

 We learnt early on in the development process that those Shepard's who were Paragon would not have certain choices available to them. For example in the Thane recruitment mission it is possible that a player's Shepard is on good terms with Nassana Dantius. Yet all they can do is stand by and let her die! When pointed out that this is NOT what a Paragon Shepard would do the players were told suck it up...if you do not like it do not buy the game...ME2 is so good we do not need you as a customer. In other words you have to follow OUR ideas on what being Paragon means and you can ONLY make the choices we allow even if they do not make sense. That is hardly allowing RP into the game. I mean if you are on good terms why could you not just call and get invited up. Oh yeah because that would be introducing RPG elements and choices from ME1 into the game and leaving out shooter elements.

 And that leads into the other aspect of ME2 that shaped its development. For much of its time it was under a NO RPG rule. That is things that would interfere with the shooter elements were to be sacrificed even if it meant such things as: No helmet toggles, no squadmate armour, linear shooting corridors, pop-up cover, improbable cutscene powers, thermal clips where they made no sense (i.e. new tech somehow being available in areas that had no access to that tech - Jacob's Father mission and The Collectors), lack of reaction to past Shepard history with Cerberus, an ME2 which was supposedly Shepard's story not being about Shepard at all (indeed you could put anyone in there and it would still work as nothing in ME2 needed Shepard to be there), lack of a believable villian, choices from ME1 not being properly carried over (in fact we can point to the fact that ONLY 6 choices matter as far as BioWare is concerned and all the rest are just fluff) and so on and so on......


 Yet despite everything ME2 is still a decent game. However its main failing is that it is NOT what BioWare is normally capable of. Their past games show us what they are capable of and should live up to yet ME2 fell short by a considerable margin. What we got was an attempt to go mainstream and be like the rest of the games out there and not what it should have been - a leader in the field. ME2 may have won awards but for the most part how unbiased are those awards when they are awarded by groups whose existence depends on advertising dollars from the companies they give the awards to? Its had great sales - and yes it has - though it has not outsold ME1 by any huge margin and considering that the idea was to appeal to a wider audience that shows that it failed to excell enough in what it gave us to attract that larger audience it was aimed at.

 And one final point - each ME game is STAND ALONE (a BioWare statement by the way). That is it should NOT depend on the game before OR after it to be a good game. Claiming that ME2 is a bridge is to say that you have doubts about ME2 as a game in that it did not tell a good story and that ONLY with the help of another game can it do that. BioWare states that all the prior game (or next game) will do is to give you some more of the background. Playing the prior game is NOT a requirement yet that is the very thing you are saying is to happen - without playing ME2 you cannot enjoy ME3 or that ME2 cannot be judged until after ME3 is released. It certainly invalidates much of your statement.

[Remus Artega]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Who ever said writers are and should be infallible?

Which is exactly why I said "supposed" in my post.

The fact remains, Mass Effect is first and foremost a story-focused trilogy. With no story, it is no longer Mass Effect. This story is currently in the hands of Mac Walters since Karpyshyn's recent departure. If Walters relies on the ME Wiki for anything while writing the final chapter of a trilogy, it is indeed a sad thing, as it could potentially ruin a lot.

If anything, it should be the other way around. Look at the closest example of David Gaider with Dragon Age and you will see what I mean.

That being said, I seriously hope I'm wrong and that Walters is a smarter writer than he appears to be. After all, I'm only assuming the worst here, as you can probably tell.

If the recent comic is any indication of what's to come (taking plotholes in those 5 pages into account) in ME3...then god save Mass Effect...

[Nashiktal]

1. I didn't buy the game to play a bunch of glorified side missions.



2. Consider Biowares track record with killable characters. While I hope i'm wrong with this, with how Bioware handled the VS i'm not holding my breath for more than a few cameos.



3. They make the focus of the game about recruiting your team, its all about your team and gaining their loyalty, bonding with them. That would be fine, but your teammates are often nothing but animated statues, silent on missions, few conversations with any significant meaning, pretty much the same amount of conversations in ME1. Since the game revolves around your team, the game suffers for it. Oh whats that Garrus? More calibrations? Sigh...



4. The big buildup for fighting the collecters, the colonies are disappearing, you must stop them! Oh but you only fight them a few times... and you are mostly dancing in bars, wrestling with thresher maws, tracking down sons, working as a lawyer, being a therapist, playing detective, finding fathers, hunting scientist salarians and blowing up geth.



Don't get me wrong. Gaining loyalty for your team was a cool idea, but coupled with point 3, and the fact that most of the game, kinda like ME1, is spent doing "side missions" while more colonies disappear pissed me off. (Your crew constantly talk about more colonies going missing. Humanity is small enough as it is, each loss is quite the blow). At least in ME1 most of the main missions had something to do with saren, even if he was never there personally.



5. "suicide mission"



5.5 Fine i'll expand upon it. Making the suicide mission easy is one thing, that's a nice way of making you feel badass the first time around, but the whole mission itself was... Insignificant.



Remember that large team you were gathering for this supposedly impossible mission? Most of your team don't even participate till the end, and when they do, its off screen! It felt like a waste of time recruiting Thane, Grunt, Mordin, Zaeed, and the characters your don't use for the specific tasks, and even then, its only for some obscure math formula that most wouldnt figure out unless they look on this forum!

[Pedro Costa]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

(...)
Come on, iakus! Cheer up. BioWare has had months and months to absorb fan feedback for ME2. Do you really think none of that is going to count? That they're going to make another game that makes the same mistakes?

ME3 is the end of the series, it can let it all hang out, choice outcomes can go crazy and every issue can be resolved.

The thing is, the guy who's writing ME3 is a comic writer, and he's the same guy who wrote ME2's main story. Also, this guy consults the Mass Effect Wiki to get his facts straight during the writing process. Furthermore, he didn't lay a single hand on LOTSB, but merely reviewed it.

/rant

Wait, seriously?

Are you sure that Karpyshyn won't be back for Mass3?
This has SO MANY unpleasant implications...
No wonder Mass Effect media now comes in the form of comics raher than proper books, the guy can't write proper literary works... and even the comics aren't that good.

Further, if a guy can't take the bloody time to play the games whose trilogy he's writing and needs to consult a fan-made wikia for plot consistency, why the hell is he still at the helm of Mass Effect?!


However, I must say, the stupid things in Mass2 now finally make SENSE. Terminator really had that cheap comic book plot twist vibe... along with the whole save humanity by destroying it, there hardly can be a more comic book villaneous plot than that one... I'm a depressed panda now and seriously wondering if I'll still preorder the game.
=(

edit: perhaps someone could make a proper topic for this particular issue? I think that, beyond heat sinks, beyond inventories, beyond all the gameplay crap, what we all really want and SHOULD be giving a HUGE damn about is an outstanding story to surpass the sci-fi epics (Mass1 definitely delivered such potential, a very rich universe, grounded in reasonable scientific bases) and absorve ourselves into, and it seems that this should, therefore, be a rather pressing and vital matter to get sorted out/discussed.

Modifié par DarkLord_PT, 01 janvier 2011 - 05:06 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Karpyshyn outlined the plot of ME3 well before ME2 was even released. The execution, however, is going to be done by Walters. And execution is the most critical aspect of a story.

[Pedro Costa]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Karpyshyn outlined the plot of ME3 well before ME2 was even released. The execution, however, is going to be done by Walters. And execution is the most critical aspect of a story.

Yup. If all Karpyshyn did was outline the plot, then there is still too much room for Walters to screw up. Which makes me think just why the heck did BioWare decide to pull Karpyshyn out of the trilogy he created. I'm not saying I wanted Karpyshyn to write every single Mass Effect game to come, just this one trilogy.

As I edited above, perhaps someone could make a proper topic to discuss this? I think it's a legitimate concern that merits proper discussion, no?

Honestly, now I seriously feel the time this community wasted discussing petty crap like to heasink or not to heatsink was wasted time and attention when what we really want (I feel) is a really good story to immerse ouserlves into was left unchecked, undiscussed and now we may pay dearly for that mistake.

[Fiery Phoenix]

We already have such a topic, Dark. It's been around for a while, actually.

[Pedro Costa]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

We already have such a topic, Dark. It's been around for a while, actually.

I seriously need to hang around that forum more often xD
Thanks.

Modifié par DarkLord_PT, 01 janvier 2011 - 05:19 .

[Jonathan Shepard]

It's sub-par and lackluster because the characters who could've been fleshed out were left behind for cameos, and new characters (who were completely unnecessary and could've been combined into a single, more soulful identity) were introduced... and the plot went backwards, if anywhere at all. At the end of ME2, you know a few more people, and you cut out the Collectors from the Reapers' plans... but you're not really anywhere close to finding a way to defeat the Reapers. The key characters were essentially ignored. That's why it's a great game... but a terrible sequel. Closer to a spin-off, if anything.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

Jonathan Shepard wrote...

It's sub-par and lackluster because the characters who could've been fleshed out were left behind for cameos, and new characters (who were completely unnecessary and could've been combined into a single, more soulful identity) were introduced... and the plot went backwards, if anywhere at all. At the end of ME2, you know a few more people, and you cut out the Collectors from the Reapers' plans... but you're not really anywhere close to finding a way to defeat the Reapers. The key characters were essentially ignored. That's why it's a great game... but a terrible sequel. Closer to a spin-off, if anything.

Ok am getting a bit fed up of saying this or seeing someone else say this and no offence Jonathan this isn't really directed at you but this general stupid opinion some people seem to have really does need to be nipped in the bud.

In 'Empire Strikes Back' were the Rebels closer to defeating the Empire?

HELL NO!

In fact to some extent they'd taken a step back because they had their base on Hoth destroyed, had one of their upcoming leaders frozen in carbonite and another one finding out that his dad was one of the main guys of the Empire YAY!

So all these nonsensical "we didn't come closer to finding a way to stop the Reapers" kind of comments just shows some people don't seem to have a clue about how stories work. Even more so considering we DID actually once again put a block on the Reapers plans. To some extent we're doing a better job of it than the Rebels did with the Empire

I mean, if ME was following the OT to the tea, Shep would've got their ass kicked in ME2. Oh wait, s/he did at the start Oh and we got to visit a city in the clo...*coughs* erm... stars (yeah I know the Citadel could be deemed that but Omega even looks a bit like Cloud City )

Place your bets for Aria being the Lando of the series and joining us in ME3 to kick Reaper butt.

Modifié par Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien, 01 janvier 2011 - 09:24 .