1 réponse à ce sujet

[Usualfool]

1 : An argument from history.  Mass Effect 1 established a franchise.  Mass Effect 2 established a trajectory of "growth."  Mass Effect 3 will most likely follow it.  As Mass Effect 2 was inferior to Mass Effect 1 in all significant ways--and here I mean that Mass Effect 2 had better graphics than the original, but those are insignificant--Mass Effect 3 will also be inferior.  (An abreviated exposition: smaller and fewer environments, restrictive story structure, no meaningful customization options, heat sinks....)

2 : An argument from analogy.  The Trailer sucked, and if it is indicitatie then the game will as well.  Let me unpack this.  In Mass Effect 3 the Reapers are attacking earth.  They're not ABOUT to attack; they are attacking.  First, we see that they are ineffectual; time has apparently taken away their civilization destruction skills so that they can be effectively hindered by a sniper.  Second, we realize that one of two things must happen: either the entire third game must occupy an incredibly compressed time frame, or the Reapers are not a serious threat.  If it is the former, then the third game will be even smaller and more restrictive than the second.  If it is the latter, then it is anticlimactic and ultimately irrelevant.

[Stanley Woo]

way too much spam and personal attacks in this thread.



End of line.