29 réponses à ce sujet

[fivefingaslap18]

The 2nd game was about a squad. A squad who you rarely were able to talk to as 6 of them were romanceable characters and if you didn't romance them or were a different gender their dialogue options would be widdled down to 2-4 to learn about these characters. The other 6 were new and you could talk to them a plethora of times, and quite honestly out of these 6 you could only actively engage with 4 of them. The other two felt like characters willing to give you their life stories while you try to say something back but you just can't because BioWare forgot the dialogue wheel.

You could not take the entire squad with you, which was not unprecedented, and they all had lives outside of your ship. However, you never see them off the ship and since they are not on a military vessel should be able to choose when they have their shore leave. Running into them on planet could not have been hard to program, and it could have been quite interesting. It would've given more dynamic to the game and certainly would've made it truly a squad game experience.

Alas, it only occurs at the suicide mission does everyone realize that we are a platoon and must work together. The only other glimpses of togetherness comes from the action when Miranda and Jack, and Tali and Legion have their spats of aggression for a less cohesive bonding experience. These characters have to come up from their deck to start these personal arguments no less. So why would I feel this cohesive squad coming together if the story was about building one and in the end, it didn't do anything like that?

The reason was we were tasked with fighting an enemy that was a humanoid unknowable enemy. We knew they were allied with the Reapers, which was why all of their gear was so nice and powerful, but that still tells us nothing. We don't know when their ship comes out to play. We don't know what their species is made up of, except that they looked like some type of arthropod akin to an early Terra bug most likely, and that was it. What did we know about their home planet up until EDI's guestimation? We knew nothing and we only fought them, prior to the suicide mission, twice: Horizon and on their own ship. There was no grand enemy except the obvious looming threat of the Reapers.

BioWare, you know the Reapers aren't scary unless they're at your door. If you could keep them out of the galaxy with a giant sphere of unobtanium, than they're not scary anymore. We killed Saren who was an agent of the Reapers, late reveal of ME1 that became an epic plot twist, but he was also built up as an incredible antagonist. Who was that same character for ME2? The Collector General? Fighting his drones and fighting the General are two different antagonists. We essentially fought geth and mercenary krogan the entire game. We never once fought a Saren or a Sovereign.

So if we never fought our antagonist directly and the whole point was to build a squad and stop the collectors, make me fight their general. PUT THANE'S ASSASSAIN USE TO WORK! Make me not be able to win unless we have a sniper perched and ready to shoot the man dead! Even Garrus could have worked in that instance, and maybe even Zaeed (whom I utterly found very stupid). However, you did none of that and not only was this game's story felt empty but you even destroyed the whole point of this game as well.

What is about to come is spoilers for people who have not played Arrival yet. Now this might be controversial to some, whereas to others this makes total sense. Why is this so? You added Arrival to the game. Granted, not everyone could buy it nor knew about it. However, in Arrival we find out we eventually need to stop the Reapers from getting into the Milky Way Galaxy. They traveled quickly from when they first started flying from the edge of Dark Space to almost hitting the ALPHA RELAY. I want their engines on my car.

So... the entire game was: build a squad and stop the Collectors. So why does it feel like me trying to keep the Reapers out of the Milky Way Galaxy should have really been the 2nd game? Is it because they are the true antagonists and everyone else after fighting Sovereign is just a snack? I think so. If you're going to make it where the Reapers were at our door and the whole build up of making a team didn't really bring a cohesive feeling with all the members (there isn't going to be good feelings with every person who works together but there weren't good times shown with people who would get along either and that's everything in a visual medium) and this not only happens but the people you set to be antagonists are not even built up well [to the point where the suicide mission feels incomplete], than why even bother making the game about fighting the collectors and building a squad?

The 2nd game should have started with the Reaper invasion. This way, you don't have to worry about making the antagonist as good or as threatening as Saren while worrying about the overall big bad enemy syndrome through the ultimate enemy in the Reapers. You start off with fighting the Reapers and bam! You get straight to the action. The 3rd game would be how you defeat the Reapers, which you would learn in.... drum roll please.... the 2nd game. That's where understanding your enemy would've really come into play. That's where the Suicide Mission would've been really difficult.

So, if you agree feel free to say it with me.... EA we hate you.

[Khayness]

Thwarting the Reapers' plan B in ME2 worked for me, albeit the main plot missions were too few for my liking, it had too much filler (Loyality Missions, cough). More Collector encounters could have been great with somehow implementing gaining your squad's trust during those encounters with your leadership on field, instead of solving daddy issues.

Modifié par Khayness, 08 juin 2011 - 03:36 .

[dreman9999]

......But ME2 IS the beginning of the reaper invasion. Sure, the reapers were not physically there but they started harvesting and make their first line of offense in ME2. The Collectors were just highly modified husk, extensions of the reapers, like with the indoctrinated Cerberus Agents and the modified husk you see in the ME3 demos.

The invasion started a long time ago, you just didn't see it.

[LGTX]

With all due respect to difference of opinions, I wholeheartedly disagree with every argument you provided, and what you were trying to prove. Mass Effect 2 did a more-or-less decent job of setting up variables in the Reaper war, AT the expense of many characters' loyality missions. I didn't need the main story arc jutting into the whole mumbo-jumbo even more.

[FluffyScarf]

Maybe. Too late now. Wait for a ME reboot.

[Nohvarr]

I agree with LGTX, ME 2 was the prelude to invasion, the Reapers are coming and they were getting things ready for te invasion of Earth. We kicked their agents in the Daddy bags and ruined all the time and resources they'd put into that plot (not too mention that plague on Omega they engineered). So yeah we've already weakened them, now it's time to bury the knife in and twist.

[candidate88766]

1. Stop using EA as a scapegoat for any problems you see in ME2. They have no input into the story or the direction of the game.

2. This would make ME1 entirely pointless. You stopped the Reapers and oh, wait, nevermind, they're here.

3. The game would have to end on a cliffhanger. No one likes cliffhangers.

4. What would the third game be? The Reapers are still here?

You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm afraid I disagree entirely.

[candidate88766]

Nohvarr wrote...

I agree with LGTX, ME 2 was the prelude to invasion, the Reapers are coming and they were getting things ready for te invasion of Earth. We kicked their agents in the Daddy bags and ruined all the time and resources they'd put into that plot (not too mention that plague on Omega they engineered). So yeah we've already weakened them, now it's time to bury the knife in and twist.

This.

And, we've explored some of the plot points that will decide our alliances in ME3 - the Genophage, the Geth-Quarian conflict etc.

[Shepard Lives]

You make some good points, but the EA bashing is, well, kind of completely out of left field.

[Someone With Mass]

I think it was better that Shepard was getting himself known among several factions and races in ME2.

Might help in ME3.

And technically, ME2 was the beginning of the Reaper invasion if you look at Arrival.

[fivefingaslap18]

candidate88766 wrote...

1. Stop using EA as a scapegoat for any problems you see in ME2. They have no input into the story or the direction of the game.

2. This would make ME1 entirely pointless. You stopped the Reapers and oh, wait, nevermind, they're here.

3. The game would have to end on a cliffhanger. No one likes cliffhangers.

4. What would the third game be? The Reapers are still here?

You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm afraid I disagree entirely.

1. I'm sorry, but if you buy a siny new toy and you're not a collector who likes to leave things as they are (which is obviously not the case when you look at the direction from ME1 to ME2 and DA:O to DAII) than you're gonna play with your toys. EA did just that.

2. That just makes ME1 and ME2 pointless. We stopped them... oh wait there still here. Just because you want them here in 3 doesn't make it any less pointless to have them here in 2.

3. Fellowship of the Ring didn't? Two Towers didn't? This one didn't with those nice little Reapers flying closer and closer to the edge of the Milky Way Galaxy? Not a cliff hanger enough for you... to each one's own opinion.

4. Well, if you actually read it, you would know that the 2nd game would be to learn how you kill the Reapers. The only way we know is if they are harboring their personality into a host like Saren. You may never get that shot again and to learn how to take down Reapers is going to take forever unless you happen to be one or get lucky.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm afraid I disagree entirely.

[fivefingaslap18]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I think it was better that Shepard was getting himself known among several factions and races in ME2.

Might help in ME3.

And technically, ME2 was the beginning of the Reaper invasion if you look at Arrival.

If so, than make the entire game like Arrival. That is truly what it would be about then wouldn't it? I have no problem with making the Collectors the true antagonists of ME2 but do it right. They didn't and they treated us to this feeling of emptiness afterwards. Than Arrival comes out and I feel like I should've been doing this instead of fighting Collectors.

[Chibi Elemental]

Mass effect 1 and 2 were not pointless, everything has been leading to this point. There were hints that this was coming eventually, the final showdown, shep vs reap. One vs millions death robits!

Mass Effect 1 introduced them, saying hi we are reapers and scary phear us! Mass Effect 2 showed how they like to opperate, slow steady and unrelenting using any means necisary Mass Effect 3, the final show down, all the towns folk have left the dusty streets and both have their pistols ready, now its time to see who is the baddest bub in the west.

[fivefingaslap18]

I'm sorry, but currently all ME2 smells like in the grand scheme of things is the ? in the underpants gnomes quest for profit.

Game 1: Collect Underpants. Game 2: ?. Game 3: PROFIT!

[candidate88766]

fivefingaslap18 wrote...

candidate88766 wrote...

1. Stop using EA as a scapegoat for any problems you see in ME2. They have no input into the story or the direction of the game.

2. This would make ME1 entirely pointless. You stopped the Reapers and oh, wait, nevermind, they're here.

3. The game would have to end on a cliffhanger. No one likes cliffhangers.

4. What would the third game be? The Reapers are still here?

You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm afraid I disagree entirely.

1. I'm sorry, but if you buy a siny new toy and you're not a collector who likes to leave things as they are (which is obviously not the case when you look at the direction from ME1 to ME2 and DA:O to DAII) than you're gonna play with your toys. EA did just that.

2. That just makes ME1 and ME2 pointless. We stopped them... oh wait there still here. Just because you want them here in 3 doesn't make it any less pointless to have them here in 2.

3. Fellowship of the Ring didn't? Two Towers didn't? This one didn't with those nice little Reapers flying closer and closer to the edge of the Milky Way Galaxy? Not a cliff hanger enough for you... to each one's own opinion.

4. Well, if you actually read it, you would know that the 2nd game would be to learn how you kill the Reapers. The only way we know is if they are harboring their personality into a host like Saren. You may never get that shot again and to learn how to take down Reapers is going to take forever unless you happen to be one or get lucky.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm afraid I disagree entirely.

1. New toy? Publishers don't buy studios to play with them, they buy them to get money out of it. They see Bioware doing well, they buy them in order to buy into their profits in exchange for funding and marketing. They're not going to fiddle around with something already making money. Bioware choose the direction for their games.

2. They're arrival in part two would make the events of ME1 trivial. While their arrival is inevitable, if they arrive in the next game it renders the first kind of moot. With the series as it stands you know the Reapers are advancing but there is time to prepare, time to hinder them. It would be like  Terminator 1 trying to stop judgement day and then Terminator 2 starting by saying 'and then it happened anyway'.

Also, delaying the Reaper arrival until part 3 allows it to build up into something meaningful and, though I am loathe to use the word, 'epic'.

3. While they ended on minor cliffhangers, they resolved their internal plots. TLotR isn't a great example because that was a trilogy more for publishing reasons. It is one story split into three, whereas Mass Effect is 3 stories that tie together. While ME1 and ME2 ended on minor cliffhangers, they resolved their internal plots. If the 2nd game had the Reapers invade, then that major plot cannot be resolved in that game - at the end of the game the Reapers would still be in the galaxy.

4. I agree that ME2 should've been about learning a way to kill the Reapers. I don't think the Reapers need to be here in order for that to happen.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm afraid I disagree entirely partially.

[Savber100]

What was the point of Two Towers again? Oh yeah, to take the down a minion of Sauron. One could argue that taking down Saruman didn't really stop Sauron so therefore TT is 'pointless'.

In fact, Tolkien should have skipped TT and went straight into ROTK where the REAL conflict between Sauron and humanity will begin.

Oh wait, we need TT to establish the important players and personal journeys of the central protagonist.

Screw that... TT is still pointless because it didn't bring the Fellowship any closer to victory. Also, we should rage against Tolkien's decision to have a murdering nutjob guide Mr. Frodo. Oh wait, Mr. Frodo didn't have a choice since there were no other options. Now, we heard that Gollum will betray Frodo in ROTK?! WHY WOULD HE DO THAT? PLOTHOLES! :RAGE;

Now pretend the ME2 is TT and you'll see what I'm trying to say.

Modifié par Savber100, 08 juin 2011 - 04:34 .

[fivefingaslap18]

candidate88766 wrote...

fivefingaslap18 wrote...

candidate88766 wrote...

1. Stop using EA as a scapegoat for any problems you see in ME2. They have no input into the story or the direction of the game.

2. This would make ME1 entirely pointless. You stopped the Reapers and oh, wait, nevermind, they're here.

3. The game would have to end on a cliffhanger. No one likes cliffhangers.

4. What would the third game be? The Reapers are still here?

You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm afraid I disagree entirely.

1. I'm sorry, but if you buy a siny new toy and you're not a collector who likes to leave things as they are (which is obviously not the case when you look at the direction from ME1 to ME2 and DA:O to DAII) than you're gonna play with your toys. EA did just that.

2. That just makes ME1 and ME2 pointless. We stopped them... oh wait there still here. Just because you want them here in 3 doesn't make it any less pointless to have them here in 2.

3. Fellowship of the Ring didn't? Two Towers didn't? This one didn't with those nice little Reapers flying closer and closer to the edge of the Milky Way Galaxy? Not a cliff hanger enough for you... to each one's own opinion.

4. Well, if you actually read it, you would know that the 2nd game would be to learn how you kill the Reapers. The only way we know is if they are harboring their personality into a host like Saren. You may never get that shot again and to learn how to take down Reapers is going to take forever unless you happen to be one or get lucky.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm afraid I disagree entirely.

1. New toy? Publishers don't buy studios to play with them, they buy them to get money out of it. They see Bioware doing well, they buy them in order to buy into their profits in exchange for funding and marketing. They're not going to fiddle around with something already making money. Bioware choose the direction for their games.

2. They're arrival in part two would make the events of ME1 trivial. While their arrival is inevitable, if they arrive in the next game it renders the first kind of moot. With the series as it stands you know the Reapers are advancing but there is time to prepare, time to hinder them. It would be like  Terminator 1 trying to stop judgement day and then Terminator 2 starting by saying 'and then it happened anyway'.

Also, delaying the Reaper arrival until part 3 allows it to build up into something meaningful and, though I am loathe to use the word, 'epic'.

3. While they ended on minor cliffhangers, they resolved their internal plots. TLotR isn't a great example because that was a trilogy more for publishing reasons. It is one story split into three, whereas Mass Effect is 3 stories that tie together. While ME1 and ME2 ended on minor cliffhangers, they resolved their internal plots. If the 2nd game had the Reapers invade, then that major plot cannot be resolved in that game - at the end of the game the Reapers would still be in the galaxy.

4. I agree that ME2 should've been about learning a way to kill the Reapers. I don't think the Reapers need to be here in order for that to happen.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm afraid I disagree entirely partially.

1. To an extent I can agree, but let's be honest dude. DA:O to DAII are two completely different style of games. BioWare prior to their acquisition would have never in a million years created DAII. They did, and have only started changing their mantra for games since their being purchased from EA. ME2 also had a change in feel, but because of how ME1 was, it was not too drastic that it didn't feel out of scope. DA:O to DAII was like going from a game like KOTOR to a Dynasty Warrior game with some RP elements, because that's exactly what it was.

2. What about the leveling of Hoth and capturing Han Solo and freezing him in carbonite? Seems like everything the Alliance did was for not. In the movie after they cripple the Empire and get Han out of carbonite it seems like everything the Empire did was for not. It's perspective dude.

3. Okay, that was a bad example and that is entirely true. Still, take a look at most modern trilogies today (or really, duologies). The whole problem I have is that if you set it up as the Reapers are here and anything we do against them is like being a fly against a moving car, than setting up how to kill a Reaper is actually the end of that part of the trilogy. Than it really doesn't end on a cliff hanger, it ends on a note of realizing how you're going to kill all the thousands of them.

4. I will also agree to that, but it was never touched on. All I'm saying is, if you're going to make it about how to kill a Reaper, do that. If you're going to kill Collectors, make me feel like I'm fighting a true enemy and not just a whole bunch of drones. That's not climactic... that's anticlimactic. If you're going to try to do both, learn how to write a story!

You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm afraid I disagree entirely partially.

[jamesp81]

Shepard Lives wrote...

You make some good points, but the EA bashing is, well, kind of completely out of left field.

I never have got this.  It's still all the same people at Bioware writing the stuff, after all.

[ImmortalWarrior]

Savber100 wrote...

What was the point of Two Towers again? Oh yeah, to take the down a minion of Sauron. One could argue that taking down Saruman didn't really stop Sauron so therefore TT is 'pointless'.

In fact, Tolkien should have skipped TT and went straight into ROTK where the REAL conflict between Sauron and humanity will begin.

Oh wait, we need TT to establish the important players and personal journeys of the central protagonist.

Screw that... TT is still pointless because it didn't bring the Fellowship any closer to victory. Also, we should rage against Tolkien's decision to have a murdering nutjob guide Mr. Frodo. Oh wait, Mr. Frodo didn't have a choice as there were no other option. Now, we heard that Gollum will betray Frodo in ROTK?! PLOTHOLES! :RAGE;

Now pretend the ME2 is TT and you'll see what I'm trying to say.

Tolkien broke down his one large story into SIX books because the publisher wanted it.  Tolkien wasn't quite finished writting the story and the publisher was getting impatient.  He broke it into 6 books for the publisher.  Then the publisher decided to publish them in pairs.  The first two being the fellowship, the second two being the two towers, and the final two being the return of the king.  In no way should they be considered separate, individual stories.

That being said, ME2 was the set up.  We have dozens of unfinished plot lines.  The dark matter problem with Haestrom, the Cerberus issues, the question of how to stop the Reapers, how do we control the Citadel, and ALL the squad interactions and tasks.  Will the Krogan help, and how?  Will the quarians and the geth make peace and help? What will the asari do? How will Shepards current predicament with the Alliance and the batarians hinder things?

Off topic but the renegades who pissed everyone off might be in for a hard time, and devervedly so.  If i **** slapped, cursed at, and generally ****ed over my friends and possible allies (and told them to go **** themselves) I would wholly expect them to not help me whatsoever.  Tell Obama to go to hell and then ask him for his autograph or a picture, see how quickly he ignores your ignorant ass.

Back on topic...
Questions, questions and more questions.  Fivefinga, your complains make no sense what so ever.

[Savber100]

ImmortalWarrior wrote...

Tolkien broke down his one large story into SIX books because the publisher wanted it.  Tolkien wasn't quite finished writting the story and the publisher was getting impatient.  He broke it into 6 books for the publisher.  Then the publisher decided to publish them in pairs.  The first two being the fellowship, the second two being the two towers, and the final two being the return of the king.  In no way should they be considered separate, individual stories.

That being said, ME2 was the set up.  We have dozens of unfinished plot lines.  The dark matter problem with Haestrom, the Cerberus issues, the question of how to stop the Reapers, how do we control the Citadel, and ALL the squad interactions and tasks.  Will the Krogan help, and how?  Will the quarians and the geth make peace and help? What will the asari do? How will Shepards current predicament with the Alliance and the batarians hinder things?

I treat the Mass Effect trilogy as one and yet people like smudboy and OP forgets that these are not really standalone stories.

Criticize all you want after ME3 is released but not before. To me, it just seems silly.

Modifié par Savber100, 08 juin 2011 - 04:44 .

[fivefingaslap18]

ImmortalWarrior wrote...

Fivefinga, your complains make no sense what so ever.

Thanks, because I wrote a small essay and defenses to my post. You write me back a sentence. Really apreciate it dude.

[candidate88766]

fivefingaslap18 wrote...

candidate88766 wrote...

1. New toy? Publishers don't buy studios to play with them, they buy them to get money out of it. They see Bioware doing well, they buy them in order to buy into their profits in exchange for funding and marketing. They're not going to fiddle around with something already making money. Bioware choose the direction for their games.

2. They're arrival in part two would make the events of ME1 trivial. While their arrival is inevitable, if they arrive in the next game it renders the first kind of moot. With the series as it stands you know the Reapers are advancing but there is time to prepare, time to hinder them. It would be like  Terminator 1 trying to stop judgement day and then Terminator 2 starting by saying 'and then it happened anyway'.

Also, delaying the Reaper arrival until part 3 allows it to build up into something meaningful and, though I am loathe to use the word, 'epic'.

3. While they ended on minor cliffhangers, they resolved their internal plots. TLotR isn't a great example because that was a trilogy more for publishing reasons. It is one story split into three, whereas Mass Effect is 3 stories that tie together. While ME1 and ME2 ended on minor cliffhangers, they resolved their internal plots. If the 2nd game had the Reapers invade, then that major plot cannot be resolved in that game - at the end of the game the Reapers would still be in the galaxy.

4. I agree that ME2 should've been about learning a way to kill the Reapers. I don't think the Reapers need to be here in order for that to happen.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm afraid I disagree entirely partially.

1. To an extent I can agree, but let's be honest dude. DA:O to DAII are two completely different style of games. BioWare prior to their acquisition would have never in a million years created DAII. They did, and have only started changing their mantra for games since their being purchased from EA. ME2 also had a change in feel, but because of how ME1 was, it was not too drastic that it didn't feel out of scope. DA:O to DAII was like going from a game like KOTOR to a Dynasty Warrior game with some RP elements, because that's exactly what it was.

2. What about the leveling of Hoth and capturing Han Solo and freezing him in carbonite? Seems like everything the Alliance did was for not. In the movie after they cripple the Empire and get Han out of carbonite it seems like everything the Empire did was for not. It's perspective dude.

3. Okay, that was a bad example and that is entirely true. Still, take a look at most modern trilogies today (or really, duologies). The whole problem I have is that if you set it up as the Reapers are here and anything we do against them is like being a fly against a moving car, than setting up how to kill a Reaper is actually the end of that part of the trilogy. Than it really doesn't end on a cliff hanger, it ends on a note of realizing how you're going to kill all the thousands of them.

4. I will also agree to that, but it was never touched on. All I'm saying is, if you're going to make it about how to kill a Reaper, do that. If you're going to kill Collectors, make me feel like I'm fighting a true enemy and not just a whole bunch of drones. That's not climactic... that's anticlimactic. If you're going to try to do both, learn how to write a story!

You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm afraid I disagree entirely partially.

1. I think the DA team saw the success of Mass Effect and thought they should emphasis action as well. I don't believe EA would try to mess with a company as profitable as Bioware but I can't back that up so I imagine we'll go in circles here.

2. Empire Strikes Back ended on a clifhanger, and I didn't like that. However, despite not really advancing the plot (the Rebels are no closer to defeating the Empire at the end of the film) it is hailed as one of, if not the, greatest sequel ever. Why? Because it focused on the characters, and the sideplots, and expanded on things introduced in the first film such as the nature of the force.

3. Ok, I get what you're saying a bit better now. However, I'd still argue that if ME2 was about how the Reapers are here and you have to learn how to beat them to save the galaxy, I'd be pretty pissed off by the end of the game I hadn't beaten them. Two games of the Reapers being in the galaxy would drag on, and once a weapon or tactic had been found all that'd be left to do in part 3 would be to go around killing them, which should've been done in the part in which they arrived. At least, thats how I'd feel. It'd be like ME1 saying heres the conduit, heres how you beat Sovereign, now buy the next game to actually beat him and save the Citadel. I think your idea would only work if they scrapped the whole third part and resolved it in part two.

4. I agree the collectors could've been done a bit better, for instance being foreshadowed in part 1. The focus of ME2 was, for better or worse, on the characters in our team. Bceuase of the nature of the recruitment and loyalty missions, the whole collector threat took a back seat.

[candidate88766]

Savber100 wrote...

ImmortalWarrior wrote...

Tolkien broke down his one large story into SIX books because the publisher wanted it.  Tolkien wasn't quite finished writting the story and the publisher was getting impatient.  He broke it into 6 books for the publisher.  Then the publisher decided to publish them in pairs.  The first two being the fellowship, the second two being the two towers, and the final two being the return of the king.  In no way should they be considered separate, individual stories.

That being said, ME2 was the set up.  We have dozens of unfinished plot lines.  The dark matter problem with Haestrom, the Cerberus issues, the question of how to stop the Reapers, how do we control the Citadel, and ALL the squad interactions and tasks.  Will the Krogan help, and how?  Will the quarians and the geth make peace and help? What will the asari do? How will Shepards current predicament with the Alliance and the batarians hinder things?

I treat the Mass Effect trilogy as one and yet people like smudboy and OP forgets that these are not really standalone stories.

Criticize all you want after ME3 is released but not before. To me, it just seems silly.

Mass Effect is three stories that are all part of the big story about Shepard and the Reapers. While they aren't as attached as, say, LotR, they aren't completely standalone either. Due to the nature of games each part has to have its own internal story, but they all tie back to the overarching one.

[ImmortalWarrior]

fivefingaslap18 wrote...

ImmortalWarrior wrote...

Fivefinga, your complains make no sense what so ever.

Thanks, because I wrote a small essay and defenses to my post. You write me back a sentence. Really apreciate it dude.

Im currently in class, and I disagree with 100% of your posts on this topic.  I have not the time, nor the patience to refute every point systematically.  Just trust that we disagree, and agree to disagree because neither of us would be swayed.

Modifié par ImmortalWarrior, 08 juin 2011 - 04:48 .

[fivefingaslap18]

candidate88766 wrote...

fivefingaslap18 wrote...

candidate88766 wrote...

1. New toy? Publishers don't buy studios to play with them, they buy them to get money out of it. They see Bioware doing well, they buy them in order to buy into their profits in exchange for funding and marketing. They're not going to fiddle around with something already making money. Bioware choose the direction for their games.

2. They're arrival in part two would make the events of ME1 trivial. While their arrival is inevitable, if they arrive in the next game it renders the first kind of moot. With the series as it stands you know the Reapers are advancing but there is time to prepare, time to hinder them. It would be like  Terminator 1 trying to stop judgement day and then Terminator 2 starting by saying 'and then it happened anyway'.

Also, delaying the Reaper arrival until part 3 allows it to build up into something meaningful and, though I am loathe to use the word, 'epic'.

3. While they ended on minor cliffhangers, they resolved their internal plots. TLotR isn't a great example because that was a trilogy more for publishing reasons. It is one story split into three, whereas Mass Effect is 3 stories that tie together. While ME1 and ME2 ended on minor cliffhangers, they resolved their internal plots. If the 2nd game had the Reapers invade, then that major plot cannot be resolved in that game - at the end of the game the Reapers would still be in the galaxy.

4. I agree that ME2 should've been about learning a way to kill the Reapers. I don't think the Reapers need to be here in order for that to happen.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm afraid I disagree entirely partially.

1. To an extent I can agree, but let's be honest dude. DA:O to DAII are two completely different style of games. BioWare prior to their acquisition would have never in a million years created DAII. They did, and have only started changing their mantra for games since their being purchased from EA. ME2 also had a change in feel, but because of how ME1 was, it was not too drastic that it didn't feel out of scope. DA:O to DAII was like going from a game like KOTOR to a Dynasty Warrior game with some RP elements, because that's exactly what it was.

2. What about the leveling of Hoth and capturing Han Solo and freezing him in carbonite? Seems like everything the Alliance did was for not. In the movie after they cripple the Empire and get Han out of carbonite it seems like everything the Empire did was for not. It's perspective dude.

3. Okay, that was a bad example and that is entirely true. Still, take a look at most modern trilogies today (or really, duologies). The whole problem I have is that if you set it up as the Reapers are here and anything we do against them is like being a fly against a moving car, than setting up how to kill a Reaper is actually the end of that part of the trilogy. Than it really doesn't end on a cliff hanger, it ends on a note of realizing how you're going to kill all the thousands of them.

4. I will also agree to that, but it was never touched on. All I'm saying is, if you're going to make it about how to kill a Reaper, do that. If you're going to kill Collectors, make me feel like I'm fighting a true enemy and not just a whole bunch of drones. That's not climactic... that's anticlimactic. If you're going to try to do both, learn how to write a story!

You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm afraid I disagree entirely partially.

1. I think the DA team saw the success of Mass Effect and thought they should emphasis action as well. I don't believe EA would try to mess with a company as profitable as Bioware but I can't back that up so I imagine we'll go in circles here.

2. Empire Strikes Back ended on a clifhanger, and I didn't like that. However, despite not really advancing the plot (the Rebels are no closer to defeating the Empire at the end of the film) it is hailed as one of, if not the, greatest sequel ever. Why? Because it focused on the characters, and the sideplots, and expanded on things introduced in the first film such as the nature of the force.

3. Ok, I get what you're saying a bit better now. However, I'd still argue that if ME2 was about how the Reapers are here and you have to learn how to beat them to save the galaxy, I'd be pretty pissed off by the end of the game I hadn't beaten them. Two games of the Reapers being in the galaxy would drag on, and once a weapon or tactic had been found all that'd be left to do in part 3 would be to go around killing them, which should've been done in the part in which they arrived. At least, thats how I'd feel. It'd be like ME1 saying heres the conduit, heres how you beat Sovereign, now buy the next game to actually beat him and save the Citadel. I think your idea would only work if they scrapped the whole third part and resolved it in part two.

4. I agree the collectors could've been done a bit better, for instance being foreshadowed in part 1. The focus of ME2 was, for better or worse, on the characters in our team. Bceuase of the nature of the recruitment and loyalty missions, the whole collector threat took a back seat.

1. It's possible, but they were quite successful without changing their product. So far DA:O is doing far better than DAII and it shows.

2. So you're saying ME2 can't end on a cliffhanger with how I'd like it to go about because it ends on a cliffhanger. Yet Empire does and it is the best of the 6 (I do not count that cartoon movie as ever existing). I understand it's two different mediums even though they're visual, but I still disagree here.

3. I know what you're saying here, but the 3rd game would have to be getting everyone to work together. Honestly, let's face it... if you are taking an entire game to figure out how to kill a Reaper, you'd be getting one to deviate from the main group. That means, you have a true antagonist. You're luring him away while getting the best scientific minds to figure out how to kill him. You're doing research. You have squads tasked to fight it. At the end when you do kill it, you realize you've got to unite all other races. Who knows how long this 2nd game could've taken, but if it took a while, imagine  how ravaged the rest of the world might be. Krogans and turians. Geth and quarians. Humans and Batarians. They may not want to work together.... just like in ME3... but you have to get them to work together. Worlds would already be heavily damaged. It's do or die time.

Honestly, what's so different how ME3 is? All you're doing is getting people to kill Reapers. It says so much in the new trailer. "We fight or we die, that's the plan." Mine just actually deals with learning how to kill Reapers.

4. It's fine if you do it right, but they obviously did it badly. If you have two different storylines... who cares if it takes another year and it has another disc. Put it on there and I'll play the best game I've ever played. Quality is not a reason to say we shouldn't do something, but a reason to do something more.

I'm glad we're starting to get on the same page even if we disagree.