fivefingaslap18 wrote...
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.
1. I still blame the DA development team as oppsosed to EA - as you say, DA:O was successful so they had no reason to want it changed.
2. Empire was a good film, but I didn't like the cliffhanger. The film just, well, ends. Theres no resolution. I liked everything up to that point, but I think the ending lets it down. For ME2 to end where you want it, it'd end up with a cliffhanger like Halo 2. You have all the pieces in place to defeat the Reapers, but instead you have to wait a year and spend another £50 to see how it eneds. You may think its better from a storytelling standpoint, I'm just saying that if a game was designed to end at that point I would be very annoyed, and I imagine a lot of ther gamers would.
3. ME2 was all about setting up those conflicts of interest that you'll have to resolve in ME3 in order to get everyone to work together. I think everything you mentioned there can happen in ME3 anyway, regardless of when the Reapers arrived. I do hope we get to lure a Reaper away though, or having one Raeper shadowing you throughout the game. Also, if the Reapers have been here since game 2 then I cant see there being much left to save by the end of part 3. The worlds will be ravaged, but to the point that there won't be enough people left to unite.
4. I'd argue that the character side of ME2 was done really well. My favoutire parts of the trilogy so far (apart from meeting Vigil and the final run of ME1) were some of the character stories in ME2. I do agree thought the collector plot should've been better, more focused and more explicitly tied to the Reapers. I don't think it was a bad plot, just not up to the standard of ME1's plot and ME2's character plots.
I think no matter how long we debate for we'll still end up disagreeing. I appreciate that you've clearly spent a while considering this, and the OP was well thought out, but I still feel the invasion is best saved for the final part.
It is nice to be able to have a civil debate on BSN though.
Retour en haut
