1. This prologue assumes you've played Arrival. This is my biggest complaint. I know I'm not the only one who's never played the Arrival DLC. I have absolutely no idea of what happens and why in that DLC, aside from the fact that Shepard apparently does something horrible to put themself on trial. It's a prologue based on a poorly-reviewed DLC pack that many players never even bought.
2. This prologue immediately makes Shepard a technical war criminal. As I said, I'm not sure what happened in Arrival, but if it's gotten Shepard on trial, then in all technicalities, they're a war criminal. This is a more minor complaint but it still annoys me. In my playthrough over ME1, ME2, and ME3, I've been trying to get a high paragon character. I realize war's not always black and white, difficult decisions have to be made. However, I hate immediately starting as a war criminal on trial, especially considering that for me and others who've not played Arrival have no say in what's going on. We didn't make any difficult decisions, we didn't do any major actions, we're just thrown into some trial that has no real bearing or purpose to our characters, and whether we like that war criminal image or not, it's given to us without choice. This basically throws away the entire high paragon image I was going for, and I'm sure others went for as well. And as I said, I don't know what happened in Arrival, whether Shepard did some huge crime or not, but even if he didn't, being on military trial makes him a war criminal, in a technical sense, and this is an image I personally don't like. However, this wouldn't be a real complaint, since by now it's irreversible, if it didn't fit in with my third point.
3. There are many, many more possiblities as to what the prologue could be. The way I see it, the current prologue is nothing more than an excuse to be on Earth and a cheap reference to an admittedly poor DLC pack. Yet there are so many more ways the game could be started, ways that involve the player more or that were more creative. Instead, it's the same idea we had in ME2; put into a situation against our will, have to escape from an area under attack. Now, ME2's opening was fine, and it made sense canonically why that'd happen. But this, for many of us, won't make any sense, since we never did the actions in Arrival that triggered the prologue. And ME2's intro was totally different from ME1's intro, so why can't we have a new concept for ME3? Why do we have to use the same exact formula from ME2?
The formula: -Arrive/wake up/begin in a strange area, slowly become informed of the plot, initial control tutorials, beginning of actual mission-Enemies appear, fighting ensues-Meet up with people you may or may not know, slowly become more informed of the plot-Escape and ending dialogue, beginning of the game-
I'm probably just nitpicking, and I really don't have a problem with ME3's planned plot, but it just annoys me that this is how Bioware's chose to start things, with a recycled oepning based on an unpopular DLC item. I should've played Arrival and it's my own fault for not, but it's still unfair that a totally optional DLC pack is the core basis around the plot. By this point, the opening and its aspects are irreversible. I'm not at all content with it, but it's one opening in a larger game, which will be much better, more likely than not, and don't misunderstand me here, I'm not saying the game will be bad based on an intro. I'm just saying, in retrospect, the intro could've been vastly improved over the current concept they're going with, and I was wondering if I was the only one who had a problem with the way ME3 is supposed to begin.
Modifié par Kaiser_Wilhelm, 27 juillet 2011 - 01:55 .
Retour en haut
