77 réponses à ce sujet

[Juniper Mucius]

Saphra Deden wrote...

It's a trilogy, just not a very good one. That's not to say the games aren't good, they are, but the "trilogy" part isn't done all that well. I mean the games aren't linked very well, there is little foreshadowing. Plot points revealed earlier in the series rarelly if at all pay off later.

It's a trilogy, just not a very good one.  It's a great one.*

*Fixed for errors.

[AkiKishi]

ME1's plot stands alone. You stop the big bad and buy the Galaxy another 50,000 years to prepare.
ME2, or Reaper plan B. The Reapers use the organic slaves from the last harvest to try to complete the cycle by building another Reaper. Although the T-800 is lol worthy, the concept is fairly sound.
ME3 The Reapers just pop up around 3 years later than they would have had they come through the gate. Which makes you question why use it in the first place. They also come through into an unprepared Galaxy which makes what you did in ME/2 utterly pointless.

[Newtype Taichou]

The Free Jaffa wrote...

Newtype Taichou wrote...

The Free Jaffa wrote...

Newtype Taichou wrote...

I think maybe the OP was alluding to the notion that ME2`s plot felt pointless in terms of the grand scale. There was no real substance or coherence to the overall plot. Had a lot more potential, hopefully ME3 has that complete feeling as ME1 did.

ME2 suffered from the "second in a trilogy" that many, except for Empire, suffer.  Mass Effect was planned as the first in a trilogy, but could have been played alone.  Mass Effect 2 is a clear set up for another installment.  There are "plot holes" because the plot isn't finished.  It's not meant as a stand alone game.

You're right it did suffer, "plot holes" aren't there because it's the second in the game. That's no excuse. A game simply being the second in a trilogy doesn't allow it any passes. 

I still don't see how it suffered.  To me, the only plot holes are that some questions aren't answered.  Those questions will most likely be answered in Mass Effect 3.  If they aren't, then yes, they are plot holes.  But so far, they are just unasnwered questions.  I, personally, see no problems with Mass Effect 2.

Well you said it suffered, you can't say it suffered then try to justify it, If it was justified then it didn't really suffer did it? 

For me the pointlessness wasn't from plot holes, I only see one plothole in ME2 and that was the whole suicide mission. That entire mission was done without any intel or info gathering. You could have gone through the relay and have had 10 Collector planets there waiting to attack you. 

The pointlessnness is because of what you mentioned - unanswered questions- it seemed  that was the whole game, which doesn't make it fun. You can still answer questions, which would be extremely satisfying and interesting while still setting up for ME3. The same way ME1 answered questions, but set it up for  a sequel. 

Go to YouTube and search "smudboy ME2 plot analysis" - He has an awesome review (a bit long though)

[Juniper Mucius]

Newtype Taichou wrote...

The Free Jaffa wrote...

Newtype Taichou wrote...

The Free Jaffa wrote...

Newtype Taichou wrote...

I think maybe the OP was alluding to the notion that ME2`s plot felt pointless in terms of the grand scale. There was no real substance or coherence to the overall plot. Had a lot more potential, hopefully ME3 has that complete feeling as ME1 did.

ME2 suffered from the "second in a trilogy" that many, except for Empire, suffer.  Mass Effect was planned as the first in a trilogy, but could have been played alone.  Mass Effect 2 is a clear set up for another installment.  There are "plot holes" because the plot isn't finished.  It's not meant as a stand alone game.

You're right it did suffer, "plot holes" aren't there because it's the second in the game. That's no excuse. A game simply being the second in a trilogy doesn't allow it any passes. 

I still don't see how it suffered.  To me, the only plot holes are that some questions aren't answered.  Those questions will most likely be answered in Mass Effect 3.  If they aren't, then yes, they are plot holes.  But so far, they are just unasnwered questions.  I, personally, see no problems with Mass Effect 2.

Well you said it suffered, you can't say it suffered then try to justify it, If it was justified then it didn't really suffer did it? 

For me the pointlessness wasn't from plot holes, I only see one plothole in ME2 and that was the whole suicide mission. That entire mission was done without any intel or info gathering. You could have gone through the relay and have had 10 Collector planets there waiting to attack you. 

The pointlessnness is because of what you mentioned - unanswered questions- it seemed  that was the whole game, which doesn't make it fun. You can still answer questions, which would be extremely satisfying and interesting while still setting up for ME3. The same way ME1 answered questions, but set it up for  a sequel. 

Go to YouTube and search "smudboy ME2 plot analysis" - He has an awesome review (a bit long though)

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying.  I'm saying it suffered from being a second in a trilogy, created to set up the final installment.  Where you see "plot holes" I see "to be explained later".  Most people, however, just see plot holes.  I don't mean suffered as in I believe it suffers in a negative way.

[AkiKishi]

Saphra Deden wrote...

The Free Jaffa wrote...

It's a trilogy, just not a very good one.  It's a great one.*

*Fixed for errors.

No, you made it worse. You fixed nothing.

ME2 follows poorly from ME1. ME3 follows poorly from ME2.

Characters are rewritten several times. Character development ceases or is reversed in some cases. Characters are wasted on plots they have no investment in.

It's a trainwreck, and ME3 is an impressive one. At least the ending is fun.

I still say the concept was sound and with some better writing and a better plot could have been great.

[Newtype Taichou]

The Free Jaffa wrote...

Newtype Taichou wrote...

The Free Jaffa wrote...

Newtype Taichou wrote...

The Free Jaffa wrote...

Newtype Taichou wrote...

I think maybe the OP was alluding to the notion that ME2`s plot felt pointless in terms of the grand scale. There was no real substance or coherence to the overall plot. Had a lot more potential, hopefully ME3 has that complete feeling as ME1 did.

ME2 suffered from the "second in a trilogy" that many, except for Empire, suffer.  Mass Effect was planned as the first in a trilogy, but could have been played alone.  Mass Effect 2 is a clear set up for another installment.  There are "plot holes" because the plot isn't finished.  It's not meant as a stand alone game.

You're right it did suffer, "plot holes" aren't there because it's the second in the game. That's no excuse. A game simply being the second in a trilogy doesn't allow it any passes. 

I still don't see how it suffered.  To me, the only plot holes are that some questions aren't answered.  Those questions will most likely be answered in Mass Effect 3.  If they aren't, then yes, they are plot holes.  But so far, they are just unasnwered questions.  I, personally, see no problems with Mass Effect 2.

Well you said it suffered, you can't say it suffered then try to justify it, If it was justified then it didn't really suffer did it? 

For me the pointlessness wasn't from plot holes, I only see one plothole in ME2 and that was the whole suicide mission. That entire mission was done without any intel or info gathering. You could have gone through the relay and have had 10 Collector planets there waiting to attack you. 

The pointlessnness is because of what you mentioned - unanswered questions- it seemed  that was the whole game, which doesn't make it fun. You can still answer questions, which would be extremely satisfying and interesting while still setting up for ME3. The same way ME1 answered questions, but set it up for  a sequel. 

Go to YouTube and search "smudboy ME2 plot analysis" - He has an awesome review (a bit long though)

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying.  I'm saying it suffered from being a second in a trilogy, created to set up the final installment.  Where you see "plot holes" I see "to be explained later".  Most people, however, just see plot holes.  I don't mean suffered as in I believe it suffers in a negative way.

Well if it's not negative then it's not really suffering lol I think what you meant it suffered from the stereotype of the 2nd in a trilogy - where people will unfairly view it like viewing the postive as negative. 

ME2 had potential in giving some awesome revelations, it's not as if having those revelations will somehow leave nothing left for ME3 - that's why it felt pointless for me. 

But I digress. 

[Juniper Mucius]

Saphra Deden wrote...

The Free Jaffa wrote...

It's a trilogy, just not a very good one.  It's a great one.*

*Fixed for errors.

No, you made it worse. You fixed nothing.

ME2 follows poorly from ME1. ME3 follows poorly from ME2.

Characters are rewritten several times. Character development ceases or is reversed in some cases. Characters are wasted on plots they have no investment in.

It's a trainwreck, and ME3 is an impressive one. At least the ending is fun.

Yeah.  I don't see it.  I see well done masterpieces.

[Juniper Mucius]

Newtype Taichou wrote...

The Free Jaffa wrote...

Newtype Taichou wrote...

The Free Jaffa wrote...

Newtype Taichou wrote...

The Free Jaffa wrote...

Newtype Taichou wrote...

I think maybe the OP was alluding to the notion that ME2`s plot felt pointless in terms of the grand scale. There was no real substance or coherence to the overall plot. Had a lot more potential, hopefully ME3 has that complete feeling as ME1 did.

ME2 suffered from the "second in a trilogy" that many, except for Empire, suffer.  Mass Effect was planned as the first in a trilogy, but could have been played alone.  Mass Effect 2 is a clear set up for another installment.  There are "plot holes" because the plot isn't finished.  It's not meant as a stand alone game.

You're right it did suffer, "plot holes" aren't there because it's the second in the game. That's no excuse. A game simply being the second in a trilogy doesn't allow it any passes. 

I still don't see how it suffered.  To me, the only plot holes are that some questions aren't answered.  Those questions will most likely be answered in Mass Effect 3.  If they aren't, then yes, they are plot holes.  But so far, they are just unasnwered questions.  I, personally, see no problems with Mass Effect 2.

Well you said it suffered, you can't say it suffered then try to justify it, If it was justified then it didn't really suffer did it? 

For me the pointlessness wasn't from plot holes, I only see one plothole in ME2 and that was the whole suicide mission. That entire mission was done without any intel or info gathering. You could have gone through the relay and have had 10 Collector planets there waiting to attack you. 

The pointlessnness is because of what you mentioned - unanswered questions- it seemed  that was the whole game, which doesn't make it fun. You can still answer questions, which would be extremely satisfying and interesting while still setting up for ME3. The same way ME1 answered questions, but set it up for  a sequel. 

Go to YouTube and search "smudboy ME2 plot analysis" - He has an awesome review (a bit long though)

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying.  I'm saying it suffered from being a second in a trilogy, created to set up the final installment.  Where you see "plot holes" I see "to be explained later".  Most people, however, just see plot holes.  I don't mean suffered as in I believe it suffers in a negative way.

Well if it's not negative then it's not really suffering lol I think what you meant it suffered from the stereotype of the 2nd in a trilogy - where people will unfairly view it like viewing the postive as negative. 

ME2 had potential in giving some awesome revelations, it's not as if having those revelations will somehow leave nothing left for ME3 - that's why it felt pointless for me. 

But I digress. 

That is sort of what I meant.  It suffered.  To me, it didn't suffer in the department of plot, character development, or anything else really.  It suffered because people, very often, want a stand alone story (whether they say it or not), that fills in each and every hole of the plot.  They left a lot open, and ME3 is said to leave no loose ends.  So...

[Newtype Taichou]

BobSmith101 wrote...

ME3 The Reapers just pop up around 3 years later than they would have had they come through the gate. Which makes you question why use it in the first place. They also come through into an unprepared Galaxy which makes what you did in ME/2 utterly pointless.

THISSSSSSS

Seriously can someone explain this to me? I don't underatnd why ME1 spent so much (awesome) time with the fact that the Reapers needed the Conduit to invade known space if they can apparently travel there normally. They seemed to have enacted this Plan B pretty fast considering how long it was supposed to take to travel to known space.

Can someone help me out here? 

[Prom001]

 I'm saying it suffered from being a second in a trilogy, created to set up the final installment.

ME2 sets ME3 up how? as compared to, if ME3 came right after ME1?
The setup is almost the same .

Modifié par Prom001, 29 février 2012 - 12:42 .

[Juniper Mucius]

Prom001 wrote...

 I'm saying it suffered from being a second in a trilogy, created to set up the final installment.

ME2 sets ME3 up how? as compared to, if ME3 came right after ME1?
The setup is almost the same .

It sets it up with delicious chocolate.  I should have gone to sleep hours ago.

I'm out.

[AkiKishi]

Newtype Taichou wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

ME3 The Reapers just pop up around 3 years later than they would have had they come through the gate. Which makes you question why use it in the first place. They also come through into an unprepared Galaxy which makes what you did in ME/2 utterly pointless.

THISSSSSSS

Seriously can someone explain this to me? I don't underatnd why ME1 spent so much (awesome) time with the fact that the Reapers needed the Conduit to invade known space if they can apparently travel there normally. They seemed to have enacted this Plan B pretty fast considering how long it was supposed to take to travel to known space.

Can someone help me out here? 

The only explanation I can offer is it went to pieces after it became all about Shepard.

[Prom001]

The thing I wanted to know is how the writing team works, if there are not really any "guidelines" of some sort.
I guess the old saying:"if you want a good idea have lots of ideas." works here too?

I am just courious on how a team writes this.

[wirelesstkd]

I haven't read this whole thread, so I'm sorry if this has been said, but contrary to popular lore, Lucas was making up Star Wars as he went along. There were multiple first drafts of Empire where Anakin Sywalker was a different character from Vader. In fact the characters weren't merged in to one until after the main writer died and Lucas did a couple more rewrites himself.

And then Leia was never supposed to be Luke's sister. The point of "there is another" was to set up more ongoing movies. Lucas wanted a franchise, not a trilogy. He just got burned out so he decided to wrap it up with Jedi.

[Dean_the_Young]

The Free Jaffa wrote...

Yeah.  I don't see it.  I see well done masterpieces.

Besides some exageration there, there's a difference between three separate, well-done games and three good games that make a good trilogy. The importance is in being greater, not equal, than the sum of the parts.

As a trilogy, the ME universe goes all over the place. From the unnecessary back-tracking of the Council's acknowledgement of the Reapers, the plot-clay approach to key actors (Liara and Cerberus), and the number of raised and droped plot points (the Geth-Council War, the Batarian Rebellions, the diminishment and marginalization of Cerberus), and of course the dreadfully weak carry-over imbalances in ME2, and as a matter of linking one game to the next the ME trilogy pales.

[Seboist]

ME is essentially a series of semi-reboots with a loose continuity reminiscent of the pre-Craig Bond films.

[squee365]

jazzkon wrote...

Olueq wrote...

squee365 wrote...

Olueq wrote...

Me2 had nothing to do with anything.

Right, except introduce ME3's most important character... 

They wasted a whole game on that? Why not DO something about the reapers? . The Collectors were meaningless

The Collectors were meaningless? They attacked human colonies  creating husk's Creating a human reaper!... Does that nothing about the reapers?

I was referring to the Illusive man...<_<

[Slashout]

I wouldn't care if they made up every single plot point as they went from installement to installement.
And I wouldn't care if it was 20 games for the whole story, and not a trilogy. I'd actually like that.

Each game is a solid 30 to 40 hours experience with great dialogues. And it's just very fun.
I don't care if the ennemies were collectors in ME2. By this they showed us a great deal of extra info on the reasons behind the Reapers, lot's of stuff on Cerberus, and other organisations in ME.

It's not just about the big bad guy. In ME what I find interesting is the world itself. The big bad guys are just a driving force to reach the end.
So any ME installement (that's NOT an mmo) building suffisantly on the lore, locations, characters, is freaking awesome.
And I am actually disapointed that this is the end of the trilogy.

Because now what? No more shepard. I like my shepard. I like the VA.
And what's the next game? A MMO? (urk) It could be anything, even a card game.
Even if it's still a FPS/rpg, it could be in 5 years or 10. It will certainly be longer than it took for ME3 to be released after ME2 since they'll probably have to rethink the whole world up, with the evolution of each race, wars, big events, consequences, new races to reach the intergalactic world and so on.
Lot's of thinking ahead before starting a new dvpt cycle, and probably a new engine for the new gen of consoles as well.

Modifié par Slashout, 29 février 2012 - 03:30 .

[Seboist]

squee365 wrote...

jazzkon wrote...

Olueq wrote...

squee365 wrote...

Olueq wrote...

Me2 had nothing to do with anything.

Right, except introduce ME3's most important character... 

They wasted a whole game on that? Why not DO something about the reapers? . The Collectors were meaningless

The Collectors were meaningless? They attacked human colonies  creating husk's Creating a human reaper!... Does that nothing about the reapers?

I was referring to the Illusive man...<_<

There's a Wesker/Saren knock off in ME3 but there's no Illusive Man.

[ganthet2000]

Stanley Woo wrote...

I think you have a very narrow view of how the creative process works. It is entirely possible to be both a trilogy and to be making stuff up as we go along? I mean, just because you plan to finish college in four years doesn't mean you can't change your major or swap classes around or take summer sessions or have to re-take classes that you fail.

Besides that, as long as you enjoy the series, what difference does it make? Just enjoy the game!

Going to enjoy the game a ton. I have collected comics and Sci-fi and Fantasy books for awhile now and Mass Effect is probably one of the most interesting ideas I have seen in a while. It has a ton of stuff in it and to it, I would like to see more of this universe. Books, Comics, Games doesn't matter to me. There is heart to the series that Star Wars and Star Trek lack now. It has that gritty realizm that I like in Sci-fi. That not pretty and shiny of Star Trek, more Firefly feel. Great work guys.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Seboist wrote...

ME is essentially a series of semi-reboots with a loose continuity reminiscent of the pre-Craig Bond films.

Speaking of which, I only found out an hour ago that Bond 23 has already been named; Skyfall. Sadly enough, though, it isn't the conclusion to the Quantum trilogy I've been waiting for.

That isn't to say that I'm not looking forward to it, mind you, au contraire...

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 29 février 2012 - 04:28 .

[Stanley Woo]

Keep the quote pyramids manageable, please. Edit your posts to only quote what you're directly responding to. Thank you.

[Geirahod]

Stanley Woo wrote...

I think you have a very narrow view of how the creative process works. It is entirely possible to be both a trilogy and to be making stuff up as we go along? I mean, just because you plan to finish college in four years doesn't mean you can't change your major or swap classes around or take summer sessions or have to re-take classes that you fail.

Besides that, as long as you enjoy the series, what difference does it make? Just enjoy the game!

Difficult to enjoy this game knowing that no matter what you do, you (possibly) and your crew along with the rest of the galaxy are screwed and doomed, Mr.Woo.

So far for me, the best game of all is ME1...
I guess that we're all here because of the previous games, but I, I'm here because of ME1 because I wanted to give closure to Shepard's history...but this...honestly this is bording betrayal.

Just being honest here...