150 réponses à ce sujet

[blmlozz]

I would have to agree OP, on all points. The whole game had this feeling of being rushed and leaving a lot of unanswered or unexplained questions.


The reality is though, the first two games did such a good job of building a lot of excitement and expectations that the playthrough didn't give me enough time to really question any of this. It was a great experience, and first timers are essentially just playing a decent FPS so what does it matter to them? I felt as though this story was about Shepard his friends and my decisions, the intermingling of the ME universe was simply a good backdrop to it. The characters and Shepard's interactions in ME3 were fantastic, so that's what made ME3 great. The stupid story sort of gets hazy and irrelevent.

I played ME3 because I grew attached to the characters.

Now that I *do* have time to dissect it though. None of it makes sense. None of it.

Modifié par blmlozz, 30 mars 2012 - 12:57 .

[Vhalkyrie]

There are plenty of plot problems. Truthfully, this game is NOT about the story. It is about the characters. 80% of the game is talking to your crew. So a few stretches in plot point and lore don't detract from the story. However, the ending performed a character assassination on Shepard. Shepard tells TIM he can't control the reapers, then 5 minutes later believes s/he can because the starchild says so. Abrupt shift in character. Your squadmates who you took into London with you walk out of the Normandy. How did Joker pick them up, and why did they abandon you on Earth? Joker, who confessed he felt guilty for Shepard dying on the SR1 because of him, now leaves him/her again?

The other problems with the plot open up like a gaping wound.

Modifié par Vhalkyrie, 30 mars 2012 - 12:55 .

[rexx1888]

these are the things wed care about IF the ending wasnt so horrendous, but it is, so we deal with it first

[Orthodox Infidel]

[quote]Luc0s wrote...

1. The Opening:
This is no way the worst part of ME3, but it certainly felt hush-hush. No proper character introduction for the newcomers and there wasn't even the promised trial/hearing. There is a huge gap between the ending of ME2 and the beginning of ME3 that isn't explained. Instead the game forces me to fill in the blanks myself, something I had to do a lot duing ME3 by the way. That's not good writing and it's not "mature" or whatsoever. No, "speculation for everyone" is not cool guys, it comes of as lazy, rushed, or uncreative (pick one).
[/quote]

The trial would have been dumb. Seriously, there would have been lots of exposition that wouldn't have told anybody anything they didn't already know and just slowed the beginning down immensely. I'm glad they cut it.  And that isn't what "LOTS OF SPECULATION FROM EVERYONE" is even in reference to. Plus, there's this thing called the Codex that fills in most of the blanks (besides Ashley's promotion to Lt. Commander) nicely. Reading it will educate you.

[quote]
2. The Crucible:
All of the sudden this McGuffen gets thrown in your face.[/quote]

The Crucible is not a McGuffin. It is a plot device, but it's properties are foreshadowed early and are directly relevant to the plot. If it was interchanged with something else, the entire plot of the game would have to change as well.

[quote]So apperantly there are plans for some kind of super anti-reaper weapon buried in the prothean archives on Mars. How convenient that we just so happen to find this information right now at the beginning of the Reaper invasion! Those prothean data archives are around for how long exactly? 30 years at the very least? And we just so happen to find this Crucible data NOW while the Reapers are at our doorstep? Sorry, but this smells like an ass-pull to me.[/quote]

I can't actually argue with that.

[quote]
3. The Coup:
Seriously, what's up with this coup? It didn't make sense at all. Why did Cerberus attack the Citadel?[/quote]

Presumably, to control the Citadel. Considering that the Illusive Man states his goal is to control the Reapers, you can assume everything he does in the game is about that. Oh Snap.

[quote]Why did Udina help Cerberus?[/quote]

He's a power hungry dickface. Always has been.

[quote]Why was Cerberus trying to kill the Council while they tried to protect the very same Counci before?[/quote]

Things change. The obvious answer is that before, protecting the council (I assume you're talking about Jacob's mission that I don't know that much about) served the interests of human dominance and now it doesn't.

[quote]There was absolutely NOTHING about the whole coup that made sense. it didn't add anything of value to the plot, it didn't make Cerberus look cool (instead, it made Cerberus look even more like a joke than they already were). Seriously, can someone explain this silly coup to me (without adding headcanon or fan-fic to it)?[/quote]

I thought shooting Udina was awesome. The Codex has some speculation written into it, but it is left mysterious.

[quote]
4. The Reapers' Motivation:
Do I even need to address this? I thin we all know their motivation behind the cycle is silly to say the least.[/quote]

Yes, it's very very silly. If Bioware deliberately wanted us to think it's silly, they're geniuses. Sadly, I don't think that's what they wanted. Either way, Bioware's intent was unclear for the majority of the player base, so I agree this is a writing fail.

[quote]5. The Silly Dreams:
Seriously, why the hell are we all forced to watch these bad, over-the-top, silly, kiddy dreams about Shepard running after this kid like a f*cking moron in slow-motion? Some of Shepard's best crew members and best friends die, but does he have nightmares about them? Noooooo! So why in the world does Shepard keep dreaming about this stupid kid from the prologue that he hardly even knew? Sorry BioWare, but that's just dumb and cheesy. Just because I love cheese on my sandwich doesn't mean I love cheese in my Mass Effect.[/quote]

It's even worse when some of us have Shepards who are established to be complete psychopaths that enjoy killing, or who underwent more horrific things than being blown up by a laser beam on Mindoir. But maybe those Indoctrination Theorists have something to say about that (which, sadly, is headcannon).

[quote]
6. The Citadel above planet Earth:
This was a huge WTF moment for me. What the hell is the Citadel doing above planet Earth? It seems like they're using a beacon like the Conduit to beam human corpes up to the Citadel, but for what? To build another Reaper? And why do they have to move the entire Citadel to planet earth for that? The prothean Conduit on Ilos worked just fine when the Citadel was chillin' at it's regular place. You'd think a Reaper conduit would work better than a prothean conduit, so why the f*ck bother moving the Citadel over to planet Earth?[/quote]

They said that they moved it to Earth because that's where Reaper forces were strongest, to prevent you from using it with the Crucible.

The Reapers building another Reaper inside the Citadel is pure speculation on Shepard and Anderson's part; they could have any number of other reasons to build this teleporter beam and other crap. This isn't really explained at all, so yeah, I agree the teleporter beam is lame.

[quote]
And these are just a few obvious points from the ME3 story that are incredibly bad. I can make a much longer list, but I'm not going to bother you with that. I think these 6 points make it perfectly clear and obvious that the story and plot of ME3 is just a big joke.

I don't get it. wasn't BioWare supposed to be famous for their quality narrative and story-telling in their games? So why haven't I seen a single decent story from BioWare after ME1 and DA:O? BioWare, what's happening with you guys?
[/quote]

So yeah... don't agree with you 100% but you do bring up some decent points.

EDIT: Fixed a bunch of broken tags.

Modifié par Orthodox Infidel, 30 mars 2012 - 12:56 .

[Mr. Big Pimpin]

To me ME (at least since the seocnd game) has always been more about the characters than the plot anyway. That's what made some of those sideplots more interesting than the main one; they managed to focus on those characters. Saving the rachni was less interesting than watching Grunt's "last stand", curing the genophage felt secondary to Mordin's last scene in the tower, and the geth gaining intelligence was less of a big deal than Tali telling Legion he had a soul.

That's also where the ending went wrong; it took all those characters and it threw them out the window. It tried to make us care just about the survival of the galaxy, when what we really cared about were the individual people in it.

Modifié par Mr. Big Pimpin, 30 mars 2012 - 01:00 .

[kjir]

Luc0s wrote...

Lankist wrote...

The thing is, though, most of those things would fly under the suspension of disbelief had it not been shattered by Starkid and his technicolor dreamsplosion. They would be minor "that was weird" moment, rather than now being "that was stupid" moments.

I disagree. Suspension of disbelief only goes so far. Without the Starchild, ME3's plot would still be mediocre at best. You can't blame EVERYTHING on the Starchild.

I can and will. The pacing of ME3 was pretty good, and yes, certain moments could be safely ignored for taking artistic license. Just *not* *that* *ending*. 

In fact, as I recall, a few of your points are directly related to the ending. Do the seams begin to show more on subsequent playthroughs of ME3? Undoubtedly, just that the ending was so bad I haven't bothered to go back and play through significant portions.

[j78]

I think as the rage about the ending is on stand by till the 6th more and more fault’s of the game will come to light . Almost all of the inconsistencies could be overlooked if not for that abomination of an ending .

[blmlozz]

Presumably, to control the Citadel. Considering that the Illusive Man states his goal is to control the Reapers, you can assume everything he does in the game is about that. Oh Snap

Assuming and presuming should not be words used to describe main story events.

He's a power hungry dickface. Always has been.

a dickface yes, a mass-murduring dickface that's had cerberus intetions, he has not been. I always sort of assumed he was still mostly 'good'(see; there's the problem...). he fought for humanity's best interest in ME1/ME2.

Honestly I can't even remember why anderson isn't still on the council the plot point must have been some 1-liner like all the other 1-liner plot points I forgot in ME3.

Modifié par blmlozz, 30 mars 2012 - 01:10 .

[aMytallica]

I'll have to respectfully disagree. Everything right up to the last few scenes was pretty incredible in my opinion. Questions were being answered, and major plot points were being resolved. I have no problems except with what was presented at the very end. That's the only part that has left me confused.

[blmlozz]

aMytallica wrote...

I'll have to respectfully disagree. Everything right up to the last few scenes was pretty incredible in my opinion. Questions were being answered, and major plot points were being resolved. I have no problems except with what was presented at the very end. That's the only part that has left me confused.

Baulders Gate/Baulders Gate 2.


That is all.

[Kyazain]

I find it kind of funny that before ME3's release, everybody was talking about how great the story was. The second game was more character oriented, but it was the bridge between the first and third game. Despite that, people thought the storytelling was very good. Now suddenly people (not everyone) are jumping on the bandwagon that not only ME3's story was ****, but the second game, too?

Maybe I'm missing something.

[jarms48]

Agreed completely with the original posts points raised.

[Kadi]

I think the coup attempt was for:
The Illusive man to gain control of the citadel, to better his search to control the reapers, which made sense, because Citadel security, the Council and probably would have tried to stop him, so taking control was probably just a means to an end. and they stress his ideal way to stop the reapers very early on and that he would do anything to defend humanity and have human dominance over the galaxy.

the citadel over the earth was a likely event to happen, considering since Mass Effect the Citadel had been important (being a super mass relay and all), i liked how the crucible used the technology of the relays to stop the reapers, one thing i wasnt clear on, was the colored beam, a giant lazer? did it have any mass to it? things like that id have liked a tad more info on.

the reaper motivation, firstly they see themselves as supreme beings, god-like for transcending from being simple organics, using synthetic tech and the lark to become immortal, and judging by what they were doing with humans in ME2, harvesting them, id say they harvesting life to keep themselves fueled or alive. but either way one thing is for sure, because of their self righteous nature, their superiority they deem it fully acceptable to control, destroy, harvest all life as they see fit. "You exist because we allow it, you will die because we demand it - Sovereign, Mass Effect"

The Opening, i couldnt really disagree with you as i already knew what i was getting into when i bought the game, having played and beat the first 2 games numerous times =), it could have had more exposition but at the same time, they gave you a journal with info that was up-to-date with current events, so the game opens like a movie would and like most third in a series games. which isnt a good enough reason to call it BAD. no pleasing some.

the Dreams i felt were a nice addition, they showed how Shepard was handling the stress, the death, over all pressure of the world (and by extension the Galaxy), i liked it, if it was Cleche to give the main protagonist a heart, then i think you missed the point of it entirely.

Lastly Mass effect 2's plot was solid. they tell you exactly what you need, you build and work for it, sure you dont know whats beyond thw omega 4 relay . really but it never helps to be prepared. only downer on 2 was the final boss fight and thats because it was at best easy, and at worst not the thing I wanted to defeat(Harbinger).

I mean opinions are your own, like mine but simply stating it as a fact that this game did not live up to your expextations does not mean its terrible.. alot of people like it, most of what ive read, heard and seen from people is the game is amazing till the end which they disliked for "X" reason.

*edit Typo.

Modifié par Eleventhchild, 30 mars 2012 - 01:11 .

[Vhalkyrie]

Luc0s wrote...

Vhalkyrie wrote...

There are plenty of plot problems. Truthfully, this game is NOT about the story. It is about the characters. 80% of the game is talking to your crew. So a few stretches in plot point and lore don't detract from the story.

Yes they DO!

Mass Effect is not a dating-sim, is it? Mass Effect isn't The Sims: In Space, is it? It isn't all about your friends. The deep relationships with your characters (which aren't all that deep in ME3) are just a part of ME3.

You played ME2, right?  Most of the game was doing loyalty missions.  Unless you skipped that part and let people die on the suicide mission.  Everyone lived on my crew, and I spent over 40 hours accomplishing that. FWIW, I didn't romance anyone in ME2.

But I don't really like your tone on this.  So I don't have anything additional to add.  Peace.

Modifié par Vhalkyrie, 30 mars 2012 - 01:15 .

[Deflagratio]

The only thing I really have a problem with is the Crucible. Outside of that, nothing is technically defunct in a Sci-Fi setting. Everything has sufficient layers to suspend disbelief. Well, maybe not Cerberus' omnipresence in the galaxy. They should have focused on adding more Reaper Variants, and saved Cerberus for few, but major engagements. (Sur'Kesh, Citadel, Any N7 where you attack THEM)

[Kadi]

byne wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

 3. The Coup:
Seriously, what's up with this coup? It didn't make sense at all. Why did Cerberus attack the Citadel? Why did Udina help Cerberus? Why was Cerberus trying to kill the Council while they tried to protect the very same Counci before? There was absolutely NOTHING about the whole coup that made sense. it didn't add anything of value to the plot, it didn't make Cerberus look cool (instead, it made Cerberus look even more like a joke than they already were). Seriously, can someone explain this silly coup to me (without adding headcanon or fan-fic to it)?

Mass Effect 3 Codex - The Cerberus Coup

Councilor Udina's attempted coup will no doubt be analyzed for generations to come, but a clear picture is beginning to merge. Udina had contacted Cerberus to coordinate what was intended to be a bloodless takeover of the Citadel, in which he would force the other councilors to grant him emergency powers so that he could command the Citadel Fleet. He would then direct the fleet to liberate his homeworld, Earth.

The plan fell apart early when Executor Pallin and the salarian councilor caught wind of it. In defense of the plan, the Illusive Man dispatched his top assassins, commanded by Kai Leng, to kill them. Udina had little choice but to support the assassins with an armed force sufficient to hold the Citadel. Captured confidantes have indicated that Udina and Leng's alliance was relatively fragile:  Udina may have planned to turn on Cerberus once the fleet was his to  command, and Leng departed when he calculated that Udina would not  succeed.

Persistent rumors suggest that Udina might have been a high-functioning victim of Reaper indoctrination. His actions played right into the Reapers' plans: even if the coup failed, it would damage Citadel governance. If it succeeded, his plan to retake Earth would likely have turned into a military blunder that Council forces could ill afford. However, there is no direct evidence of his indoctrination, nor obvious opportunity. It is more likely that Udina acted out of desperation, and in doing so, cost humanity its councilor.

It's not the Codex's fault you choose not to read it.

/Agree

[blmlozz]

Kyazain wrote...

I find it kind of funny that before ME3's release, everybody was talking about how great the story was. The second game was more character oriented, but it was the bridge between the first and third game. Despite that, people thought the storytelling was very good. Now suddenly people (not everyone) are jumping on the bandwagon that not only ME3's story was ****, but the second game, too?

Maybe I'm missing something.

I've missed the ME2 was **** people?

The second was fine.. I'm replaying through it right now.

It's not the Codex's fault you choose not to read it.

I had honestly missed that, which is most of the reason why I'm playing through 1/2 again. I'm unsure if I find it comforting to know that they've explained it; It's just that you would never know unless you force yourself to read every single one of these and happen to find it.

Modifié par blmlozz, 30 mars 2012 - 01:19 .

[poundoffleshaa]

Trying to bring together all the choices for all three games was a tall order so I am willing to give Bioware some slack. The Crucible plot device was lazy but the ending was far lazier and more disruptive to the series as a whole. My biggest regret about mass effect 3 was not the ending (it was awful) it was Priority Earth if they had included in the results of your war assets into the finale (Krogans riding dinosaurs etc) it would have been the best mission ever.

[blmlozz]

Luc0s wrote...

Kyazain wrote...

I find it kind of funny that before ME3's release, everybody was talking about how great the story was. The second game was more character oriented, but it was the bridge between the first and third game. Despite that, people thought the storytelling was very good. Now suddenly people (not everyone) are jumping on the bandwagon that not only ME3's story was ****, but the second game, too?

Maybe I'm missing something.

I've always been part of the "ME2's plot is bad" group. No, to be more precisely, my first opinion on the ME2 plot was: "Plot? what plot? Did ME2 even have a plot?"

that was sort of OK though. the second story of a trilogy is always sort of a 'filler'. ME2 had good character progression, even if it didn't really advance the story much . As I said before, ME has been about the characters for me, so the 'story' was a decent backdrop, I saw my ME1 choices have reflections of some sort and that was that.

Modifié par blmlozz, 30 mars 2012 - 01:21 .