150 réponses à ce sujet

[ahandsomeshark]

RukiaKuchki wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

RukiaKuchki wrote...

So...you don't like the end. You don't like the beginning. You don't like the conversations. You don't like the fact that a lot of information is stored in a detailed codex in order to cut down the need for exposition. You don't like the relationships between characters. You don't like/don't understand the characters motivations. You don't care for the overall story arc. You don't care for the side missions. Et cetera, et cetera....

Perhaps it's just time for you to let Mass Effect go, move on to something that you do like, and stop getting yourself so worked up on the forums? None of these things are going to change, no matter how much you jump up and down, stamp your feet and make lists of complaints. You've invested your money on something you found disappointing...well, that happens sometimes. It hurts, but you're not going to die! This really isn't the end of the world. There will be more games, and there will be more disappointments and hopefully some wonderful surprises. Just let it go. Seriously. All this regurgitation of the same things again and again and again is not healthy.

I think most of the people here are here because they love bioware games in general and they're hoping that DA2 and this game aren't a sign of things to come and a shift in the type of games bioware releases. And how else can we express to bioware (a company that says it's always valued fan feedback) these concerns if by not making them heart on this board? It's not just about money I've invested, it's about future games.

Edit: Also It's not just that people don't care for those things, I don't care for CoD so I don't buy it. It's that these things that had become central to bioware games (exposition, side missions, in depth story-lines) are suddenly missing in ME3. So I think a alot of people are here to try and find out if this is a sign that bioware has shifted it's focus, or if this was just a one time thing (whether it was a misstep or just how they thought this game played out best but not neccessarily indicative of future releases). 

I appreciate the reasoned reply! There is no way Bioware isn't aware of the fans' opinions, and by repeating the same things again and again, louder and louder, for weeks and weeks - it doesn't necesarily make them listen to you any harder. What this whole situation (and, in my opinion, this rather tedious 'Take Back Mass Effect' campaign) has very successfully achieved is that no studio will attempt to do what Bioware has done with Mass Effect. Bioware are likely to be more tentative, mainstream and 'safe' with their future output. They took a huge risk with Mass Effect, and 99% of other studios out there would have cut their losses after the first installment once they realised the monumental task ahead of them. I certainly don't believe that Mass Effect 3 was a triumph - it's buggy as hell and I haven't a clue what was going on in the last 15 minutes like just about everyone else - but I have a sense of awe in what they achieved, no matter how imperfect.  People who are so quick to turn on them so visciously because the ending wasn't everything they've ever dreamed of, are just not true fans. Starting threads to brag about how many people you've convinced not to buy the game, how to cause upset and embarrassment at PAX, how to dissect the Bioware/EA PR machine creating a disturbing 'us vs them' scenario ... these actions are not performed by people who want to start a dialogue. They are actions performed by people who have a loosened grip on the reality of this situation. So yes, I think these people really do need to move on because it's just not healthy.

Yeah my issue isn't so much with the ending as the output in general. I agree Mass Effect as a whole was a MAJOR accomplishment, but a lot of the things that failed to deliver in ME3 didn't seem to fail just because it was too grand a vision, it seemed to fail because of a lack of time put into it. I know the final mission could have been more interactive because I've seen bioware games do it before (DA: Origins, ME2) I know there could have been more dialogue, cause once again I've seen bioware games do before, and I definitley know a lot of the bugs could have been fixed but that's probably on EA (though still does this mean we should expect much buggier games at launch in the future). So my concern is are these things not being done becuase it's part of bioware's new long-term plan to not do them in games? I agree there is a a lot of us vs them and it's ridiculous, but I also think that comes more from passionate fans just not really knowing a better way to express their concerns. Though I do agree that I hope at some point there's either a mass shift in tone, or they drop out of the discussion.

[Tenshi]

Luc0s wrote...

 Lets be honest folks, it was not just the ending of ME3 that was bad. The entire plot of ME3 was at the very least cheesy as hell. The build-up was bad, the Crucible is just a silly McGuffin, the way Cerberus is threated in ME3 is just plain horrible, the Citadel coup (Cerberus attacking the Citadel) was stupid and silly, the motivation behind the Reaper cycle is stupid, Shepard having those silly dreams was just cheesy as hell and the entire thing with the Citadel above planet Earth was also pretty silly. The horrible ending is just the final nail in the coffin.

Let me point out some facts on why the writing in Mass Effect 3 is just plain bad in general:


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).


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


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)?


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.


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.


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?



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?

1. okay, i agree with this 100%

2. every single cycle started to build crucible when reapers did hit. evidence? protheans were not fast enough :-D 
so.. data are probably manipulated
anyway, this point is completely irelevant. and has no place on game rating. this just does not matter.

3. illusive man didnt want udina plan to be ruined, and why was udina helping them?
because udina believed in cerberus? for example like paul grayson did  (ME: ascension)? or because he was power hungry? Or what was stated in game codex.
this point is answered many times. just delete it.

4. once again, we agree.

5. these dreams were pain in the ***. so i agree

6. starchild did want to keep his methods, so he moved citadel on safer place where reapers were at their most powerfull force. dont see problem in this one.

to sum it up: ME 3 is good game, i enjoyed it though it has some flaws, you are right in this one.
and a little advice: i have overlooked something about witcher, well dont pull out witcher 2 if you want to compare games.. really.. cound not even force myself to end it. so boring :-)

[Favourite store on the CitadeI]

Luc0s wrote...

 Lets be honest folks, it was not just the ending of ME3 that was bad. The entire plot of ME3 was at the very least cheesy as hell. The build-up was bad, the Crucible is just a silly McGuffin, the way Cerberus is threated in ME3 is just plain horrible, the Citadel coup (Cerberus attacking the Citadel) was stupid and silly, the motivation behind the Reaper cycle is stupid, Shepard having those silly dreams was just cheesy as hell and the entire thing with the Citadel above planet Earth was also pretty silly. The horrible ending is just the final nail in the coffin.

Let me point out some facts on why the writing in Mass Effect 3 is just plain bad in general:


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).


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


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)?


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.


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.


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?



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?

Agree with all except
1) The game is an ending, not the start of a new franchise.
5) The dreams wern't silly. We don't know what the represent, and that pissed me off 

[ebevan91]

Lot's of speculation, marauder shields, hold the line, etc.

[Kingthlayer]

The opening is horrible. Playing that on the demo and I almost went out and canceled my preorder because of the amount of auto dialogue in it, but I figured no way the whole game is going to be full of it with the amount of complaining Dragon Age 2 took about it.

I dislike the Crucible as well, also the moving of the Citadel to Earth. Just seemed to force the Take Back Earth part of the game. Which was just forced throughout the whole game. Every planet is burning and in the same shape as Earth but yet we gotta bring them all to Earth, not a very well written story,

The dreams, they can just DIAF. I hate how they keep shoving this kid down my throat, by the end of Mass Effect I wanted to punch this kid more than I wanted to punch that annoying kid in Episode 1.

[RukiaKuchki]

Luc0s wrote...

RukiaKuchki wrote...

What this whole situation (and, in my opinion, this rather tedious 'Take Back Mass Effect' campaign) has very successfully achieved is that no studio will attempt to do what Bioware has done with Mass Effect. Bioware are likely to be more tentative, mainstream and 'safe' with their future output.

This is not true, not true at all. We only have to look ar The CD Projekt Red to see how you're wrong. The Witcher basically follows the same formula as a lot of BioWare's games, but where Mass Effect and Dragon Age fell short, The Witcher delivers. The Witcher has just become a better game and series than Mass Effect and Dragon Age.

Does this mean CD Projekt Red has become a better interactive storyteller than BioWare? I sure hope not! While I'm greatly enjoying The Witcher, I also truly hope I can keep enjoying games from BioWare in the future (the more the merrier, right?).


What other producers hopefully learn from this is that they shouldn't make promises that they can't keep. BioWare promised us a lot of things and most of those promises were eventually broken. Broken promises is the main reason why the fanbase is so angry with BioWare right now.

As for me: I'm not angry, I'm just dissapointed. I'm also confused. What happened to BioWare? How come they're not as great now as they used to be?

I've never played The Witcher because I've never had a decent enough PC! Maybe I should invest! I honestly think Bioware were not able to deliver exactly what they promised because the technology wasn't/isn't quite there yet, but the intent certainly was. I don't believe for a second they intentionally misled anyone, their reach just exceeded their grasp, and perhaps there have been mis-understandings on both sides. Bioware have promised to release content over the next year. Some of that will give people closure, but for some it will never be enough because their faith in the studio is broken. I'm sure that discussing the issues ad nauseum provides a kind of carthasis for many, but again... what will it really change now, at least in the short term? Isn't this out-pouring of emotion just making some people more and more angry, when perhaps they should take a deep breath and see what happens in April? Bioware can't respond personally and comprehensively to every rant, and they probably need time themselves to figure this out. We should give them this time if we it done properly. It's only been just over 3 weeks since the game was released. For those of us who gorged on it and finished it with a couple of days, this now seems like an age ago. It's not really! Before we write off Bioware completely, we should just calm down a bit.

[NightHawkIL]

garf 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.

THIS.

They had me sold and the illusion was holding until they broke their own magic spell.

^^^

[Tovanus]

Luc0s wrote...

Tovanus wrote...

1) Anything dealing with the Crucible or the Reapers history and motivations is something I think you can classify as part of an ending failure.

That's BS and you know it. Seriously, how do you manage to jump from "terrible McGuffn introduced in a terrible way at the START of the game" to "part of the ending failure"?

Because the ending is where the failure manifested itself. The fact that they didn't have a plan for how to beat the Reapers in a sensible way, or didn't have a plan for how to explain their motivations, can otherwise be traced back till before they released ME 1. 

The fact is if they had a good explanation for the Crucible ready for the end, then it wouldn't have made the story "bad" merely because they didn't share the reasoning behind it until the end. Would it have been better to? Yeah. I think it would make the story better, I just don't think it was absolutely doomed to suck until they stuck their ending explanation in there.

When people complain about the end, it's pretty inherent (everywhere on these forums) that they're including their complaints of the Reaper motivations and Crucible plotline. The game had weak areas of plot before the end, sure. Cerberus was a particularly weak area of the plot (even when reading the Codex entries, they were just awkwardly handled). But there are enough other good middle sections to make up for whatever problems exist before the end, particularly Tuchanka and Rannoch.

[Christianswe]

Game overall= Good
Last 15 minutes= BAAAAAAADD : D

[eVelocity]

While the game wasn't all that bad I agree there are many disappointing moments. The crucible, introduced as WTFBOOM weapon, in the end does - well nothing (or as good as nothing). And thats only one example. On the other hand we got missions like Tuchanka or Rannoch, which both are without a doubt brilliant (except the missed THE ONE chance to reveal Talis face and all we got was a lousy pic )

But yeah, looking at the game from a distance now it doesn't seem to be that great anymore. Right now I don't think all those 90%+ and 10/10 ratings from everywhere are justified.

[Razyx]

Favourite store on the CitadeI wrote...
5) The dreams wern't silly. We don't know what the represent, and that pissed me off 

Well I think you can explain the dreams from the most simplistic point of view, i.e. Shepard's fears.
 He/she starts doubting whether could handle, or not, the entire situation; saving the earth, his/her fellows, things that cares (a future)... and, in someway he/she feels that there's no way out without paying a big price (he/she dying and/or almost everyone). Name it "humanizing a leader/hero".

About the OP.

1.- Yup they could have added a better bridge between ME2 and ME3 but it's not that hard to fill those blanks.
2.- hehe think about it... despite the technology, human beings still are incompetent in that age
4.- Per se it's a weak argument, but a good one for the Reapers defeat. If Shepard had had more choices in the ending...

Modifié par Razyx, 30 mars 2012 - 09:29 .

[daboy042188]

Luc0s wrote...

After (re)playing The Witcher series and and reading The Witcher novels it only becomes more obvious how incredibly mediocre Mass Effect's story is (though I loved ME1 and I loved the first ME novel: Revelations).

dude if you love the witcher so much why are you on a bioware forum talking about mass effect instead of on your knees pleasuring the developers of the witcher?

[daboy042188]

Luc0s wrote...

AnsinJung wrote...

The Coup is tied up with TIM changing from ME2 to ME3, explained away with indoctrination. That's not that bad.

In my opinion it is bad, it's HORRIBLE. They had a great character and then totally butchered him by turning him into a replacable moustache-twirling evil super villain who is indoctrinated.

Seriously, TIM being indoctrinated, while perhaps logical, is such a cop-out. Couldn't BioWare really come up with something better and more original for TIM's role in ME3? Now he's just a dime in a dozen. He's just the next victim of indoctrination, like so many other character. 

In fact, the best way to describe TIM in ME3 is "Saren 2.0". Yes, that's what he is, Saren 2.0. Not very original if you ask me.

AnsinJung wrote...

The Crucible was necessary after making the Reapers unstoppable. The idea of it becoming a little more complete each cycle was pretty good.

I agree, but it still felt like a cop-out and a silly McGuffin. BioWare clearly didn't know what they were doing when they were building this trilogy. By the time they were developing ME2 they clearly had no idea how they were going to wrap this trilogy up in ME3. Seriously, BioWare keeps saying "Mass Effect was always written as a trilogy" but the evidence proves otherwise. If Mass Effect was a planned trilogy than BioWare could have (and SHOULD have) foreshadowed the Crucible and the Reaper's motives in ME2. But they didn't. ME2 didn't foreshadow anything. Well, yeah, maybe ME2 foreshadowed something about dark energy, but the whole dark energy plot was never touched in ME3. Seriously bad writing if you ask me. 

i'm a ps3 kid so my knowladge of this is 2nd hand but in the first game dosen't sovvy say "we are your salvation through destruction"? if that's not foreshadowing then i'm a turian

[daboy042188]

dude it's not a macguffin, it's a superweapon with an unknown function. you've been spending the whole game building it. the suitcase in pulp fiction is a macguffin, because it could be anything. it's not like you could sub in the crucible for a snow-cone maker and the plot would still make sense

and as to the foreshadowing i was saying the reaper's motivations are foreshadowed in 1 with "we are your salvation through destruction"

[Elishiaila]

Luc0s wrote...

The Crucible ISN'T reaper design. That's just something YOU MADE UP. Javik made it pretty clear that the Crucible is a collaboration between many species from many cycle, each cycle refining the Crucible a bit more.

The rest of your comment is just a giant Strawman so I'm not even going to respond to that.

Just to make myself clear: One more offensive post, and next reply to you will be with the help of report post button. So consider that before you post more offensive stuff.

On topic: Javik doesn't know the origin of Crucible. He knows they found plans and he speculates about its origins. But I hope you managed to notice that any other tech you inherit from cycle to cycle is known to be Reaper tech. Why would it be an exception?

You know crucible is linked to Reaper tech, designed to work with Reaper tech. We know for sure noone else found catalyst yet. Yet this plan works with catalyst only. So built with perfect understanding of Reapers and the force controls them. Well, as noone but reapers has that knowledge...

Yet think speculation about its origins without any real knowledge makes it different in origins from all other tech inherited from cycle to cycle. And this idea of yours gladly ignores the fact it works with the catalyst.

There are solid information in the game (Catalyst is designed to work with Crucible). And there are speculation by NPCs. If you don't know the difference between this two, it is pretty strange that you flame others, don't you think? 

[Federally]

I disagree with how you write and your use of the term MacGuffin OP but I agree with your point. The only great part of the story was Tuchanka, which was probably outlined in detail when the parts in ME1 and 2 were written and just needed dialogue.

The beginning was shaky as you mentioned, tho could be forgiven if they had gone a different direction with the crucible and made it either an actual weapon, an info weapon or an Electronic Warfare device. Having many cycles gather information on the Reapers and slowly build upon and improve an anti Reaper weapon is a good concept, but what it turned into is ridiculous along with the whole Catalyst thing.

Catapulting Cerberus from a terrorist organisation working in the back ground to a massively powerful Antagonist complete with a huge fleet that goes toe to toe with the full might of the Alliance is absurd. It was obviously forced to create an 'enemy from within' situation. And Kai Leng is a ****ing retarded hack, been done 1000 times character that does not fit in this universe.

As I said Tuchanka was good all around but Rannoch was an odd mix. It started weird, ignoring past player actions and made the Quarians a bit ridiculous, however it did finish strong.

Thessia is where things really went off the rails and shows the differences between the writing staffs very plainly. The setup was poor, just another bit of convenience with the sudden revelation of this hidden beacon (i'll forgive the crucible plans but twice is too many!). Then the end of the mission was awfull, impossible boss fights are lame and watching Kai Leng strut through the temple with missiles going around him and the place collapsing was very Metal Gear Solid and doesn't belong here. But at the same time the experience on Thessia before that was incredible, the dialogue, the sacrifices to help you and the visuals were stunning. Helps me realize the writers in charge of the story arc were abysmal while the writers responsible for fleshing out scenes and dialogue are really talented. They are like great actors trying to make the best of a bad movie. Lastly, the lack of Thessia side missions I think is evidence the game was rushed, I'm sure at least one Asari was deserving a rescue, or Liara could of tied in with some additional task.

After that things go to shambles. TIM is supposed to be a secondary Antagonist and should have been dealt with on his base.

The Citadel being taken over and moved to Earth in a matter of hours opens too many plot holes to list.

Then Earth...Considering the game was marketing with the tag line "Fight to Retake Earth!" There wasn't a lot of retaking Earth happening. The actual fight on Earth was what some 20 minutes of horde mode? Totally uninspired, underwhelming and kind of boring. Then of course there is no real confrontation with the Reapers and their leader, the main Antagonist in ME2, Harbinger. Just a quick cameo and that's it peace out!

And of course you know the rest. So yeah the story arc of ME3 was terrible, but it was masked behind some incredible dialogue (separate writers!), Tuchanka and to a lesser extent Rannoch.

[Elishiaila]

Luc0s: Ok, as I said next response for you will come with the report post button. I am tired of your "How stupid you are because mr Luc0s knows 1+1=5.3 not 2" type flamebait offensive posts. With this you are also ignored from now on.

Catalyst is part of the "anti reaper weapon", yet you know it is tied to Reaper. Yet you insist reapers wouldn't leave such things behind. You refuse to note how mass relays and whole ezoo technology was found by Protheans and how reapers claim they left that technology behind. You gladly ignore the cycle maintained by reapers. You ignore all facts just to flame others.

[Elishiaila]

Federally wrote...

The beginning was shaky as you mentioned, tho could be forgiven if they had gone a different direction with the crucible and made it either an actual weapon, an info weapon or an Electronic Warfare device. Having many cycles gather information on the Reapers and slowly build upon and improve an anti Reaper weapon is a good concept, but what it turned into is ridiculous along with the whole Catalyst thing.

If Reapers wouldn't investigate a Superweapon, not even with their indoctrunated agents and would be present in many cycles as they would make the same mistake over and over, just to give us a chance that would be Deus ex Machina. The moment you understand that Crucible is part of the Cycle, as the whole thing happened before, it is reasonable to expect it is tied to Reapers. Tieing it to Catalyst and with this to Citadel makes sense. As only that releay is in key position to send energy to all systems and target all reapers.

Federally wrote...

Catapulting Cerberus from a terrorist organisation working in the back ground to a massively powerful Antagonist complete with a huge fleet that goes toe to toe with the full might of the Alliance is absurd. It was obviously forced to create an 'enemy from within' situation. And Kai Leng is a ****ing retarded hack, been done 1000 times character that does not fit in this universe.

Or maybe it would be change if Reapers wouldn't even touch your former allies. With indoctrination in picture it is reasonable to see the change. And it is reasonable to expect Cerberus not only using the resources from ME2 (it was pretty big), but any resources thrown at them by Reapers. So with a seemingly infinite supply of indoctrinated agents while alliance military is weakened by Reapers.

Federally wrote...

As I said Tuchanka was good all around but Rannoch was an odd mix. It started weird, ignoring past player actions and made the Quarians a bit ridiculous, however it did finish strong.

Strange. On most places (except for ending) the game checked your past actions involving Geth and Quarians.

Federally wrote...

The Citadel being taken over and moved to Earth in a matter of hours opens too many plot holes to list.

Well. "It has a drive good enough for instant transportation, but it should be slow anyway" would be a plot hole. The speed of this move reflects the nature of Citadel as the core of relay network. The biggest and fastes and strongest "drive" in the world.

Federally wrote...

Then Earth...Considering the game was marketing with the tag line "Fight to Retake Earth!" There wasn't a lot of retaking Earth happening. The actual fight on Earth was what some 20 minutes of horde mode? Totally uninspired, underwhelming and kind of boring. Then of course there is no real confrontation with the Reapers and their leader, the main Antagonist in ME2, Harbinger. Just a quick cameo and that's it peace out!

Except retaking earth is your goal for the whole game.

[Elishiaila]

Luc0s wrote...

Why? What did I do wrong? When did I flamebait you? You're going to report me for disagreeing with you and pointing out the flaws in your theory? For not accepting your own personal theory? Seriously, what is wrong with you?

Strawn, headcanon, etc. type of arguments in all of your posts didn't happen. Right? Should I call you a moron, because you think that isn't an insult?

Come on. You come with BioWare and CPU... Do BioWare know Intel CPUs? Did Protheans know how Reapers actually work? Do they know Reaper OS? Isn't BioWare develops on top of Microsoft technologies? Wasn't it developed with an instrition set in mind. Isn't that a link in technology.

If the catalyst and crucible are built by two civilizations, the former would be unaware of later (due to time they developed) and the later would be unaware of workings of formet as noone managed to reverse engineer catalyst (otherwise subvering reaper control system would be possible, we would know it). AND the reapers would be stupid to leave its plans accessable repeatedly when they have indoctrinates agents and have means to destroy it. That is actual impossibility.

If they are built to work with each other, then they are on same technology. Not prothean one.

In the story we discovered that Ezoo drives, mass relays, citadel, etc. everything we recognized as Prothean tech were Reaper tech. No other tech survived multiple cycles.

[JGib123]

For the citadel to Earth.
I heard that the original Mass Effect 3 script had something to do with dark energy and the reapers needing to make a Human reaper quick. Something to do with Human DNA being the most diverse in the galaxy in this cycle.
Makes at least a little more sense but theres just so many plot holse in 3 it makes my brain hurt.