212 réponses à ce sujet

[Rohirrim]

 I like the original poster's idea. It's just too bad that one cannot read a single discussion on these forums without skipping over pages and pages of utterly superfluous comments by people that think themselves funny or feel the need to offend other posters. 

OP, if you really intend to make this thread a long-lasting and valuable discussion, I'd love to see continuous updates of your first post. It is simply too tedious to follow this thread (amongst others) with all this spam. I wish this forum would have a function for you, as somebody creating a topic, to delete unnecessary posts that contribute nothing at all. If that was the case, I'd put in some time to offer a detailed reply with my opinions on the topic. As it currently stands, my post will be read by two people before being burrowed under quotes, pictures with semi-funny captions and recurring phrases. 

Good luck with the topic, I hope it lives up to its potential!

[Daniel_N7]

I’d like to thank the people who replied my previous post, a few pages back. I wish I could keep up with this forum more often but I can only check it now and then.

Going through the thread it became apparent to me that people who are critical of Mass Effect 3 are often portrayed as BioWare haters. I realize that arguments like the one being raised here are recurrent and painful to go through but they won’t go away with a condescending attitude – it’s just a videogame. Lowering your standards isn’t the way to defend a cause.

The script of Mass Effect 3 is at the core of all the issues many people had with the game. I’m not going to dispute if people who are unhappy with ME3 are many or just a few, if they are real fans or not. The simple truth is “we have a case”.

“Evidence A” is an interview with ME3’s lead writer Mac Walters where he acknowledged that, when the scripts for ME1 and 2 where developed, there was only an outline of what ME3 would become. Here’s the link for that interview, dated from March 2012. As you can all see, this is no longer a matter of opinion – it’s a fact.

The ending of ME3 is not the real problem with the game. It only makes the deficiencies of the overall plot visible for all to see. Some people here have gone so far as to say the problems with the trilogy began in ME2. I agree that the middle chapter was a big detour with very small consequences on the overall storyline. And there were some questionable choices. [SPOILER] For example, the “death scene” at the beginning may deliver a strong punch but the concept of resurrection and the way it is delivered is on the fringes of a reasonable suspension of disbelief. Still, it serves a purpose – Shepard joining Cerberus – and it works on an emotional level.

But I don’t agree with the idea that the characters introduced in ME2 where not well developed. I am actually currently replaying ME2 and the quality of dialogue in the game is outstanding. And, in my personal opinion, all the new characters where complex and amazingly interesting. I have really appreciated the Seven Samurai feel of the story, and the way everything comes together in the culmination of the Suicide Mission.

It is a great game, and a great stand-alone story.

However, it is now painfully visible that the script of ME2 and 3 should have been developed together, and that the strategy of avoiding a commitment in ME2 and leave ME3 open for later was a huge, huge mistake.

Mass Effect 3 could still have worked, but it suffered from a surprising series of fragile choices; regarding script – ex. the plausibility of the Crucible – and structure – ex. the explicit conversion of every action or goal into a simple score (EMS). Other things have been referenced before, so I won’t go into that again, but I’ll state that sH0tgUn jUliA’s post (page 6) does a good job summing everything up.

What is truly sad is that Mass Effect became a reference to a new paradigm of storytelling in video games. It successfully challenged the boundaries of interactive entertainment. If there is a legacy to this trilogy is how it has expanded the video game format as a medium for telling stories, providing an immense sense of ownership to the gamers. People consider Shepard their Shepard. People see the relationships they've established with other characters as something they have crafted themselves. And although this has always been an illusion - you are in fact manipulating a set of variables established by the authors - this is the greatest achievement BioWare accomplished with the Mass Effect trilogy.

The truth is BioWare did something amazing here. These are storytelling concepts that I would love to see developed in future games, just as I would like to see more of this engrossing fictional universe BW created, in the future. But Mass Effect 3 failed its mark. It’s not a matter of excessive expectations – although maybe we all had them. It’s a fragility that is the result of a disconnected development process of a three-chapter narrative.

The reason why we (some of us) feel so disappointed is the fact that we ceased to recognize our Shepard in certain pivotal moments during ME3, most evidently in the final dialogue or confrontation with the Catalyst. Our disappointment becomes “personal”. In a game like Mass Effect, where we feel we understand the motivations of our character, to have her/him sidetracked from those motivations feels as if our characters are being hijacked from ourselves. And I confess, I don’t know why it has such a big impact on me – that I find myself still returning to these boards to… well, rant a bit.

Peace.

[Victia]

Daniel_N7, I agree with your above post however, the only thing that I would like to add/say is that I believe Bioware has a lot of amazing writers, they do however seem to be largely passed over in the company for some of the highter positions. I do though think that if (for example) Patrick Weekes was lead writer for ME3 we would be looking at a very different game with a much more satifying ending even if the scrips of ME2 and ME3 where developed seperatly

[Fliprot]

The Angry One wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Dendio1 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Dmthoth wrote...

they wanted some 'Drama' and failed.. anybody has no such a talent.. unfortunately..

Could you please give us some details? What do you mean with "they wanted some drama" and why do you think they failed?

One phrase:

Speculations for everyone

Yeah yeah we get it. That "speculation for everyone" joke is getting kinda old now.

Artistic integrity!

lol

[Vox Draco]

Daniel_N7 wrote...
But I don’t agree with the idea that the characters introduced in ME2 where not well developed. I am actually currently replaying ME2 and the quality of dialogue in the game is outstanding. And, in my personal opinion, all the new characters where complex and amazingly interesting. I have really appreciated the Seven Samurai feel of the story, and the way everything comes together in the culmination of the Suicide Mission.

Well, the problem, as I see it, aren't the characters or that they are "lame" or uninteresting . Not at all. But do we realyl need a Thane or a Samara or Jacob or Jack as full squadmembers? Do we need so many new characters, and for each and every one a recruiting and persoanl mission? Did the recruiting-mission of Thane or Samara in any way push the plot against the Reapers forward, or even the collectors-plot? 

They are all a nice bunch of characters, some more interesting (Legion. Mordin), some less (Samara, Thane, Jacob).

ME2 could have been Mass Effect's "Empire strikes back". Comparing to a movie might be a little unfair, but ESB did something very right: It focused on the already exisiting characters and gave them a whole lot of more depth, including the main villain. But all the while it never fails to remind the audience that this movie cannot be the end, that it is only the staging point to something bigger yet to come, because the enemy, the Empire, is jsut as powerful, maybe even more so than in "A new hope"

Mass Effect could and should have doen the same: Taking the already existing squad around Shepard, and dig deeper into their past, personalities and relationship towards Shepard and us. And introduce only very few new characters...memorable "Lando Calrissians"...

ESB also had two clever twists at the very end that intrigued the audience and made them waiting for the third part to adress them, and ROTJ didn't just drop those twists: Vader being Luke's father plays a major role in Luke's confrontation of the Emperor and Vader's salvation. And of course Han Solo being frozen in carbonite is another cliffhanger that is solved quite satisfyingly...of course ROTJ still has Ewoks, but hey...at least some of them die...

The only twist or plot-point of ME2 really having some kind of impact on part 3 might be the revelation of LEgion and the "heretic" Geth. I liked that. And again I say that this plot-point alone had deseved way more on-screen time, instead we meet Legion at the very end...far too late I say, considering how important that is in regards to part one. And the Human Reaper? It is really never adressed anymore in Part 3, doesn't play a siginifcant role or anything at all. Hell, they liquified people to make it, Shepard saw it and...nothing? This alone should have made any kind of Shepard go nuts in the end, this alone should have rallied the entire galaxy at once to unify against the Reapers to avoid such a horrible fate...

I liked ME2, I liked ME3 up to the end. But looking at both games and the story now, I fail to see how they connect properly. Herectic Hanar mentioned it once: It feels like you could play ME3 right after ME1 and don't get the feeling of having missed anything important to the plot. That is good if you want your third installment of a trilogy to be a great starting-point to new fans (*rolleyes at that alone*), but storytelling-wise you made something wrong if that is possible...

And to the OP Here is a link to Melinda Snodgrass blog. She has some very true things to say about Mass Effect, Bioware, and writing in general. I really started to like her

http://www.melindasn...l-2012/?start=6

[elitehunter34]

Oxspit wrote...

A simple exercise for those who think the bad writing relates purely to the ending, and that the ball got dropped purely in the last few minutes.

You have carte blanche to re-write the ending - that is, everything from the start of the beam run onwards is yours to play with. Knock yourself out, but write something that ties everything together, works coherently with everything up until that point and, you know, makes sense. And makes everything else make sense too. Answers the questions that need to be answered. That kind of thing.

You don't get to introduce new themes or major plot devices, you only get to work with what you've already been given. If you like, I guess it's fair to use characters/devices Bioware *does* introduce (like the star child reaper god dude) if you really want to. Since a/the major part of the ending is finding out what crucible actually does, you can do what you like with that (although, I guess the crucible isn't a new device so that kind of goes without saying).

But you only get to re-write beam run onwards.

And .... go.

Well http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11739343]here's[/url] one.  It's a long read, but it's honestly the best fan ending I've read yet.  It's really really good.  There is some cheesy dialogue, however, but overall, it doesn't detract from it much.  Over the second and third pages a decison tree is added so you can customize your ending.

Modifié par elitehunter34, 18 juillet 2012 - 06:55 .

[Daniel_N7]

Vox Draco wrote...

ESB [Empire Strikes Back] also had two clever twists at the very end that intrigued the audience and made them waiting for the third part to adress them, and ROTJ [Return of the Jedi] didn't just drop those twists: Vader being Luke's father plays a major role in Luke's confrontation of the Emperor and Vader's salvation. And of course Han Solo being frozen in carbonite is another cliffhanger that is solved quite satisfyingly...of course ROTJ still has Ewoks, but hey...at least some of them die...

Your Star Wars reference is pertinent. BioWare always stated that Mass Effect 2 would be the dark chapter of the trilogy. And although it had some darker undertones it feels - at least now - that they took some steps back to allow a "perfect ending". You can survive a suicide mission with zero losses, and I'm pretty sure the majority of gamers that imported a save chose a perfect playthrough.

When you look at ESB, as a dark middle chapter of a trilogy, you see how it can be done properly to achieve that emotional momentum. Solo is tragically lost, Luke is not only defeated by Vader but a tremendously dark revelation falls upon him, and although the film ends with a hint of hope, it is far from a happy ending.

Maybe BioWare turned ME3 around because ME2 was too perfect. But Shepard's tragic fate feels forced upon him - his destiny is set, determined by the gods at BioWare, and there is nothing you, the player, can do about it. The refusal ending shows that with painful clarity.

The problem is that Shepard, unlike, say, John Marston, is not a tragic hero. ME3 makes a shift in narrative style that was unexpected to many of us, if not illogical.

You mentioned Melinda Snodgrass. Do you know - you probably do - that she is a member of these boards. She wrote this excelent post about this very subject. She says it much better than I could ever do.

[Vox Draco]

Daniel_N7 wrote...
Your Star Wars reference is pertinent. BioWare always stated that Mass Effect 2 would be the dark chapter of the trilogy. And although it had some darker undertones it feels - at least now - that they took some steps back to allow a "perfect ending". You can survive a suicide mission with zero losses, and I'm pretty sure the majority of gamers that imported a save chose a perfect playthrough.

When you look at ESB, as a dark middle chapter of a trilogy, you see how it can be done properly to achieve that emotional momentum. Solo is tragically lost, Luke is not only defeated by Vader but a tremendously dark revelation falls upon him, and although the film ends with a hint of hope, it is far from a happy ending.

Maybe BioWare turned ME3 around because ME2 was too perfect. But Shepard's tragic fate feels forced upon him - his destiny is set, determined by the gods at BioWare, and there is nothing you, the player, can do about it. The refusal ending shows that with painful clarity.

The problem is that Shepard, unlike, say, John Marston, is not a tragic hero. ME3 makes a shift in narrative style that was unexpected to many of us, if not illogical.

You mentioned Melinda Snodgrass. Do you know - you probably do - that she is a member of these boards. She wrote this excelent post about this very subject. She says it much better than I could ever do.

The dark middle chapter...hmm...it is always a little "arrogant" and easy to tell a writer or team of writers to tel ltham afterwards what they should/could have done better, especially if you are, like me, far from being a writer yourself.

Nevertheless it is fun to imagine how ME2 and 3 could have been if approached differently. I still think it would have been better if ME2 would have been all about convincing the galaxy about the Reaper threat- finding evidence and during the game you become target to both Cerberus and the collectors as agents of the Reapers.

I also wouldn't have "killed" Shepard at the very beginning. It was obviously meant to get people speculate "before" the game what happens, and as a means of justifying that Shepard suddenly is a level one character again, or can have a different class etc...for those reason still this "death" is such a wasted potential in story-telling. Shepard dies, and is brought back within minutes into the game...*sigh*...death is cheap...

Why not having this death at the end of ME2? Begining or end, we would never belief Shepard's dead anyway, but at the very end it might have had a far heavier impact on the player, making us all wonder how this could be rectified, if at all, in part 3. Also having ME2 ening with a bang, the actual Reaper-invasion starts, right after some kind of hope in form of a weapon has been discovered...

Mighty cliffhangers that could have set the stage far more properly for an epic story-conclusion focused solely on the Reaper-war, starting first with Sheaprd's emotionally uplifting "resurrection" as we first learn in the intro how everything goes to shiat in the galaxy right now. But then the comeback of the hero of the galaxy, up to the bitter(sweet) end...

Sheaprd "dying" in the end of ME2 could have been quite as good as Solo frozen in Carbonite, instead we now have the hero "die" or whatever you want to believe in ME3. No wonder many fans are upset, it's like killing hope personified for many fans...no matter how much Bioware wants to sell us control or synthesis or the breathe scene as victories, it just don't feel that way...

Ah well,  spilled milk...

And of course I know this thread  At first I even doubted it was her, you never know in the Internet. But after browsing her blog and finding out how much of a fan she is...well, and she almsot exactly shares my views on many aspects of the controversy, or happy endings, or how video-games are NOT books and shouldn't forget that they make the player part of the story, being an interactive medium...and I wonder how her "new rewritten" ending to ME3 will look like

[Oxspit]

elitehunter34 wrote...

Oxspit wrote...

A simple exercise for those who think the bad writing relates purely to the ending, and that the ball got dropped purely in the last few minutes.

You have carte blanche to re-write the ending - that is, everything from the start of the beam run onwards is yours to play with. Knock yourself out, but write something that ties everything together, works coherently with everything up until that point and, you know, makes sense. And makes everything else make sense too. Answers the questions that need to be answered. That kind of thing.

You don't get to introduce new themes or major plot devices, you only get to work with what you've already been given. If you like, I guess it's fair to use characters/devices Bioware *does* introduce (like the star child reaper god dude) if you really want to. Since a/the major part of the ending is finding out what crucible actually does, you can do what you like with that (although, I guess the crucible isn't a new device so that kind of goes without saying).

But you only get to re-write beam run onwards.

And .... go.

Well http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11739343]here's[/url] one.  It's a long read, but it's honestly the best fan ending I've read yet.  It's really really good.  There is some cheesy dialogue, however, but overall, it doesn't detract from it much.  Over the second and third pages a decison tree is added so you can customize your ending.

Cheers.

Yeah, a fair bit of effort looks to have gone into it. I wouldn't, however, go so far as to say it 'fixes' the ending, myself, though. Firstly, just tacking that on to what is already there would make the ending a pretty un-holy mess. That isn't the author's fault, of course, since their entire premis is trying to make the IT work, but.. look even with a magnificenty done indoctrination sequence as a starting point, well, I really don't see it tying everything together

Of course, maybe that's just me.....

In a way, I like that the author weakened the crucible's power, but... well, it's actually established that the relay system is a pre-built and massive power source and it's even foreshadowed in ME1 that the citadel is some kind of co-ordination centre. And it's all reaper-tech, too. Using the relay network to harness some god-like amount of destructive energy is actually fine with me, it's the focussing it on the reapers alone bit that's hard to plausibly write in (although actually using TIM's research is a nice touch), and also the managing to do it at all when planned at the last minute after the reapers have actually invaded.

I thought the terrible thing about the crucible was how unplausibly you discover it, followed by how implausibly you worked out how to put it together with the citadel (the Prothean beacon on Thessia was more than mildly ridiculous) followed by how it just kind of ends up doing everything (precluding, of course, quite everything you would want each time like that's fooling anybody).

And, personally, I thought the elephant in the room that needed solving was the reapers motivation. Preferrably in a way that doesn't demean the reapers so much as to render them banal. I mean, there's a reason Harbinger has no dialogue in ME3 - as a figure of terror he's completely incompatible with the starchild. For the starchild and his explanations to not just be laughed at, you have to take the focus completely away from the reapers as the kind of individuals you've met them as.

On the one hand, I'm comfortable with keeping them inscrutible, merciless gods and never really understanding their motivation .... but I really can't see that happening and surviving the cycle. If that's how you wanted to keep them, I think the story should have revolved around preventing them from being able to return (essentially how ME1 worked).

If we accept that they're actually going to invade, I think you have to approach ME3 as ending with some kind of equilibrium or truce ... and I have a hard time seeing how we can engineer that without having their motivation explained to us to some degree. And it has to be a pretty good one (hibernation, slaughter, cleanup: repeat for all eternity is some pretty strange behaviour to explain away, especcially if you have to do it for a bunch of gods).

The writers here seemed to want to just do everything, but left it until the last minute to lay the ground-work.

[Oxspit]

elitehunter34 wrote...

......

Well http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11739343]here's[/url] one. It's a long read, but it's honestly the best fan ending I've read yet. It's really really good. There is some cheesy dialogue, however, but overall, it doesn't detract from it much. Over the second and third pages a decison tree is added so you can customize your ending.

Cheers.

Yeah, a fair bit of effort looks to have gone into it. I wouldn't, however, go so far as to say it 'fixes' the ending, myself, though. Firstly, just tacking that on to what is already there would make the ending a pretty un-holy mess. That isn't the author's fault, of course, since their entire premis is trying to make the IT work, but.. look even with a magnificenty done indoctrination sequence as a starting point, well, I really don't see it tying everything together

Of course, maybe that's just me.....

In a way, I like that the author weakened the crucible's power, but... well, it's actually established that the relay system is a pre-built and massive power source and it's even foreshadowed in ME1 that the citadel is some kind of co-ordination centre. And it's all reaper-tech, too. Using the relay network to harness some god-like amount of destructive energy is actually fine with me, it's the focussing it on the reapers alone bit that's hard to plausibly write in (although actually using TIM's research is a nice touch), and also the managing to do it at all when planned at the last minute after the reapers have actually invaded.

I thought the terrible thing about the crucible was how unplausibly you discover it, followed by how implausibly you worked out how to put it together with the citadel (the Prothean beacon on Thessia was more than mildly ridiculous) followed by how it just kind of ends up doing everything (precluding, of course, quite everything you would want each time like that's fooling anybody).

And, personally, I thought the elephant in the room that needed solving was the reapers motivation. Preferrably in a way that doesn't demean the reapers so much as to render them banal. I mean, there's a reason Harbinger has no dialogue in ME3 - as a figure of terror he's completely incompatible with the starchild. For the starchild and his explanations to not just be laughed at, you have to take the focus completely away from the reapers as the kind of individuals you've met them as.

On the one hand, I'm comfortable with keeping them inscrutible, merciless gods and never really understanding their motivation .... but I really can't see that happening and surviving the cycle. If that's how you wanted to keep them, I think the story should have revolved around preventing them from being able to return (essentially how ME1 worked).

If we accept that they're actually going to invade, I think you have to approach ME3 as ending with some kind of equilibrium or truce ... and I have a hard time seeing how we can engineer that without having their motivation explained to us to some degree. And it has to be a pretty good one (hibernation, slaughter, cleanup: repeat for all eternity is some pretty strange behaviour to explain away, especcially if you have to do it for a bunch of gods).

The writers here seemed to want to just do everything, but left it until the last minute to lay the ground-work.

[Oxspit]

Arguably the two most silly bits in ME3.

#1: On Mars:

Ashley/Kaidan: So, Liara, what did you discover?

Liara: Bits and pieces. Clues mostly. Oh, yeah, and these detailed blue-prints for a super-weapon. They're incredibly intact and detailed actually. I mean, I think we could actually go and build it.

Ashley/Kaidan: I thought we had almost no details whatsoever of Prothean civilisation.

Liara: Yeah, we don't. I mean, I'm like crazy smart and devoted most of my life to studying the critters .. and, I can tell you almost nothing about them.


Ashley/Kaidan: Also.... I mean, I'm rather embarassingly ignorant about recent human history...

Liara: Yes?

Ashley/Kaidan: ... but weren't these ruins the singlemost important scientific discovery in human history? Didn't we pour, like, massive resources and have our greatest minds poring over this stuff to learn everything they could?

Liara: Yeah, I'd always thought so.....

Ashley/Kaidan: So how is it we only found these plans now?

Liara: Umm... well, they were behind this big fridge, see... But, you know, I actually wondered that too.

Ashley/Kaidan: Also.... I mean how does a race like the reapers go about systematically cleansing these archives of any reference to their existence and details about Prothean society but miss those plans?

Liara: You know... that's also a pretty good point. Maybe when we fire this thing all it will do is write "UR ALL GONNA DIE!!!! lol Harbngr" across the sky.....

[KevShep]

Oxspit   ...

Right on! I just knew that it was going to end bad when Iam leaving earth and Admiral Hackett calls and says..." Oh yeah, Shep, we just happen to have this whole entire time a blue print of a weapon that can kill the reapers or so we think, but we can build it anyway. Do you mind picking it up at this very convenient timing? 

[Oxspit]

Vox Draco wrote...

....

I also wouldn't have "killed" Shepard at the very beginning.

....

Killing Shepard was a little extreme/harsh, yeah.....

I actually think ME2 would have worked better as a darker second chapter had Shepard simply been forced to make a rational choice to work with Cerberus as the only organisation which is actively working against the reapers, rather than being tied to them by virtue of being re-built by them.

You shouldn't have been given the choice to destroy the collector base, either (assuming you even kept the whole collector base thing on re-write anyway). Either you hand it over to the illusive man or you have something like the following dialogue:
__________
TIM: *blah blah blah* you could just use a neutron purge to kill off all living things in the base, keeping all of the technology and information intact.

Shepard: ..... that's a good idea. I'm afraid we part ways here, though, Illusive man. I have to point out to you that I am currently in posession of the only ship capable of passing through the Omega 4 relay, and both its crew and AI are loyal to me, not to you.

You really have done the galaxy a great service, and for what it's worth, you have my profound thanks. However, I'm afraid that I just don't trust you.

Joker: patch me through to the council. I rather think they'll listen to us now......
_________

I mean, if you're going to find a silver bullet of some sort capable of giving the reapers pause there are precisely two places it isn't absurd to find them:

1) Ilos - a Prothean science facility the reapers never touched.
2) The collector base. An actual reaper-built facility.

You have to deal with indoctrination risks in 2), but that can actually make the plot interesting.

And also, why in the hell did they advance the actual invasion to just after ME2 when they hadn't even worked out how they were going to deal with it when it came?

I suspect the gave you a non-choice where TIM is the only party privy to the collector base at the end because with the kind of choice above, they have two divergent beginnings for ME3... but I have no idea at all why they were so keen to fast-track the invasion.

[Blueprotoss]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...
Sovreign was far from easy to based on how 10% of the 1st Aliance Fleet got destroyed along with the whole 2nd Aliance Fleet.

Whut?
Fifth fleet attacked Soverign and only lost 8 ships.

The Alliance lost a lot more ships then 8 to Sovreign in ME1 and don't forget about the Citadel loses.

[Lord Goose]

I agree. The game was clearly rushed. It's not just the ending. Romance got the same treatment. Many choices from previous games were made pointless completely. They didn't even got a single nod to them. Side-quests devolved into stupid "find object A and bring it to NPC B". I still think ME3 was generally a good game, but not exactly what I wanted.

[Kamfrenchie]

Oxspit wrote...

Vox Draco wrote...

....

I also wouldn't have "killed" Shepard at the very beginning.

....

Killing Shepard was a little extreme/harsh, yeah.....

I actually think ME2 would have worked better as a darker second chapter had Shepard simply been forced to make a rational choice to work with Cerberus as the only organisation which is actively working against the reapers, rather than being tied to them by virtue of being re-built by them.

You shouldn't have been given the choice to destroy the collector base, either (assuming you even kept the whole collector base thing on re-write anyway). Either you hand it over to the illusive man or you have something like the following dialogue:
__________
TIM: *blah blah blah* you could just use a neutron purge to kill off all living things in the base, keeping all of the technology and information intact.

Shepard: ..... that's a good idea. I'm afraid we part ways here, though, Illusive man. I have to point out to you that I am currently in posession of the only ship capable of passing through the Omega 4 relay, and both its crew and AI are loyal to me, not to you.

You really have done the galaxy a great service, and for what it's worth, you have my profound thanks. However, I'm afraid that I just don't trust you.

Joker: patch me through to the council. I rather think they'll listen to us now......
_________

I mean, if you're going to find a silver bullet of some sort capable of giving the reapers pause there are precisely two places it isn't absurd to find them:

1) Ilos - a Prothean science facility the reapers never touched.
2) The collector base. An actual reaper-built facility.

You have to deal with indoctrination risks in 2), but that can actually make the plot interesting.

And also, why in the hell did they advance the actual invasion to just after ME2 when they hadn't even worked out how they were going to deal with it when it came?

I suspect the gave you a non-choice where TIM is the only party privy to the collector base at the end because with the kind of choice above, they have two divergent beginnings for ME3... but I have no idea at all why they were so keen to fast-track the invasion.

well, theree is your renegade/ parangon choice.

Parangon gives the base to th alliance and the council, neutral allow cerberus to study parts of it with the council, and renegade allow cerberus in first, and give bits and evidence to the council

Or make the baby reaper not completelyy dead, and have TIM propose shep o kee it alive because hey can learn more from it eing alive

[Blueprotoss]

Lord Goose wrote...

I agree. The game was clearly rushed. It's not just the ending. Romance got the same treatment. Many choices from previous games were made pointless completely. They didn't even got a single nod to them. Side-quests devolved into stupid "find object A and bring it to NPC B". I still think ME3 was generally a good game, but not exactly what I wanted.

I think more people should do some research before jumping into conclusions like ME3 "being rushed".  Ironically ME2 would be labeled as "rushed" before ME3 because they were produced and developed at the same time.

[Geralt of Relays]

Blueprotoss wrote...
I think more people should do some research before jumping into conclusions like ME3 "being rushed".  Ironically ME2 would be labeled as "rushed" before ME3 because they were produced and developed at the same time.

That maybe true in terms of art, designs, concepts or what not. Mac Walters has already confirmed in an interview in March that Bioware didn't even start on the plot until ME2 was fully completed. Until that time, all they had on the plot for ME3 was "here there be Reapers".

I wouldn't go far to say as ME3 was badly written, but more rushed that resulted in sloppy writing. They should have had at least a general idea on how to end the main plot when ME1 was made, but it turns out they winged it as each game needed to be made and thus fluffed it completely. The EC polished a turd and nothing more.

[Blueprotoss]

DJO Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote...

That maybe true in terms of art, designs, concepts or what not. Mac Walters has already confirmed in an interview in March that Bioware didn't even start on the plot until ME2 was fully completed. Until that time, all they had on the plot for ME3 was "here there be Reapers".

Its easy to listen to an indivdual when a small uproar is looking for anything to justify their claims.

DJO Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote... 

I wouldn't go far to say as ME3 was badly written, but more rushed that resulted in sloppy writing. They should have had at least a general idea on how to end the main plot when ME1 was made, but it turns out they winged it as each game needed to be made and thus fluffed it completely. The EC polished a turd and nothing more.

Hindsight is 20/20, which that means to easier to try to connect the dots on past events even when when those dots don't actually connect.  That happens all the time in court cases just like assumptions are used and abused.  Either way ME2 and ME3 was developed and produced at the same time.

[PoisonMushroom]

I think planning was one of the biggest problem.

If they wanted to put a big choice in ME1 or 2, they should have had an idea of how we would see a consequence of that choice later. Rachni are a good example here. If they couldn't give us the payoff then the size of the choice should be toned down.

The solution to the Reaper threat should have been foreshadowed much better. If conventional warfare was always going to be impossible, then we should have been searching for something unconventional much earlier on. Better yet, they should have planned out the problem discovery - problem development - problem solution arc from the start and come up with something that was tightly knit into the games story.

The ending shouldn't thematically undercut what we're made to believe in the other games. If we're going to get an option to control or synthesize, then these options shouldn't just become viable choices in the last 10 minutes. Let us consider TIMs ideas but question his motives, rather than ruling out control as an option all together until the end. If you want synthesis in the ending, then foreshadow it with science some before hand and in addition to this, have us questioning which form of unity is better; a possibly futile attempt to truly understand each other due to major differences or a complete understanding but also a complete lack of real differences and diversity. Don't just try and turn what were previously 'bad' concepts into 'good' concepts in the last 15 minutes and say everything's okay because the end cinematic says so.

ETC

Modifié par PoisonMushroom, 20 juillet 2012 - 09:10 .

[Blueprotoss]

PoisonMushroom wrote...

I think planning was one of the biggest problem.

It was actually some people having way too high expectations.

PoisonMushroom wrote... 

If they wanted to put a big choice in ME1 or 2, they should have had an idea of how we would see a consequence of that choice later. Rachni are a good example here. If they couldn't give us the payoff then the size of the choice should be toned down.

 Yet most of it wasn't toned down.

PoisonMushroom wrote... 

The solution to the Reaper threat should have been foreshadowed much better. If conventional warfare was always going to be impossible, then we should have been searching for something unconventional much earlier on. Better yet, they should have planned out the problem discovery - problem development - problem solution arc from the start and come up with something that was tightly knit into the games story.

Convential warfare was never an option against the Reapers even when Vigil helped against Sovreign in ME1 and the Human Reaper was far from being completed in ME2.

PoisonMushroom wrote... 

The ending shouldn't thematically undercut what we're made to believe in the other games. If we're going to get an option to control or synthesize, then these options shouldn't just become viable choices in the last 10 minutes. Let us consider TIMs ideas but question his motives, rather than ruling out control as an option all together until the end. If you want synthesis in the ending, then foreshadow it with science some before hand and in addition to this, have us questioning which form of unity is better; a possibly futile attempt to truly understand each other due to major differences or a complete understanding but also a complete lack of real differences and diversity. Don't just try and turn what were previously 'bad' concepts into 'good' concepts in the last 15 minutes and say everything's okay because the end cinematic says so.

Synthesis was a theme added in ME1 by Saren's beliefs of unification while extended into ME2 and ME3.  Control was a theme added in ME2 by the Illussive Man's beliefs of authority while extended into ME3.  Everything was foreshadowed enough and its not their fault if some people didn't pay enough attention to those signs.

[Geralt of Relays]

Blueprotoss wrote...
Its easy to listen to an indivdual when a small uproar is looking for anything to justify their claims.

He's the head writer of ME3, theres no reason to doubt what he said. He even goes so far as to say it's better to "wing it" game by game.

]Blueprotoss wrote... 
Hindsight is 20/20, which that means to easier to try to connect the dots on past events even when when those dots don't actually connect.  That happens all the time in court cases just like assumptions are used and abused.  Either way ME2 and ME3 was developed and produced at the same time.

We're not talking about a court case, we're talking about a gaming trilogy that's supposed to have a cohesive story from one instalment to the next. While technically that is what they did do, it was done in an inconsistent and sloppy manner, which was to its own determent. It is for all intents the gaming version of "Star Wars", sadly it'll be more associated with the "new" trilogy rather than the classic one.

Modifié par DJO Obi-Wan Kenobi, 20 juillet 2012 - 09:43 .

[RShara]

I'd just like to point out here that the next cycle (if you chose Destroy) managed to defeat the Reapers conventionally.

[Blueprotoss]

DJO Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote...
He's the head writer of ME3, theres no reason to doubt what he said. He even goes so far as to say it's better to "wing it" game by game.

Yet you're following a neverending trail of bread crumbs based on an assumption based on you looking at only one thing.

DJO Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote... 

We're not talking about a court case, we're talking about a gaming trilogy that's supposed to have a cohesive story from one instalment to the next. While technically that is what they did do, it was done in an inconsistent and sloppy manner, which was to its own determent. It is for all intents the gaming version of "Star Wars", sadly it'll be more associated with the "new" trilogy rather than the classic one.

Yet you're not looking at getting the correct information, which is why you should look at it like a court case, which is why you don't make assumptions.  The irony here is that it is a cohesive story and using Star Wars as a scapegoat is a sham based on how the Old Republic isn't based on Episodes 1 through 3.  Again hindsight is 20/20, which that means to easier to try to connect the dots on past events even when when those dots don't actually connect.  

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 20 juillet 2012 - 09:55 .

[Blueprotoss]

RShara wrote...

I'd just like to point out here that the next cycle (if you chose Destroy) managed to defeat the Reapers conventionally.

The A-Bomb wasn't conventional and the Destroy option isn't conevential either while its impossible for a convential victory.