Yes it could have easilly been avoided
If instead of starting ME3 with the Reapers already on your back start it JUST after arrival, when you report your findings to the alliance and the council, then everyone starts doubling down on their security and military build up
but more importantly the council starts encouraging high level research on the citadel, not wanting to have a reenactment of the sovereign battle 3 years ago. They would aim to find out the full extent of the Citadel's capabilities and just what the Reapers have built into it.
Meanwhile Shep goes around to make peace between the Krogan and Salarians, and the Geth and the Quarians while the Turian Asari and alliance fleets build up their military strength (side quests)
The next half of the game is when the Reapers finally show up after the events of arrival
By that point the council has discovered the functions of the Citadel and has moved it to avoid the Reapers getting their hands on their seat of government.
Later on as Shepard is fighting a war on several fronts (Palaven, Earth, Thessia Surkesh) its finally discovered that the Citadel, if retrofitted/redesigned can act as the "crucible" rather than the crucible we have in the game itself, the Catalyst could be what is discovered on "mars" or even on the Citadel itself, left once more by the prothean scientists that were stranded there and starved back in ME1 and is eventually built.
The final run of the game is the same, with us trying to get the catalyst onto the citadel which the Reapers have "hijacked" at that point.
Was there anyway ME3 could have avoided the Deus Ex Machina
Débuté par
sporeian
, juil. 26 2012 09:08
Retour en haut
#27
Posté 26 juillet 2012 - 11:22
ld1449
-
- Members
- 2 254 messages
The problem was that they wanted to start this game like "OH **** THEY'RE HERE!!!"
They didn't leave themselves any wiggle room with that, no time for the races to "prepare" or do anything which is what Arrival DLC implied that we would have, at least three to four months time while they jumped from the destroyed Bahak system to the nearest relay.
They didn't leave themselves any wiggle room with that, no time for the races to "prepare" or do anything which is what Arrival DLC implied that we would have, at least three to four months time while they jumped from the destroyed Bahak system to the nearest relay.
#29
Posté 26 juillet 2012 - 11:42
Smeffects
-
- Members
- 555 messages
Actually i saw a deus ex coming to this series after the very first game. Because bioware wrote themselves into a wall triology wise. Let me explain: The crucible/catalyst is not a deus ex for mass effect 3, its a deus ex to the triology.
It was the only way to resolve the plot because bioware made:
-The reaper undefeatable.
-Not have anyone try to find a way to defeat them until the final game.
Basicly mass effect 2 went the empire strike back route: which was fine for star wars because the empire was never made out to be undestructible, alliance wiped their biggest weapon in the very first movie. While ME gave you a victory ending feeling, it was simply delaying an invasion and actually pointed to the player the fact that a single reaper out matched entire fleets in combat.
Why was mass effect 2 like empire strike back? Because it had nothing to do with the main plot: Alliance defeating the empire. In mass effect case, shepard defeating the reaper. The journey was instead about the characters. It was all growth of characters. To hold the arc of this middle of the triology it had a sub plot that linked into the main arc. In empire strike back its darth vader trying to convert luke. In mass effect 2 its shepard trying to find out if reapers are behind the collector attacks.
To not have to rely on a series deus ex in mass effect 3, shepard should have been already looking for ways to stop the reapers after the events of mass effect 1. The problem began with mass effect 1.
Whole mass effect problem version: It was bioware only way out. The enemy is said and showed to be totally undefeatable from the very first game, where even in victory a single reaper annihilate fleets on his own and is only defeated by taking a chance and trying to beat the hero on foot. Reapers are showed as out numbering the good guys 10 to 1 in total. When ever you want to believe this or not this is what the writer says and want. Even if you have small victory moments against one reaper, you get reminded across all games that those victory come at a cost so big theres no way to finish the fight.
In the face of such an undefeatable enemy, the journey onward after mass effect 1 eye opening victory should have been dedicated to finding how to defeat the reapers until the very end of mass effect 3. This is not the case, this is a deus ex to the series, but not to mass effect 3, as the plot to beat the reaper is laid out at the very start of the game. Im not sure if thats the correct term for what was done here, but basiclly its when the final part of your story is magically resolved with a deviece/magic/person coming along and changing the plot. If Mass effect was not a triology and only a single game/book/movie. It would cetrainly be a deus ex: 2/3 into the story jesus device show up to save the day out of no where, no one looked for anything until now.
Now how to resolve it easily without breaking mass effect 1 and 2: Easy, the finding on the collector bases should have been important to the plot of mass effect 3. Instead mass effect 3 tossed the rest of the triology asside and found its own answer to the problem. It could have been anything as long as it came from the already established plot, it would have been considered better writing.
It was the only way to resolve the plot because bioware made:
-The reaper undefeatable.
-Not have anyone try to find a way to defeat them until the final game.
Basicly mass effect 2 went the empire strike back route: which was fine for star wars because the empire was never made out to be undestructible, alliance wiped their biggest weapon in the very first movie. While ME gave you a victory ending feeling, it was simply delaying an invasion and actually pointed to the player the fact that a single reaper out matched entire fleets in combat.
Why was mass effect 2 like empire strike back? Because it had nothing to do with the main plot: Alliance defeating the empire. In mass effect case, shepard defeating the reaper. The journey was instead about the characters. It was all growth of characters. To hold the arc of this middle of the triology it had a sub plot that linked into the main arc. In empire strike back its darth vader trying to convert luke. In mass effect 2 its shepard trying to find out if reapers are behind the collector attacks.
To not have to rely on a series deus ex in mass effect 3, shepard should have been already looking for ways to stop the reapers after the events of mass effect 1. The problem began with mass effect 1.
Whole mass effect problem version: It was bioware only way out. The enemy is said and showed to be totally undefeatable from the very first game, where even in victory a single reaper annihilate fleets on his own and is only defeated by taking a chance and trying to beat the hero on foot. Reapers are showed as out numbering the good guys 10 to 1 in total. When ever you want to believe this or not this is what the writer says and want. Even if you have small victory moments against one reaper, you get reminded across all games that those victory come at a cost so big theres no way to finish the fight.
In the face of such an undefeatable enemy, the journey onward after mass effect 1 eye opening victory should have been dedicated to finding how to defeat the reapers until the very end of mass effect 3. This is not the case, this is a deus ex to the series, but not to mass effect 3, as the plot to beat the reaper is laid out at the very start of the game. Im not sure if thats the correct term for what was done here, but basiclly its when the final part of your story is magically resolved with a deviece/magic/person coming along and changing the plot. If Mass effect was not a triology and only a single game/book/movie. It would cetrainly be a deus ex: 2/3 into the story jesus device show up to save the day out of no where, no one looked for anything until now.
Now how to resolve it easily without breaking mass effect 1 and 2: Easy, the finding on the collector bases should have been important to the plot of mass effect 3. Instead mass effect 3 tossed the rest of the triology asside and found its own answer to the problem. It could have been anything as long as it came from the already established plot, it would have been considered better writing.
Modifié par Smeffects, 27 juillet 2012 - 12:07 .
#31
Posté 26 juillet 2012 - 11:45
BatmanPWNS
-
- Members
- 6 392 messages
If Mac wasn't the main writer.
If Casey didn't want to make art.
If their primary focus wasn't new fans.
If Casey didn't want to make art.
If their primary focus wasn't new fans.
Modifié par BatmanPWNS, 26 juillet 2012 - 11:48 .
#32
Posté 26 juillet 2012 - 11:48
Grimwick
-
- Members
- 2 250 messages
It wasn't that inevitable.
It would have been better if they had thought it out more - made it more intrinsic to the plot of ME2 for example.
If the writers sat down and developed the story/what would happen in the series for a few months more I think we would have received a much better grade of story-telling without such awful writing devices.
It would have been better if they had thought it out more - made it more intrinsic to the plot of ME2 for example.
If the writers sat down and developed the story/what would happen in the series for a few months more I think we would have received a much better grade of story-telling without such awful writing devices.
#33
Posté 26 juillet 2012 - 11:58
Andrew_S
-
- Members
- 172 messages
The Prothean device is first hinted at in ME2:LOTSB in a conversation with Liara FYI.
#34
Posté 27 juillet 2012 - 12:11
3DandBeyond
-
- Members
- 7 579 messages
This is so good.Bill Casey wrote...
DiabolusExMachina
Diabolus ex Machina
"This is not the convenient plot twist that saves our heroes. This is the convenient plot twist that makes them even more screwed."
— Ryan MC, Two Evil Scientists
Diabolus ex Machina (Demon from the machine) is the Evil Counterpart of Deus ex Machina: the introduction of an some unexpected new event, character, ability or object designed to ensure that things suddenly get much worse for the protagonists, much better for the villains, or both. Observers of this trope should note three things:If a movie ends with a Death By Sigh Of Relief of the last surviving character, it may be this. Compare Diabolus Ex Nihilo, Ass Pull, and Cruel Twist Ending. Likely to be employed by writers who believe that True Art Is Angsty.
- 1. Diabolus ex Machina is often brought in simply because if the villain were to lose, the work of fiction would be over. Like the Deus Ex Machina, it only applies if it comes out of left field.
- 2. Like the Deus Ex Machina, a Diabolus Ex Machina does not necessarily occur at the end. Though it often overlaps with Ending Tropes, it should not be confused for one.
- 3. The Diabolus ex Machina, while a very common Pet Peeve Trope when used for a Downer Ending, can be pulled off - See the entire "Rule of X" series of tropes.
#35
Posté 27 juillet 2012 - 12:16
3DandBeyond
-
- Members
- 7 579 messages
Andrew_S wrote...
The Prothean device is first hinted at in ME2:LOTSB in a conversation with Liara FYI.
I'll take your word for that but that does not really matter. If it refers to the crucible, the crucible is a MacGuffin, something sought after even for no reason that will solve a problem.
The main point of all of these are that they could have been avoided except for one word and then one concept that evolved out of that word.
Impossible.
We can't fight them conventionally.
If this is your approach to fighting enemies at the beginning of a game/story then you better fall on your knees and pray to whatever gods there be for a MacGuffin and/or a Deus ex Machina to fall from the sky. Luckily for ME3, the crucible shows up quickly.
#36
Posté 27 juillet 2012 - 12:20
3DandBeyond
-
- Members
- 7 579 messages
Smeffects wrote...
Actually i saw a deus ex coming to this series after the very first game. Because bioware wrote themselves into a wall triology wise. Let me explain: The crucible/catalyst is not a deus ex for mass effect 3, its a deus ex to the triology.
It was the only way to resolve the plot because bioware made:
-The reaper undefeatable.
-Not have anyone try to find a way to defeat them until the final game.
snipped
I appreciate the effort, but at the beginning of ME even Bioware never saw them as impossible to beat. They created a codex of vulnerabilities at one point. They showed it was difficult to defeat one, but they also did have some people very interested in defeating them. And they always showed Shepard and whatever team they were in could do the impossible. In ME3 they chose to really mean impossible was really impossible.
#37
Posté 27 juillet 2012 - 12:26
Zan51
-
- Members
- 800 messages
Deus ex Machina is something very specific and belonged to the ancient Greek theater.. To quote from dictionary sources:
"It is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object. The machine referred to in the phrase could be either the crane employed in the task, a calque from the Greek "god from the machine" (ἀπὸ μηχανῆς θεός, apò mēkhanḗs theós), or the riser that brought a god up from a trap door. The idea is that the device of said god is entirely artificial or conceived by man."
The Crucible is not a Deus ex Machina as we are introduced to it in the Mars mission. However, the Catalyst in actuality is in that ii is brought in as a being in the last 10 minutes of the game, and it is an avatar of a VI with god-like and utterly artificial powers to solve the problem.
Interestingly we even have Shepard on an elevated platform just as was used for the gods in Greek drama, so the analogy with Deus ex machina here is pretty irrefutable - but still utterly reprehensible story telling!
"It is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object. The machine referred to in the phrase could be either the crane employed in the task, a calque from the Greek "god from the machine" (ἀπὸ μηχανῆς θεός, apò mēkhanḗs theós), or the riser that brought a god up from a trap door. The idea is that the device of said god is entirely artificial or conceived by man."
The Crucible is not a Deus ex Machina as we are introduced to it in the Mars mission. However, the Catalyst in actuality is in that ii is brought in as a being in the last 10 minutes of the game, and it is an avatar of a VI with god-like and utterly artificial powers to solve the problem.
Interestingly we even have Shepard on an elevated platform just as was used for the gods in Greek drama, so the analogy with Deus ex machina here is pretty irrefutable - but still utterly reprehensible story telling!
Modifié par Zan51, 27 juillet 2012 - 12:27 .
#38
Posté 27 juillet 2012 - 12:29
Smeffects
-
- Members
- 555 messages
3DandBeyond wrote...
Smeffects wrote...
Actually i saw a deus ex coming to this series after the very first game. Because bioware wrote themselves into a wall triology wise. Let me explain: The crucible/catalyst is not a deus ex for mass effect 3, its a deus ex to the triology.
It was the only way to resolve the plot because bioware made:
-The reaper undefeatable.
-Not have anyone try to find a way to defeat them until the final game.
snipped
I appreciate the effort, but at the beginning of ME even Bioware never saw them as impossible to beat. They created a codex of vulnerabilities at one point. They showed it was difficult to defeat one, but they also did have some people very interested in defeating them. And they always showed Shepard and whatever team they were in could do the impossible. In ME3 they chose to really mean impossible was really impossible.
Nothing in mass effect 2 is used/made along the line of the goal of defeating the reaper army. As i said they showed reaper to be increadible enemy at the very end of mass effect 1. Logically you had a sense that defeating them would take: whole united galaxy and more then conventional means, that was fine.
But the empire strike back clone mass effect 2 ending was tossed aside. Instead of the collector base being the key, it was just deco in The illusive man base. Empire strike back little arc of character growth ending was 100% relevent to the ending of the series, darth vader was lukes father and its what made him change side. The little arc of mass effect 2 with collector is a dead end for shepard. To tie it up better, what was found by the illusive man should have been the mean to beat the reapers all along and should have been what shepard was seeking. Whats funny is that bioware themselve mentioned that mass effect 2 would be their empire strike back chapter, they only forgot that the ending of your second chapter.... has to matter. For the main arc you could cut mass effect 2 and it would almost be the same. Found the magic deviece to beat the reaper after mass effect 1. Oh yes characters growth and changes are different. But the main plot did not change one bit.
Modifié par Smeffects, 27 juillet 2012 - 12:33 .
#39
Posté 27 juillet 2012 - 12:36
Galbrant
-
- Members
- 1 566 messages
3DandBeyond wrote...
This is so good.Bill Casey wrote...
DiabolusExMachina
Diabolus ex Machina
"This is not the convenient plot twist that saves our heroes. This is the convenient plot twist that makes them even more screwed."
— Ryan MC, Two Evil Scientists
Diabolus ex Machina (Demon from the machine) is the Evil Counterpart of Deus ex Machina: the introduction of an some unexpected new event, character, ability or object designed to ensure that things suddenly get much worse for the protagonists, much better for the villains, or both. Observers of this trope should note three things:If a movie ends with a Death By Sigh Of Relief of the last surviving character, it may be this. Compare Diabolus Ex Nihilo, Ass Pull, and Cruel Twist Ending. Likely to be employed by writers who believe that True Art Is Angsty.
- 1. Diabolus ex Machina is often brought in simply because if the villain were to lose, the work of fiction would be over. Like the Deus Ex Machina, it only applies if it comes out of left field.
- 2. Like the Deus Ex Machina, a Diabolus Ex Machina does not necessarily occur at the end. Though it often overlaps with Ending Tropes, it should not be confused for one.
- 3. The Diabolus ex Machina, while a very common Pet Peeve Trope when used for a Downer Ending, can be pulled off - See the entire "Rule of X" series of tropes.
LOL Mass Effect 3 is indeed listed under it. XD
Mass Effect 3's ending. The Catalyst gives Shepard a choice between a few different ways to hit the reset button on galactic civilization and end the violent Reaper cycle. However, no matter how the Crucible is used, the dissemination of it's energy either shuts down or outright destroys the mass relay system.Less so in the Extended Cut. And even then, there is no Downer Ending except for the worst ending.Just prior to the final battle, Shepard learns about the missing piece to the catalyst -the Citadel. However almost immediately Shepard is contacted about how the Reapers have not only taken it, they have already moved it to Earth, no small feat considering its a planet-size space station with its own dedicated armada.Slightly earlier in the ending, when the heroes' huge assault force are planning to assault the teleportation beam leading to the orbiting Citadel/Catalyst, Harbinger shows up. No, not a mook possessed by Harbinger like in the previous game; the actual, kilometers-tall, leadership-caste Reaper himself, who proceeds to utterly massacre the entire assault force; only Shepard and Anderson survive, with Shepard mortally wounded.They do have warning that Harbinger was coming.
#40
Posté 27 juillet 2012 - 12:40
DRTJR
-
- Members
- 1 806 messages
I would not mind God coming out of the crucible and punching a reaper in the face.
#41
Posté 27 juillet 2012 - 12:47
AlanC9
-
- Members
- 35 798 messages
3DandBeyond wrote...
I'll take your word for that but that does not really matter. If it refers to the crucible, the crucible is a MacGuffin, something sought after even for no reason that will solve a problem.
Wait... is it being sought for no reason, or because it will solve a problem?
Your understanding of the concept has not improved, I fear.
#42
Posté 27 juillet 2012 - 12:56
3DandBeyond
-
- Members
- 7 579 messages
Smeffects wrote...
Nothing in mass effect 2 is used/made along the line of the goal of defeating the reaper army. As i said they showed reaper to be increadible enemy at the very end of mass effect 1. Logically you had a sense that defeating them would take: whole united galaxy and more then conventional means, that was fine.
But the empire strike back clone mass effect 2 ending was tossed aside. Instead of the collector base being the key, it was just deco in The illusive man base. Empire strike back little arc of character growth ending was 100% relevent to the ending of the series, darth vader was lukes father and its what made him change side. The little arc of mass effect 2 with collector is a dead end for shepard. To tie it up better, what was found by the illusive man should have been the mean to beat the reapers all along and should have been what shepard was seeking. Whats funny is that bioware themselve mentioned that mass effect 2 would be their empire strike back chapter, they only forgot that the ending of your second chapter.... has to matter. For the main arc you could cut mass effect 2 and it would almost be the same. Found the magic deviece to beat the reaper after mass effect 1. Oh yes characters growth and changes are different. But the main plot did not change one bit.
Actually, ME2 made complete sense. It was just ignored in ME3. The ME2 beginning was very well done and while it bent the rules, it never broke them because there are all kinds of reasons why that could be plausible. That's one thing.
ME1 had also set up the idea that the reapers would find it harder to get into this galaxy-the usual methods weren't working and some people at least were aware. Shepard also piqued their interest and the collectors (indocrinated and altered protheans) were their advance guard-much like Sovereign tried to use the geth and Saren. But Saren's death left Sovereign vulnerable and he was killed. It makes sense that they would send in some proxies that they could fully control to investigate the galaxy, humans, and Shepard. It also makes sense that Cerberus might get involved due to the human issue.
Main elements of ME2 indicated an obsession with Shepard and humans-the Omega plague, Horizon, and so on. They also started to investigate dark energy as shown in Haestrom. ME2 set up some of the major conflicts and it showed just how powerful perseverence could be and that unity of even warring parties was possible. It set up the whole idea of redemption (the name of the linking graphic novel about the search for Shepard's body) and what people and the galaxy might attain with Shepard's help.
ME2 also showed how an ending could be done. The choices and consequences that could revolve around that end fight.
And ME2 even said that impossible didn't mean not possible unless you gave up. Suicide Mission. That means you will die. It was said repeatedly that they might not come back from it.
It's not ME2's fault that the writers abandoned all that in ME3. In fact whole sections of ME1 and 2 are just forgotten about. But that doesn't mean ME2 was to blame. It means they just didn't finish the stories or continue them in ME3.
Why were they after humans? What is the meaning of fish? Why was anything in ME1 or 2 worth doing at all? The answer is unfortunately they aren't. I've played the games as one complete story from ME1 to 3. I've played the games as one story from ME2 to 3. And I've played ME3 alone. And there isn't that much difference. But, really, there should be.
#43
Posté 27 juillet 2012 - 12:58
3DandBeyond
-
- Members
- 7 579 messages
AlanC9 wrote...
3DandBeyond wrote...
I'll take your word for that but that does not really matter. If it refers to the crucible, the crucible is a MacGuffin, something sought after even for no reason that will solve a problem.
Wait... is it being sought for no reason, or because it will solve a problem?
Your understanding of the concept has not improved, I fear.
It is being sought for no reason because they don't know what it will do. Generally, to spend a lot of money and resources on something you need to know what it will do in order to have a reason to make it.
In this case a rational person would have to know that the Crucible would actually help their cause in order to spend all this energy on it. A MacGuffin is something that is sought after almost to the exclusion of all else, something they will do almost anything to obtain, often with no reason or explanation as to why they desire it. Since nobody can say what the crucible will do that means they have no reason for desiring it. Even Liara discusses that with Shepard later on in comparing it to giving a kid a gun.
The Crucible doesn't even do what they think it will do since they think it's a weapon and it isn't.
And a MacGuffin can even be a known object that people search for.
I fully understand the concept.
Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 27 juillet 2012 - 01:06 .
#44
Posté 27 juillet 2012 - 01:17
jeweledleah
-
- Members
- 4 043 messages
having a character claim repeatedly that reapers cannot be defeated conventionally =/= them actually being undefeatable. in a first game.
1. we delay the reaper arrival significantly.
2. we destroy the reaper with conventional weaponry. yes, there were casualties, and it took considerable effort, but we have learned that reaper shields CAN be disabled and we gain access to their direct technology through remains of the sovereign... technology that made Shepard's resurrection and EDI's advancement and Thanix canons - possible.
3. in ME2 - we find out that there's another dead reaper.. that was killed by mass accelerator weapon. and that weapon, as well as the reaper? was found. the weapon was defunct, but it doesn't mean it couldn't be researched.
4. even in ME3 itself, we find that reapers have a weak spot. just as they are firing... something that was kinda foreshadowed in ME2, since those are the same weak spots that human reaper has.
5 - and this is the most important. instead of making council into complete and utter morons, they could have written them as preparing for the invasion all this time that Shepard was dead and then came back. and the main reason shepard wasn't told the truth, was because of association with Cerberus (and suspected connection TIM could have had to the reapers.. even ties in to TIM's comic, after all its where both TIM AND Saren were exposed to Reaper influence.)
6. we know through in game news that Turians have been increasing the size of their navy
so by the start of ME3 - the Galaxy has been preparing. they are still scattered and every race is preparing in their own way, so Shepard would have to unite them and make sure that technology is shared /built for all fleets. if we MUST have a macguffin - Liara could have found functional plans to that weapon that killed derelict reaper you get Legion on in ME2.
it was NOT obvious to me that reapers were controlled. especially by something that IS the citadel because then Saren, Sovereign, keepers and conduit are pointless. aka, the entire plot of ME1.
we could have found plans for a weapon that we already heard about, reapers motivations could have been connected to dark energy hints that we've been hearing about for 2 games now. collector base could have made more sense and fit better.
and we could have used sound tactics instead of attacking reapers head on. we could have been the ones to shot down the relays, prevent reapers from progressing through the systems. since we know it could be done through the citadel.. know it for years know. we know a little bit about omega 4 relay and that it requires IFF. why didn't we study it? why couldn't we try to modify it, so that all relays require IFF.. and not the reaper one.
slow down their progress through the galaxy, consolidate them. it could have been a question of which system do we sacrifice to keep them contained.
a lot of things could have been done with that story. unfortunately... they weren't. oh well.
1. we delay the reaper arrival significantly.
2. we destroy the reaper with conventional weaponry. yes, there were casualties, and it took considerable effort, but we have learned that reaper shields CAN be disabled and we gain access to their direct technology through remains of the sovereign... technology that made Shepard's resurrection and EDI's advancement and Thanix canons - possible.
3. in ME2 - we find out that there's another dead reaper.. that was killed by mass accelerator weapon. and that weapon, as well as the reaper? was found. the weapon was defunct, but it doesn't mean it couldn't be researched.
4. even in ME3 itself, we find that reapers have a weak spot. just as they are firing... something that was kinda foreshadowed in ME2, since those are the same weak spots that human reaper has.
5 - and this is the most important. instead of making council into complete and utter morons, they could have written them as preparing for the invasion all this time that Shepard was dead and then came back. and the main reason shepard wasn't told the truth, was because of association with Cerberus (and suspected connection TIM could have had to the reapers.. even ties in to TIM's comic, after all its where both TIM AND Saren were exposed to Reaper influence.)
6. we know through in game news that Turians have been increasing the size of their navy
so by the start of ME3 - the Galaxy has been preparing. they are still scattered and every race is preparing in their own way, so Shepard would have to unite them and make sure that technology is shared /built for all fleets. if we MUST have a macguffin - Liara could have found functional plans to that weapon that killed derelict reaper you get Legion on in ME2.
it was NOT obvious to me that reapers were controlled. especially by something that IS the citadel because then Saren, Sovereign, keepers and conduit are pointless. aka, the entire plot of ME1.
we could have found plans for a weapon that we already heard about, reapers motivations could have been connected to dark energy hints that we've been hearing about for 2 games now. collector base could have made more sense and fit better.
and we could have used sound tactics instead of attacking reapers head on. we could have been the ones to shot down the relays, prevent reapers from progressing through the systems. since we know it could be done through the citadel.. know it for years know. we know a little bit about omega 4 relay and that it requires IFF. why didn't we study it? why couldn't we try to modify it, so that all relays require IFF.. and not the reaper one.
slow down their progress through the galaxy, consolidate them. it could have been a question of which system do we sacrifice to keep them contained.
a lot of things could have been done with that story. unfortunately... they weren't. oh well.
#45
Posté 27 juillet 2012 - 01:21
Tritium315
-
- Members
- 1 081 messages
Make the last mission a top down shooter!
#46
Posté 27 juillet 2012 - 01:31
Smeffects
-
- Members
- 555 messages
3DandBeyond wrote...
Smeffects wrote...
Nothing in mass effect 2 is used/made along the line of the goal of defeating the reaper army. As i said they showed reaper to be increadible enemy at the very end of mass effect 1. Logically you had a sense that defeating them would take: whole united galaxy and more then conventional means, that was fine.
But the empire strike back clone mass effect 2 ending was tossed aside. Instead of the collector base being the key, it was just deco in The illusive man base. Empire strike back little arc of character growth ending was 100% relevent to the ending of the series, darth vader was lukes father and its what made him change side. The little arc of mass effect 2 with collector is a dead end for shepard. To tie it up better, what was found by the illusive man should have been the mean to beat the reapers all along and should have been what shepard was seeking. Whats funny is that bioware themselve mentioned that mass effect 2 would be their empire strike back chapter, they only forgot that the ending of your second chapter.... has to matter. For the main arc you could cut mass effect 2 and it would almost be the same. Found the magic deviece to beat the reaper after mass effect 1. Oh yes characters growth and changes are different. But the main plot did not change one bit.
Actually, ME2 made complete sense. It was just ignored in ME3. The ME2 beginning was very well done and while it bent the rules, it never broke them because there are all kinds of reasons why that could be plausible. That's one thing.
ME1 had also set up the idea that the reapers would find it harder to get into this galaxy-the usual methods weren't working and some people at least were aware. Shepard also piqued their interest and the collectors (indocrinated and altered protheans) were their advance guard-much like Sovereign tried to use the geth and Saren. But Saren's death left Sovereign vulnerable and he was killed. It makes sense that they would send in some proxies that they could fully control to investigate the galaxy, humans, and Shepard. It also makes sense that Cerberus might get involved due to the human issue.
Main elements of ME2 indicated an obsession with Shepard and humans-the Omega plague, Horizon, and so on. They also started to investigate dark energy as shown in Haestrom. ME2 set up some of the major conflicts and it showed just how powerful perseverence could be and that unity of even warring parties was possible. It set up the whole idea of redemption (the name of the linking graphic novel about the search for Shepard's body) and what people and the galaxy might attain with Shepard's help.
ME2 also showed how an ending could be done. The choices and consequences that could revolve around that end fight.
And ME2 even said that impossible didn't mean not possible unless you gave up. Suicide Mission. That means you will die. It was said repeatedly that they might not come back from it.
It's not ME2's fault that the writers abandoned all that in ME3. In fact whole sections of ME1 and 2 are just forgotten about. But that doesn't mean ME2 was to blame. It means they just didn't finish the stories or continue them in ME3.
Why were they after humans? What is the meaning of fish? Why was anything in ME1 or 2 worth doing at all? The answer is unfortunately they aren't. I've played the games as one complete story from ME1 to 3. I've played the games as one story from ME2 to 3. And I've played ME3 alone. And there isn't that much difference. But, really, there should be.
I didnt mean my text to sound like ME2 bashing. More like the fact that ME2 was good, but was completly unused for the final chapter. Its like what happened did not have importance, while it was a character story line. The ending should have been of capital importance to mass effect 3. I was not ditching on ME2 i liked it alot.
Its fine for a middle chapter of a triology to drop the main arc from a distance, most triology do that. Star wars did it fine. Dark knight rise recently did it, but it still kept the importance of whatw as done previously in the dark knight, while reintroducing the leagues of shadow story arc, while still keeping the second chapter event relevent. I still believe that TDK was better then both begin and rise, mabye because of the fact that it was a little more about characters then about the plot. Same reason why empire strike back always get its praise. Mass Effect 2 had that going for it as well... but Mass effect 3 simply disreguarded everything about its plot and made it unimportant.
Theres only 2 way to solve this, either mass effect 2 should have been following the main arc of defeating the reaper all along or the even while only a backstory in mass effect triology events, should have been of capital importance to the resolution of mass effect 3.
Modifié par Smeffects, 27 juillet 2012 - 01:42 .
#47
Posté 27 juillet 2012 - 01:34
o Ventus
-
- Members
- 17 275 messages
3DandBeyond wrote...
I'll take your word for that but that does not really matter. If it refers to the crucible, the crucible is a MacGuffin, something sought after even for no reason that will solve a problem.
MacGuffin's do not solve the problem in the plot. They exist solely to drive it forward, but ultimately do nothing.
Example: the briefcase from Pulp Fiction.
#48
Posté 27 juillet 2012 - 01:39
Taboo
-
- Members
- 20 234 messages
o Ventus wrote...
3DandBeyond wrote...
I'll take your word for that but that does not really matter. If it refers to the crucible, the crucible is a MacGuffin, something sought after even for no reason that will solve a problem.
MacGuffin's do not solve the problem in the plot. They exist solely to drive it forward, but ultimately do nothing.
Example: the briefcase from Pulp Fiction.
Even nerdier example: Rosebud from Citizen Kane.
#49
Posté 27 juillet 2012 - 01:41
D24O
-
- Members
- 7 579 messages
With art and space magic and the like. You guys know the lines.
#50
Posté 27 juillet 2012 - 01:42
3DandBeyond
-
- Members
- 7 579 messages
Smeffects wrote...
I didnt mean my text to sound like ME2 bashing. More like the fact that ME2 was good, but was completly unused for the final chapter. Its like what happened did not have importance, while it was a character story line. The ending should have been of capital importance to mass effect 3. I was not ditching on ME2 i liked it alot.
Sorry if I took it that way. I just see many that suggest that-that ME2 was badly done because of what we see in ME3 and to me that makes no sense. The events of ME2 really set up what should have happened in ME3. The collector base, the knowledge from all the stuff Shepard downloaded (encrypted Cerberus data), EDI's databanks, and so much more that was just ignored. I mean they have the Normandy SR2 and EDI at least could say, "hey Alliance, the Collectors were building a human reaper-as it reapers are real." Or Garrus, or Dr. Chakwas, or uh, anyone and everyone could have said that. Or they could have shown them Mordin's data from the Collectors that they were Protheans who'd been taken over by someone that they might have to worry about coming along even if not the reapers.
But nooooooooo, they ignored everything and Shepard went full idiot in the beginning of ME3. S/he goes before the military board and says they can't win with strategy and tactics, and they must stand together, and they fight or they die. Ok, fight with what since shooting them head on won't work and strategy and tactics won't work? I honestly think a 2 year old wrote that.
So, I think they needed a MacGuffin and a Deus ex Machina really really badly or it would be game over before Mars since Hackett said they couldn't beat them conventionally.
It was so much a character story and the bad guys could have been poorly dressed dancers and not reapers for all that mattered.
In 3 stories Shepard asks everyone's opinion on everything, even minor things. At the end, Shepard asks no one's opinion.
