236 réponses à ce sujet

[LucasShark]

JamesFaith wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

I think the reason is that the Reapers have the same reaction to flying to the milky way that I do to the idea of walking to the shops............... I'd rather take the car............ After all, you never know how much you'd have to carry back with you..........

Now you mention it though. Isn't there a relay in dark space somewhere? A place that leads to the Reapers resting space?...... Oh I so wanna go there now!

Yes: it's called the citadel, theoretically there is something equally huge floating out in dark space with the Reapers... it's the core plot of ME1: and is NEVER BROUGHT UP AGAIN!  WHY!?

As you said - it was core plot of ME1. It served its purpose in ME1 and wasn't necessary for main plot of whole series.

Standard practice in in series with relatively independent main story in individual episodes.  

Poorly written ones: the good continuing series calls back to its previous plot lines.

[my Aim is True]

Agree.
ME3 should have been about unity, friendship, coming together for an epic fight for survival. Due to poor storytelling, focus on the Crucible, lack of War Assets at the conclusion and pseudo-philosophical Starchild, I didn't feel it.

I wanted what was promised, 'choices have consequences' and 'victory through sacrifice.' I wanted past decisions to potentially doom squadmates, war assets or even entire races.

[JamesFaith]

LucasShark wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Yes: it's called the citadel, theoretically there is something equally huge floating out in dark space with the Reapers... it's the core plot of ME1: and is NEVER BROUGHT UP AGAIN!  WHY!?

As you said - it was core plot of ME1. It served its purpose in ME1 and wasn't necessary for main plot of whole series.

Standard practice in in series with relatively independent main story in individual episodes.  

Poorly written ones: the good continuing series calls back to its previous plot lines.

Yes, many series are doing this. And there are a lot of call-backs  (situations and dialogs referring to story elements in previous parts) in ME3. But there is no "quality rule" which one must be use and which one not and there definitely isn't rule that every core element of story in part one must be again core element in next chapter.

Fact that you personaly like Citadel relay idea doesn't mean that its absence is objectively bad.  

[sdinc009]

Redbelle wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

I think the reason is that the Reapers have the same reaction to flying to the milky way that I do to the idea of walking to the shops............... I'd rather take the car............ After all, you never know how much you'd have to carry back with you..........

Now you mention it though. Isn't there a relay in dark space somewhere? A place that leads to the Reapers resting space?...... Oh I so wanna go there now!

Yes: it's called the citadel, theoretically there is something equally huge floating out in dark space with the Reapers... it's the core plot of ME1: and is NEVER BROUGHT UP AGAIN!  WHY!?

Yes, the relay in Dark Space that should link  to the citadel. We never hear, or see what happens to that one. If we relayed fro the citadel to the Dark Space relay we may find it lead's to alot of empty space. It may also lead to a Reaper care station. Or maybe even a relay to another galaxy.

The possibilities are there. Maybe they forgot? Or thought to save it for ME4? Who knows.

@ Sdinc, don't forget about Blade Runner. That ones been altered alot over the years.

Yup, 6 or 7 alternate endings I believe. Ridley Scott just couldn't get enough of messing with his "artistic integrity"

[nwntask]

I second every last word of o.p.

[David7204]

my Aim is True wrote...

Agree.
ME3 should have been about unity, friendship, coming together for an epic fight for survival. Due to poor storytelling, focus on the Crucible, lack of War Assets at the conclusion and pseudo-philosophical Starchild, I didn't feel it.

I wanted what was promised, 'choices have consequences' and 'victory through sacrifice.' I wanted past decisions to potentially doom squadmates, war assets or even entire races.

No. Having consequences to your choices that the player could never reasonably expect is not good storytelling. Having the Rachni die because Shepard killed the Rachni is fine. Having Garrus die because Shepard killed the Rachni is crap. And since there's no decisions that foreshadow squadmates dying as a consequence, there shouldn't be any consequences like that in ME 3.

Modifié par David7204, 10 octobre 2012 - 08:20 .

[Redbelle]

nwntask wrote...

I second every last word of o.p.

Ditto that. Unfortunately, despite fan support for BW, CP who prowls these threads has shutdown one that discussed similar issues while stating that they were not going to change the ending........

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but fan outcry regarding the ending resulted in the ECDLC that did a much better job of tying up BW's artistic vision of how ME3 should end. Yet BW, at the time said they didn't think it was neccessary to add in the extra ECDLC scenes because they thought the fans wouldn't want to see them?

Well, BW have gotten a few wires crossed. The fans wanted, what would later turn out to become the ECDLC because, by going with the lore of ME3, Shep's actions resulted in the widescale decimation of the galaxy. And if not that then all the Dextro species would starve in the fleet once the relays were destroyed. Then there was the 'How did our squadmates get back on the Normandy'? Question coupled by 'How did Anderson get on the Citadel without Shep knowing about it', followed by  'How does Hackett know Anyones on the Citadel'.................. but lets ignore these questions and get to the theme underlying them all.

The answers to these questions were important to the continuing arc of the plot. Just because we entered the final stages of the story was no excuse not to add them to continue a strucuturally sound storyboard. BW, for what ever reason, added these extra elements at the fans urging's and while not the greatest ending, was none the less an improvement.

It seems to me that BW, despite all it's claims to listen to it's fans, are hearing, but rejecting fan POV in favour of their POV which has already been underscored with a question mark based on fans pointing out the plot holes in the ending.

Now I love BW and the ending aside the rest of ME3 is great. But BW seem intent on ignoring the fans in favour of their vision. On one hand this is bad. On the other hand, they are most likely working on additional SP and MP DLC and another EC of the EC DLC would throw their schedule way off for releasing this content. None the less the fans have the measure of ME3 and I think it's fair to say, there is a little disappointment in the air that we didn't get to fight the actual Reaper war by blowing away scores of Reapers with our Big ol fleet.

ME4 however, may be the saving throw for the franchise that brings it back on par with the likes of ME1 and 2. However, I know I for one will be poking it from afar with a barge pole to make sure that bitter disappointment in such a well developed series does not come back to haunt me.

[LucasShark]

David7204 wrote...

my Aim is True wrote...

Agree.
ME3 should have been about unity, friendship, coming together for an epic fight for survival. Due to poor storytelling, focus on the Crucible, lack of War Assets at the conclusion and pseudo-philosophical Starchild, I didn't feel it.

I wanted what was promised, 'choices have consequences' and 'victory through sacrifice.' I wanted past decisions to potentially doom squadmates, war assets or even entire races.

No. Having consequences to your choices that the player could never reasonably expect is not good storytelling. Having the Rachni die because Shepard killed the Rachni is fine. Having Garrus die because Shepard killed the Rachni is crap. And since there's no decisions that foreshadow squadmates dying as a consequence, there shouldn't be any consequences like that in ME 3.

Once again: since when in anything including real life, are all consequences of a decision immediately apparent?  That is idiotic.

[3DandBeyond]

Redbelle wrote...

Gemini1179 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

The Arrival does also invalidate the plot because it sets up the scenario where you cannot stop the reapers unless you do something unthinkable.  It creates an impossible scenario where there is no real choice that's even partly acceptable.  You have only to look at the writer of it to see why we got what we got.

Not only that, but Arrival makes the Reapers idiots. If they could fly to the Galaxy in 2 years, why waste so many years with Soverign farting around with Saren? For machines, it would have been illogical to waste more time when the original signal failed. Soverign would have alerted the Reaper fleet and they would have headed to the Alpha Relay.

What they should have done was have the Reaper fleet in Dark Space be attempting to manipulate the Relay network from the relay on their end. After two years they are able to modify it and move it so that it can connect to either the Alpha Relay or the Charon relay and that would be how the invasion starts. That way it would have made sense having both sides working to stop eachother but the Reapers of course are far more advanced.

But I digress.

I think the reason is that the Reapers have the same reaction to flying to the milky way that I do to the idea of walking to the shops............... I'd rather take the car............ After all, you never know how much you'd have to carry back with you..........

Now you mention it though. Isn't there a relay in dark space somewhere? A place that leads to the Reapers resting space?...... Oh I so wanna go there now!

Yes there is a relay there.  And why didn't the reapers shut down the relays once in the galaxy?  This was said to be the first thing or one of the first that they did once coming back.  They lay dormant in dark space for 50k years and were vulnerable during this time of dormancy.  It's like that big old bible they supposedly have (I think Gamble mentioned it in an interview between ME2 and 3), is just tossed out because heck MP looks so darn cool.

[LucasShark]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Gemini1179 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

The Arrival does also invalidate the plot because it sets up the scenario where you cannot stop the reapers unless you do something unthinkable.  It creates an impossible scenario where there is no real choice that's even partly acceptable.  You have only to look at the writer of it to see why we got what we got.

Not only that, but Arrival makes the Reapers idiots. If they could fly to the Galaxy in 2 years, why waste so many years with Soverign farting around with Saren? For machines, it would have been illogical to waste more time when the original signal failed. Soverign would have alerted the Reaper fleet and they would have headed to the Alpha Relay.

What they should have done was have the Reaper fleet in Dark Space be attempting to manipulate the Relay network from the relay on their end. After two years they are able to modify it and move it so that it can connect to either the Alpha Relay or the Charon relay and that would be how the invasion starts. That way it would have made sense having both sides working to stop eachother but the Reapers of course are far more advanced.

But I digress.

I think the reason is that the Reapers have the same reaction to flying to the milky way that I do to the idea of walking to the shops............... I'd rather take the car............ After all, you never know how much you'd have to carry back with you..........

Now you mention it though. Isn't there a relay in dark space somewhere? A place that leads to the Reapers resting space?...... Oh I so wanna go there now!

Yes there is a relay there.  And why didn't the reapers shut down the relays once in the galaxy?  This was said to be the first thing or one of the first that they did once coming back.  They lay dormant in dark space for 50k years and were vulnerable during this time of dormancy.  It's like that big old bible they supposedly have (I think Gamble mentioned it in an interview between ME2 and 3), is just tossed out because heck MP looks so darn cool.

I still haven't figured out why they outright abbandoned the core story system they'd come up with: the Reapers are supposed to shut down the relays, thereby crippling the entire galaxy, then go through it systematically.  As it stands they all become idiots and storm random planets achieving nought but chaos.

[3DandBeyond]

LucasShark wrote...

David7204 wrote...

my Aim is True wrote...

Agree.
ME3 should have been about unity, friendship, coming together for an epic fight for survival. Due to poor storytelling, focus on the Crucible, lack of War Assets at the conclusion and pseudo-philosophical Starchild, I didn't feel it.

I wanted what was promised, 'choices have consequences' and 'victory through sacrifice.' I wanted past decisions to potentially doom squadmates, war assets or even entire races.

No. Having consequences to your choices that the player could never reasonably expect is not good storytelling. Having the Rachni die because Shepard killed the Rachni is fine. Having Garrus die because Shepard killed the Rachni is crap. And since there's no decisions that foreshadow squadmates dying as a consequence, there shouldn't be any consequences like that in ME 3.

Once again: since when in anything including real life, are all consequences of a decision immediately apparent?  That is idiotic.

As well the slide show consequences are just laughable.  A bad trip in every sense of the word.  I want to know what good storytelling it is to end a conflict with 3 choices that one person who is possibly set up as extremely heroic and virtuous would never logically choose?  There's more of a variety of reasons why any Shepard and not just a paragon would not choose this garbage than there is a variety of endings.  A renegade would say, "you want me to die for what?  Are you crazy?"  Whereas a paragon would say, "How are any of these things actually helping people in the galaxy?"  A paragon would want to know every last detail of why these are good things and a renegade would just plain at least want to know what happens to him/her.

I can see scenarios where you mess up or choose things that lead to someone's death.  Instead of stupid fetch quests there should have been more real missions.  Don't do something fast enough like in the suicide mission or in time and someone could die.  Or maybe during the mission on Earth if you lacked assets that you should easily have gotten, you might have to decide to protect Hackett's ship or lose it and maybe lose a teammate by pulling aid to your squad.  And if you screw up in other ways then Shepard might have to sacrifice his/her life to achieve a win.  But along with that a path to win it all and to have Shepard survive, teammates survive, LI, and friends survive.

[3DandBeyond]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

my Aim is True wrote...

Agree.
ME3 should have been about unity, friendship, coming together for an epic fight for survival. Due to poor storytelling, focus on the Crucible, lack of War Assets at the conclusion and pseudo-philosophical Starchild, I didn't feel it.

I wanted what was promised, 'choices have consequences' and 'victory through sacrifice.' I wanted past decisions to potentially doom squadmates, war assets or even entire races.

No. Having consequences to your choices that the player could never reasonably expect is not good storytelling. Having the Rachni die because Shepard killed the Rachni is fine. Having Garrus die because Shepard killed the Rachni is crap. And since there's no decisions that foreshadow squadmates dying as a consequence, there shouldn't be any consequences like that in ME 3.

.
They actually do have something like that, funnily enough; saving Wrex on Virmire dooms Mordin.

Quite true.  Kill him, have Bakara die (isn't it or do you have to kill her), lie to Mordin.  Mordin lives.

[Humakt83]

LucasShark wrote...

I still haven't figured out why they outright abbandoned the core story system they'd come up with: the Reapers are supposed to shut down the relays, thereby crippling the entire galaxy, then go through it systematically.  As it stands they all become idiots and storm random planets achieving nought but chaos.

I figured this out half a year ago. Reapers tried to capture the Citadel twice on Mass Effect 3, Second attempt was successful.

As for shutting down the relays, well, you couldn't use any of the Relays after the Reapers captured the Citadel. Except relay to Earth....

You should propably rethink the trilogy's core plot again instead of bashing it.

Modifié par Humakt83, 10 octobre 2012 - 10:09 .

[David7204]

You've proven yourself to be incapable of understanding basic storytelling if you think something is acceptable in the slightest solely because its "realistic."

Theory of Narrative Causality. Things don't happen to people because in they're in stories. They're in stories because things happen to them. We don't (or we shouldn't) tell stories where things happen because of circumstances that have nothing to do with the actions of the hero, no matter how realistic that might be. We tell stories where things happen because of heroism, friendship, love, honor, all that poetic crap.

You really don't see any irony in shilling supposed "consequences" that have the exact same problem that the endings did: Shepard's heroism wasn't meaningful.

That is idiotic.

Modifié par David7204, 10 octobre 2012 - 10:17 .

[LucasShark]

Humakt83 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

I still haven't figured out why they outright abbandoned the core story system they'd come up with: the Reapers are supposed to shut down the relays, thereby crippling the entire galaxy, then go through it systematically.  As it stands they all become idiots and storm random planets achieving nought but chaos.

I figured this out half a year ago. Reapers tried to capture the Citadel twice on Mass Effect 3, Second attempt was successful.

As for shutting down the relays, well, you couldn't use any of the Relays after the Reapers captured the Citadel. Except relay to Earth....

You should propably rethink the trilogy's core plot again instead of bashing it.

Order of priorities: Take citadel first, shut down relays, then cull planets.
What happened in 3: cull planets, only take citadel when Shepard is going to use it as a weapon (WTF), shut down relays SAVE FOR THE ONE SHEPARD NEEDS!

Someone tried to kill themselves with stupid pills, and quite frankly, I sympathize

[LucasShark]

David7204 wrote...
You've proven yourself to be incapable of understanding basic storytelling if you think something is acceptable in the slightest solely because its "realistic."

Hello pot, I'm the kettle...

YOU went on a tyraid in one of my other threads about how it's unrealistic to have unforseen consequences and how awful that was.  Now you are saying the precise opposite.

[Humakt83]

LucasShark wrote...
Order of priorities: Take citadel first, shut down relays, then cull planets.
What happened in 3: cull planets, only take citadel when Shepard is going to use it as a weapon (WTF), shut down relays SAVE FOR THE ONE SHEPARD NEEDS!

Someone tried to kill themselves with stupid pills, and quite frankly, I sympathize

You are not simply getting it. How about you stop to ponder things for a change instead of ranting non-stop?

It should be quite clear why they could/did not capture the Citadel first. And if you've played Mass Effect 1, you should realize this.

Modifié par Humakt83, 10 octobre 2012 - 10:17 .

[David7204]

What I said was that it wasn't realistic. Which is perfectly true. It isn't. I said nothing about the presence or absence of realism in relation to the quality of the story.

Let me sum things up for you. It isn't realistic, and wouldn't make the story any better if it was.

[Icinix]

Humakt83 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...
Order of priorities: Take citadel first, shut down relays, then cull planets.
What happened in 3: cull planets, only take citadel when Shepard is going to use it as a weapon (WTF), shut down relays SAVE FOR THE ONE SHEPARD NEEDS!

Someone tried to kill themselves with stupid pills, and quite frankly, I sympathize

You are not simply getting it. How about you stop to ponder things for a change instead of ranting non-stop?

It should be quite clear why they could/did not capture the Citadel first. And if you've played Mass Effect 1, you should realize this.

Yeah but...why leave it until it was nice and convenient to take it so there was an excuse to go to Earth? If they were able to take it so easily and quickly anyway, why not do that earlier on and take out the government and the go to point for everyone in the galaxy?

[LucasShark]

Humakt83 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...
Order of priorities: Take citadel first, shut down relays, then cull planets.
What happened in 3: cull planets, only take citadel when Shepard is going to use it as a weapon (WTF), shut down relays SAVE FOR THE ONE SHEPARD NEEDS!

Someone tried to kill themselves with stupid pills, and quite frankly, I sympathize

You are not simply getting it. How about you stop to ponder things for a change instead of ranting non-stop?

It should be quite clear why they could/did not capture the Citadel first. And if you've played Mass Effect 1, you should realize this.

Explain: I played ME1, I loved ME1, ME1 quite plainly outlined what their general tactic was, and that it was effective hundreds, thousands, if not many many more times. 

Now: I have argued that they can't take the citadel as the Reapers weren't as strong as they framed themselves to be, yet people, like you, insist they are nigh on invincible, so if that is the case: take the citadel and do what they always do, nothing is stopping them.  They manage it when they have to later on perfectly fine, even move it, a feat up to that point physically impossible in the ME universe.

Their plan makes no sense save for being contrived for dramatic effect.

[Icinix]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Humakt83 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...
Order of priorities: Take citadel first, shut down relays, then cull planets.
What happened in 3: cull planets, only take citadel when Shepard is going to use it as a weapon (WTF), shut down relays SAVE FOR THE ONE SHEPARD NEEDS!

Someone tried to kill themselves with stupid pills, and quite frankly, I sympathize

You are not simply getting it. How about you stop to ponder things for a change instead of ranting non-stop?

It should be quite clear why they could/did not capture the Citadel first. And if you've played Mass Effect 1, you should realize this.

Yeah but...why leave it until it was nice and convenient to take it so there was an excuse to go to Earth? If they were able to take it so easily and quickly anyway, why not do that earlier on and take out the government and the go to point for everyone in the galaxy?

Because then we wouldn't have any hub worlds.

 Yeah - Fair call.

[LucasShark]

Icinix wrote...

Humakt83 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...
Order of priorities: Take citadel first, shut down relays, then cull planets.
What happened in 3: cull planets, only take citadel when Shepard is going to use it as a weapon (WTF), shut down relays SAVE FOR THE ONE SHEPARD NEEDS!

Someone tried to kill themselves with stupid pills, and quite frankly, I sympathize

You are not simply getting it. How about you stop to ponder things for a change instead of ranting non-stop?

It should be quite clear why they could/did not capture the Citadel first. And if you've played Mass Effect 1, you should realize this.

Yeah but...why leave it until it was nice and convenient to take it so there was an excuse to go to Earth? If they were able to take it so easily and quickly anyway, why not do that earlier on and take out the government and the go to point for everyone in the galaxy?

Not to mention rest control of and cripple the galaxy's transit system, which was their plan in the first place.

[Redbelle]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

my Aim is True wrote...

Agree.
ME3 should have been about unity, friendship, coming together for an epic fight for survival. Due to poor storytelling, focus on the Crucible, lack of War Assets at the conclusion and pseudo-philosophical Starchild, I didn't feel it.

I wanted what was promised, 'choices have consequences' and 'victory through sacrifice.' I wanted past decisions to potentially doom squadmates, war assets or even entire races.

No. Having consequences to your choices that the player could never reasonably expect is not good storytelling. Having the Rachni die because Shepard killed the Rachni is fine. Having Garrus die because Shepard killed the Rachni is crap. And since there's no decisions that foreshadow squadmates dying as a consequence, there shouldn't be any consequences like that in ME 3.

.
They actually do have something like that, funnily enough; saving Wrex on Virmire dooms Mordin.

Quite true.  Kill him, have Bakara die (isn't it or do you have to kill her), lie to Mordin.  Mordin lives.

If Bakura dies and Wrex is dead then you can appeal to Mordins sense of logic. The new leader of the Krogan will not hold back the Krogan from conquest and so Mordin agrees not to cure the Genophage. This is after he loses his cool and yell's the genophage was his mistake and since meeting Bakura he has come to understand the Krogan POV. Shep basically points out that without the progressive policies of Wrex and firm guidance of Bakura the genophage is still neccessary.