236 réponses à ce sujet

[Cashmoney007]

I just think it is funny that some people love the game so much and can't find any issues with it. I still think it is a good game. But it is the worst game in the series. Am I wrong to say that wasn't this game all about Shepard killing the reapers from the beginning? Why would Bioware think it is a good idea to change all that in the series in the last ten minutes? I was never going to rage at Bioware and still don't but considering this series could have been one of the best ever, it is too bad that it fell flat. I am just waiting to see what other dlc brings to this game.

Modifié par Cashmoney007, 10 octobre 2012 - 10:43 .

[Humakt83]

LucasShark wrote...

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.

You presume too much if you believe I think Reapers are invincible.

Do I have to really spell this out for you?

Who allowed Sovereign to try to take control of the Citadel in ME 1?

Now try to piece things together instead of condemning ME 3.

[LucasShark]

Humakt83 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

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.

You presume too much if you believe I think Reapers are invincible.

Do I have to really spell this out for you?

Who allowed Sovereign to try to take control of the Citadel in ME 1?

Now try to piece things together instead of condemning ME 3.

Saren, duh, but they already have people ON THE CITADEL!  They make a big ****storm about revealing that remember?  Not to mention glowboy.

[Redbelle]

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.

For the sake of everyone who has no idea what you are referring to could explain the thought process behind why not capturing the citadel is obvious?

So far I've come up with Reapers entering the outer rim of the milky way and getting to a relay. But from there it's a simple no brainer to relay to the citadel and take control of the relay network, thereby cutting system clusters off from one another and preventing fleet's massing that could threaten them. Reaper doctrine involves divide and conquer tactics. Yet the mechanism, i.e. the citadel is not touched directly by Reaper forces until later.

It's this until later bit that I cannot fathom. Giving the enemy time to organise increases chances of taking significant damage. When the Reapers hit Earth and all the other systems they specifically left the Citadel alone. Even TIM's efforts come way after the inital Reaper invasion.

So what are we missing?

[Humakt83]

LucasShark wrote...
Saren, duh, but they already have people ON THE CITADEL!  They make a big ****storm about revealing that remember?  Not to mention glowboy.

And their people failed. Plain and simple. Shepard himself stopped the Cerberus coup. What is so hard to understand about that? Are you trying to discredit Mass Effect 1 by saying that it was easy to take control of the Citadel?

[Asharad Hett]

Dubozz wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

It never ask for this  

+1

[mjprator1]

OP: love your original comments. ME1: great game, and I have played it through ~20 times. ME2: much more linear and removed some of the RPG elements that made ME1 so great, but the finale of that game rocked. ME3: RPG elements, what RPG elements? Very linear story, side quests irrelevant ("hey, Shep, go get me something"), and the ending was the biggest WTF? moment since the third Matrix movie. What a wasted opportunity.

How does the possibility of a "happy" ending not make the story art? Also, if this ending is art, it is in the same way that a velvet painting of Elvis is art.

2 years ago, I would have bought anything BW put out, because the name meant quality gaming. Between ME3's ending, the dumbing-down of the RPG elements, the first day DLC, BW's subsequent gaffes with handling the backlash about the ending, and the monstrosity that was Dragon Age II (would it be so hard to not reuse the same maps); I would say BW has lost me as a fan and customer. Sorry.

[LucasShark]

Humakt83 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...
Saren, duh, but they already have people ON THE CITADEL!  They make a big ****storm about revealing that remember?  Not to mention glowboy.

And their people failed. Plain and simple. Shepard himself stopped the Cerberus coup. What is so hard to understand about that? Are you trying to discredit Mass Effect 1 by saying that it was easy to take control of the Citadel?

No, that is irrevelant because illusive man get sfree access to it anyway!

And I'd hardly call it anything less than easy when you have hundreds of Reaper capital ships to use.

I do not seek to undermine ME1's plot: ME3 does undermine ME3's plot.

The citadel isn't even the end of why their tactics make no sense: why cull planets at random and hurridly when each culling takes centuries to complete?  Why are they vaporizing random groups of people and crushing buildings neith their feet for dramatic effect?  That is counter to their purposes.  Why are they relying on Cerberus at all for the citadel take over when they have before and do again infiltrate through use of indoctrinated refugees?  Why do they have to struggle at all if the citadel's main AI is their own commander?

[LucasShark]

mjprator1 wrote...

OP: love your original comments. ME1: great game, and I have played it through ~20 times. ME2: much more linear and removed some of the RPG elements that made ME1 so great, but the finale of that game rocked. ME3: RPG elements, what RPG elements? Very linear story, side quests irrelevant ("hey, Shep, go get me something"), and the ending was the biggest WTF? moment since the third Matrix movie. What a wasted opportunity.

How does the possibility of a "happy" ending not make the story art? Also, if this ending is art, it is in the same way that a velvet painting of Elvis is art.

2 years ago, I would have bought anything BW put out, because the name meant quality gaming. Between ME3's ending, the dumbing-down of the RPG elements, the first day DLC, BW's subsequent gaffes with handling the backlash about the ending, and the monstrosity that was Dragon Age II (would it be so hard to not reuse the same maps); I would say BW has lost me as a fan and customer. Sorry.

My thoughts precisely and thankyou.  Bioware has squandered all the free passes I'm ever going to give.

[Deathsaurer]

The only thing that makes sense is they were making a point for future cycles, it's a very efficient trap but we don't need it at all.

[JBPBRC]

Deathsaurer wrote...

The only thing that makes sense is they were making a point for future cycles, it's a very efficient trap but we don't need it at all.

Unless the Reapers do an even worse cleanup job than they did with the Protheans, the galaxy wouldn't even know about the Reapers UNTIL the Citadel trap...not much of a point if no one even knows it was made.

[Humakt83]

LucasShark wrote...
No, that is irrevelant because illusive man get sfree access to it anyway!

And I'd hardly call it anything less than easy when you have hundreds of Reaper capital ships to use.

I do not seek to undermine ME1's plot: ME3 does undermine ME3's plot.

The citadel isn't even the end of why their tactics make no sense: why cull planets at random and hurridly when each culling takes centuries to complete?  Why are they vaporizing random groups of people and crushing buildings neith their feet for dramatic effect?  That is counter to their purposes.  Why are they relying on Cerberus at all for the citadel take over when they have before and do again infiltrate through use of indoctrinated refugees?  Why do they have to struggle at all if the citadel's main AI is their own commander?

Sigh........

It does not matter how many Capital ships Reapers have, once security closes the Citadel, Reapers can't do squat.

I'm not going to explain Reapers' strategy in detail, but it is evident from ME 3 that their blitzkrieg worked well.

[rapscallioness]

Maybe they thought a "videogamey" ending would be..beneath their core fans? Maybe they thought their core fans would appreciate something more...oh, dear....uh, existential dilemma-y? Don't know if that's the right context, but you know what I'm getting at.

OP, I agree. It seems there was some overthinking going on. But in addition, not even talking about the themes of the ending...just the way it was thrown together, was not good. It just wasn't.

They try and say it's because of the internet that so many ppl disliked the ending, not all ppl, though. But nah. It wasn't the internet. It was the ending.

Before I ever got online abt. ME3, I felt that way. The first words out my mouth when I finished ME3 were , "WTF? What....?" Literally, my first words. The internet didn't do that.

So, then I sit through all those darn credits cuz I'm thinking, "Oh, okay, there's gonna be something after the credits. There's gonna be more game...."

All I remember from that was "The Shepard" and "My Sweet" as horror fully dawned on me that this was indeed the end.

They say it was art. Okay, well, to me the kind of art it reminded me of was a haiku. The ending was a haiku.

And i still don't like haiku's....>_>

[LucasShark]

Humakt83 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...
No, that is irrevelant because illusive man get sfree access to it anyway!

And I'd hardly call it anything less than easy when you have hundreds of Reaper capital ships to use.

I do not seek to undermine ME1's plot: ME3 does undermine ME3's plot.

The citadel isn't even the end of why their tactics make no sense: why cull planets at random and hurridly when each culling takes centuries to complete?  Why are they vaporizing random groups of people and crushing buildings neith their feet for dramatic effect?  That is counter to their purposes.  Why are they relying on Cerberus at all for the citadel take over when they have before and do again infiltrate through use of indoctrinated refugees?  Why do they have to struggle at all if the citadel's main AI is their own commander?

Sigh........

It does not matter how many Capital ships Reapers have, once security closes the Citadel, Reapers can't do squat.

I'm not going to explain Reapers' strategy in detail, but it is evident from ME 3 that their blitzkrieg worked well.

The Reapers built the sodding thing!

And of course it worked well: they wrote it to work well!  That's like saying "Obviously Superman can lift multiple planes at once": he's written to do that, does he have upper weight limits?  Hell if we know, does it matter that applying that much pressure to a single point on a plane would effectively destroy it?  No, because it's written not to matter.  It doesn't matter how illogical it is.

And all off topic anyway.

Modifié par LucasShark, 10 octobre 2012 - 11:39 .

[Deathsaurer]

JBPBRC wrote...
Unless the Reapers do an even worse cleanup job than they did with the Protheans, the galaxy wouldn't even know about the Reapers UNTIL the Citadel trap...not much of a point if no one even knows it was made.

They did hence the refuse outcome.

[ShadowLordXII]

LucasShark wrote...

The truly sad part of all this is in my view: the series' core plot didn't need any of this pseudo-science or inept philosophizing.  Here's the structure which could have worked fine:

ME1 - Act 1: Introduce your hero, Shepard, introduce the supporting characters, the crew, introduce us to the universe, acceptionally well done, introduce your threat, the Reapers, all well done.

ME2 - Act 2: Hero's fall, done, hero's return, done, do battle with the enemy once again, overcome the seemingly impossible to uncover a revelation about them.  That revelation: that the Reapers are A) part biological, and perform the cycle to facilitate their version of reproduction.  Done.

ME3 - Act 3: climax for the other two, resolve plot threads, and EXPLOIT THAT REVEALED VULNERABILITY!


It really didn't need any of the "pinnacle of evolution" (a non-starter by the way) nonsense, none of the forced organics versus synthetics after specifically humanizing the primary synthetic race.  None of this pseudo-science after a relatively grounded universe, which jumps the shark tank dividing science fiction and future fantasy on a red, green, and blue coloured motorbike.  None of this was needed.

Why wasn't it needed?  Simple: All of the themes, all of the intellectual depth was already there!  it was all already handled well, and brought up the tough questions in the side stories and missions.  Hell: in ME2, most of the names of the side missions were litterary references.

Let me just list some of the themes already tackled in ME1 and 2's side missions and other universe plots:
- Are humans special?  Should they be treated first?  Or should they take a place beside other races and work togeather?
- Is survivalism a justification for otherwise "evil" behaviour?
- Can AI develope into "life"?  Is that life worthy of the same protection as biological life?  Can the two coexist?
- How much should be sacraficed in the name of scientific advance before a line is drawn?
- Does potential chaos justify an act of genocide?
- The morality of biological warfare.
- The morality of cloning and genetic manipulation.
- Is persuit of a wrong-doer justification enough to endanger or even kill innocents?
- How far are you willing to go or endulge in the name of revenge?
- Is sentamentality sufficient reason to endanger others?
- Can you forgive a people who have past wronged you or others in the name of peace?
- The effect of being granted technology far beyond what a people were ready for
- The rules of warfare and effect of WMDs

And this could go on.  ALL of these are already present, raise the questions, and are tactfully done.  At no point was it so necessary to beat the player over the head, the exposition was there in the narrative.  The central narrative was perfectly good as "all this will be for nought if it's all destroyed before these lessons learned can be applied or actions have reprocussions."

I agree with you, though I felt like ME3 handled it's central plot relatively well up to the ending.

I did scratch my head about just now finding plans for the Crucible and a few other things in the story, but would the writers have been able to pull off a conventional victory against the entire reaper armada?  One reaper already equals a fleet and most people in the galaxy were stupidly ignoring the warning signs until it was too late.

Take out the Star Child and his Circular Logic and none of this stuff regarding the ending would have happened.  Along with not reassigning your head writer.

[Humakt83]

LucasShark wrote...

Humakt83 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...
No, that is irrevelant because illusive man get sfree access to it anyway!

And I'd hardly call it anything less than easy when you have hundreds of Reaper capital ships to use.

I do not seek to undermine ME1's plot: ME3 does undermine ME3's plot.

The citadel isn't even the end of why their tactics make no sense: why cull planets at random and hurridly when each culling takes centuries to complete?  Why are they vaporizing random groups of people and crushing buildings neith their feet for dramatic effect?  That is counter to their purposes.  Why are they relying on Cerberus at all for the citadel take over when they have before and do again infiltrate through use of indoctrinated refugees?  Why do they have to struggle at all if the citadel's main AI is their own commander?

Sigh........

It does not matter how many Capital ships Reapers have, once security closes the Citadel, Reapers can't do squat.

I'm not going to explain Reapers' strategy in detail, but it is evident from ME 3 that their blitzkrieg worked well.

The Reapers built the sodding thing!

And of course it worked well: they wrote it to work well!  That's like saying "Obviously Superman can lift multiple planes at once": he's written to do that, does he have upper weight limits?  Hell if we know, does it matter that applying that much pressure to a single point on a plane would effectively destroy it?  No, because it's written not to matter.  It doesn't matter how illogical it is.

And all off topic anyway.

Discrediting Mass Effect 1 again? I thought you said you loved the game.

[LucasShark]

ShadowLordXII wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

The truly sad part of all this is in my view: the series' core plot didn't need any of this pseudo-science or inept philosophizing.  Here's the structure which could have worked fine:

ME1 - Act 1: Introduce your hero, Shepard, introduce the supporting characters, the crew, introduce us to the universe, acceptionally well done, introduce your threat, the Reapers, all well done.

ME2 - Act 2: Hero's fall, done, hero's return, done, do battle with the enemy once again, overcome the seemingly impossible to uncover a revelation about them.  That revelation: that the Reapers are A) part biological, and perform the cycle to facilitate their version of reproduction.  Done.

ME3 - Act 3: climax for the other two, resolve plot threads, and EXPLOIT THAT REVEALED VULNERABILITY!


It really didn't need any of the "pinnacle of evolution" (a non-starter by the way) nonsense, none of the forced organics versus synthetics after specifically humanizing the primary synthetic race.  None of this pseudo-science after a relatively grounded universe, which jumps the shark tank dividing science fiction and future fantasy on a red, green, and blue coloured motorbike.  None of this was needed.

Why wasn't it needed?  Simple: All of the themes, all of the intellectual depth was already there!  it was all already handled well, and brought up the tough questions in the side stories and missions.  Hell: in ME2, most of the names of the side missions were litterary references.

Let me just list some of the themes already tackled in ME1 and 2's side missions and other universe plots:
- Are humans special?  Should they be treated first?  Or should they take a place beside other races and work togeather?
- Is survivalism a justification for otherwise "evil" behaviour?
- Can AI develope into "life"?  Is that life worthy of the same protection as biological life?  Can the two coexist?
- How much should be sacraficed in the name of scientific advance before a line is drawn?
- Does potential chaos justify an act of genocide?
- The morality of biological warfare.
- The morality of cloning and genetic manipulation.
- Is persuit of a wrong-doer justification enough to endanger or even kill innocents?
- How far are you willing to go or endulge in the name of revenge?
- Is sentamentality sufficient reason to endanger others?
- Can you forgive a people who have past wronged you or others in the name of peace?
- The effect of being granted technology far beyond what a people were ready for
- The rules of warfare and effect of WMDs

And this could go on.  ALL of these are already present, raise the questions, and are tactfully done.  At no point was it so necessary to beat the player over the head, the exposition was there in the narrative.  The central narrative was perfectly good as "all this will be for nought if it's all destroyed before these lessons learned can be applied or actions have reprocussions."

I agree with you, though I felt like ME3 handled it's central plot relatively well up to the ending.

I did scratch my head about just now finding plans for the Crucible and a few other things in the story, but would the writers have been able to pull off a conventional victory against the entire reaper armada?  One reaper already equals a fleet and most people in the galaxy were stupidly ignoring the warning signs until it was too late.

Take out the Star Child and his Circular Logic and none of this stuff regarding the ending would have happened.  Along with not reassigning your head writer.

Thanks: though I'd disagree on how strong ME3's own core narrative is.  I find the crucible to be a cheap plot device, even minus the starbrat and the 3 coloured ending nonsense.  Why are we just now being given this?  Parachuted into the plot from bloody nowhere.  And I could continue to pick holes.

[JamesFaith]

LucasShark wrote...

Humakt83 wrote...


Sigh........

It does not matter how many Capital ships Reapers have, once security closes the Citadel, Reapers can't do squat.

I'm not going to explain Reapers' strategy in detail, but it is evident from ME 3 that their blitzkrieg worked well.

The Reapers built the sodding thing!

And controlled it through Keepers. Keepers who - as you probably noticed - are ignoring their orders now.

And because their leader live here they surely made it as undestructible as possible. Why do you think Sovereign huried so much when Citadel had started closing? It was his only way in.

As you suggested they probably used indoctrinated refugees to take control over it. But they needed really many of them, because without insiders used by Cerberus they couldn't get strong guns and other equipment inside. There were security DNA scans from ME2 and other restrictions after geth atack. And Citadel has well-armed C-Sec and control panel is situated is situated in Council tower, which is probably the most secured place in Citadel.

Attacks on Khar'Shan, Earth and Palaven gave them great oppurtunity to secretly transfer their own little army of indoctrinated refugees without raising supspicion of C-Sec.

[LucasShark]

JamesFaith wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Humakt83 wrote...


Sigh........

It does not matter how many Capital ships Reapers have, once security closes the Citadel, Reapers can't do squat.

I'm not going to explain Reapers' strategy in detail, but it is evident from ME 3 that their blitzkrieg worked well.

The Reapers built the sodding thing!

And controlled it through Keepers. Keepers who - as you probably noticed - are ignoring their orders now.

And because their leader live here they surely made it as undestructible as possible. Why do you think Sovereign huried so much when Citadel had started closing? It was his only way in.

As you suggested they probably used indoctrinated refugees to take control over it. But they needed really many of them, because without insiders used by Cerberus they couldn't get strong guns and other equipment inside. There were security DNA scans from ME2 and other restrictions after geth atack. And Citadel has well-armed C-Sec and control panel is situated is situated in Council tower, which is probably the most secured place in Citadel.

Attacks on Khar'Shan, Earth and Palaven gave them great oppurtunity to secretly transfer their own little army of indoctrinated refugees without raising supspicion of C-Sec.

They bored a hole straight through it to fire their idiotic space elevator beam, I don't think it poses a huge challenge to them.

[JamesFaith]

LucasShark wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

And controlled Citadel through Keepers. Keepers who - as you probably noticed - are ignoring their orders now.

And because their leader live here they surely made it as undestructible as possible. Why do you think Sovereign huried so much when Citadel had started closing? It was his only way in.

As you suggested they probably used indoctrinated refugees to take control over it. But they needed really many of them, because without insiders used by Cerberus they couldn't get strong guns and other equipment inside. There were security DNA scans from ME2 and other restrictions after geth atack. And Citadel has well-armed C-Sec and control panel is situated is situated in Council tower, which is probably the most secured place in Citadel.

Attacks on Khar'Shan, Earth and Palaven gave them great oppurtunity to secretly transfer their own little army of indoctrinated refugees without raising supspicion of C-Sec.

They bored a hole straight through it to fire their idiotic space elevator beam, I don't think it poses a huge challenge to them.

They bored a hole? Where did you get that? 

There wasn't any hole. They simply activated some device which was already integral part of Citadel.

This counter-argument was really weak.

[BearlyHere]

mjprator1 wrote...

OP: love your original comments. ME1: great game, and I have played it through ~20 times. ME2: much more linear and removed some of the RPG elements that made ME1 so great, but the finale of that game rocked. ME3: RPG elements, what RPG elements? Very linear story, side quests irrelevant ("hey, Shep, go get me something"), and the ending was the biggest WTF? moment since the third Matrix movie. What a wasted opportunity.

How does the possibility of a "happy" ending not make the story art? Also, if this ending is art, it is in the same way that a velvet painting of Elvis is art.

2 years ago, I would have bought anything BW put out, because the name meant quality gaming. Between ME3's ending, the dumbing-down of the RPG elements, the first day DLC, BW's subsequent gaffes with handling the backlash about the ending, and the monstrosity that was Dragon Age II (would it be so hard to not reuse the same maps); I would say BW has lost me as a fan and customer. Sorry.

The trilogy could have been art, but the ending doesn't even come up to the level of a velvet Elvis. It's more like a velvet painting of dogs playing poker. This series could have been epic, and set the bar for years for other game designers. Now I think it's become a cautionary tale of how to ruin a franchise.

[Obsidian Gryphon]

JamesFaith wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

And controlled Citadel through Keepers. Keepers who - as you probably noticed - are ignoring their orders now.

And because their leader live here they surely made it as undestructible as possible. Why do you think Sovereign huried so much when Citadel had started closing? It was his only way in.

As you suggested they probably used indoctrinated refugees to take control over it. But they needed really many of them, because without insiders used by Cerberus they couldn't get strong guns and other equipment inside. There were security DNA scans from ME2 and other restrictions after geth atack. And Citadel has well-armed C-Sec and control panel is situated is situated in Council tower, which is probably the most secured place in Citadel.

Attacks on Khar'Shan, Earth and Palaven gave them great oppurtunity to secretly transfer their own little army of indoctrinated refugees without raising supspicion of C-Sec.

They bored a hole straight through it to fire their idiotic space elevator beam, I don't think it poses a huge challenge to them.

They bored a hole? Where did you get that? 

There wasn't any hole. They simply activated some device which was already integral part of Citadel.

This counter-argument was really weak.

Out of curiosity, why did the Reapers not shut down all the mass relays once they took over the Citdael which I presumed they achieved with TIM's help.

[Storin]

LucasShark wrote...

ShadowLordXII wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

The truly sad part of all this is in my view: the series' core plot didn't need any of this pseudo-science or inept philosophizing.  Here's the structure which could have worked fine:

ME1 - Act 1: Introduce your hero, Shepard, introduce the supporting characters, the crew, introduce us to the universe, acceptionally well done, introduce your threat, the Reapers, all well done.

ME2 - Act 2: Hero's fall, done, hero's return, done, do battle with the enemy once again, overcome the seemingly impossible to uncover a revelation about them.  That revelation: that the Reapers are A) part biological, and perform the cycle to facilitate their version of reproduction.  Done.

ME3 - Act 3: climax for the other two, resolve plot threads, and EXPLOIT THAT REVEALED VULNERABILITY!


It really didn't need any of the "pinnacle of evolution" (a non-starter by the way) nonsense, none of the forced organics versus synthetics after specifically humanizing the primary synthetic race.  None of this pseudo-science after a relatively grounded universe, which jumps the shark tank dividing science fiction and future fantasy on a red, green, and blue coloured motorbike.  None of this was needed.

Why wasn't it needed?  Simple: All of the themes, all of the intellectual depth was already there!  it was all already handled well, and brought up the tough questions in the side stories and missions.  Hell: in ME2, most of the names of the side missions were litterary references.

Let me just list some of the themes already tackled in ME1 and 2's side missions and other universe plots:
- Are humans special?  Should they be treated first?  Or should they take a place beside other races and work togeather?
- Is survivalism a justification for otherwise "evil" behaviour?
- Can AI develope into "life"?  Is that life worthy of the same protection as biological life?  Can the two coexist?
- How much should be sacraficed in the name of scientific advance before a line is drawn?
- Does potential chaos justify an act of genocide?
- The morality of biological warfare.
- The morality of cloning and genetic manipulation.
- Is persuit of a wrong-doer justification enough to endanger or even kill innocents?
- How far are you willing to go or endulge in the name of revenge?
- Is sentamentality sufficient reason to endanger others?
- Can you forgive a people who have past wronged you or others in the name of peace?
- The effect of being granted technology far beyond what a people were ready for
- The rules of warfare and effect of WMDs

And this could go on.  ALL of these are already present, raise the questions, and are tactfully done.  At no point was it so necessary to beat the player over the head, the exposition was there in the narrative.  The central narrative was perfectly good as "all this will be for nought if it's all destroyed before these lessons learned can be applied or actions have reprocussions."

I agree with you, though I felt like ME3 handled it's central plot relatively well up to the ending.

I did scratch my head about just now finding plans for the Crucible and a few other things in the story, but would the writers have been able to pull off a conventional victory against the entire reaper armada?  One reaper already equals a fleet and most people in the galaxy were stupidly ignoring the warning signs until it was too late.

Take out the Star Child and his Circular Logic and none of this stuff regarding the ending would have happened.  Along with not reassigning your head writer.

Thanks: though I'd disagree on how strong ME3's own core narrative is.  I find the crucible to be a cheap plot device, even minus the starbrat and the 3 coloured ending nonsense.  Why are we just now being given this?  Parachuted into the plot from bloody nowhere.  And I could continue to pick holes.

Agreed.

Humakt83 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...
No, that is irrevelant because illusive man get sfree access to it anyway!

And I'd hardly call it anything less than easy when you have hundreds of Reaper capital ships to use.

I do not seek to undermine ME1's plot: ME3 does undermine ME3's plot.

The citadel isn't even the end of why their tactics make no sense: why cull planets at random and hurridly when each culling takes centuries to complete? Why are they vaporizing random groups of people and crushing buildings neith their feet for dramatic effect? That is counter to their purposes. Why are they relying on Cerberus at all for the citadel take over when they have before and do again infiltrate through use of indoctrinated refugees? Why do they have to struggle at all if the citadel's main AI is their own commander?

Sigh........

It does not matter how many Capital ships Reapers have, once security closes the Citadel, Reapers can't do squat.

I'm not going to explain Reapers' strategy in detail, but it is evident from ME 3 that their blitzkrieg worked well.

Three questions remain, then:

1. All this being the case, how did the Reapers suddenly get control of the Citadel following the final Cerberus base mission?

2. Since their second attempt to take the Citadel succeeds in a very short amount of time and no mention is made of the Reapers taking any casualties, why didn't they just do this in the first place, rather than relying on the much riskier and more time-consuming Cerberus coup method?

3. Why didn't the Reapers shut down the relay networks after taking control? This is the point that keeps being raised that no one will answer.

To my mind, the answers seem clear. The story was rushed. This is not indicative of bad writing. It is indicative of first draft writing, when the basics are still being nailed down and no one's run through looking for plot holes and spelling errors yet. Even the moving of the Citadel to Earth isn't clearly explained. It seems to serve no purpose beyond heightening the drama, even though contriving an in-story reason wouldn't be that hard. Again, I say this is evidence of lack of polish.

Modifié par Storin, 11 octobre 2012 - 04:19 .

[Mathias]

I'm trying to think of all the warning signs that were shown during production of this game. Red flags that would indicate the disappointment that was to come with ME3. Let's see there was:

1. Ashley being blantantly sexed up.
2. Jessica Chobot.
3. The moment we learned the ME2 characters wouldn't be recruitable.
4. Turning EDI into a sexbot.
5. EA's attempt at appeal to the CoD and GOW crowd through the creation of James Vega.
6. The trial idea was scrapped.
7. The idea of a brand new hero if Shepard died in ME2 was scrapped.
8. Udina was suddenly canonized as the human councellor without any explanation.
9. The addition of MP. (Though i grant you it was a fun feature)
10. Michael Gamble releasing a statement that the ending will make some fans angry. That was a HUGE red flag.
11. Drew's absense from the game. Mac took over as lead writer.
12. DA2 and TOR were terrible.
13. The Day 1 DLC debacle.

I think that's about it, unless i'm missing any. But yea, those were A LOT of bad signs. Sure some of them might be nitpicky, but looking back on them now i think it's fair to bring them up.

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 11 octobre 2012 - 05:37 .