236 réponses à ce sujet

[Storin]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

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.

I would argue that both of those games are better than ME3. That's largely a matter of taste, though, I'll say. I mostly agree with your other points, though.

[Redbelle]

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.

Not to continue the off topic theme, but superman doesn't so much lift objects as fly them by extending his ability to move independent of Earth gravity to the object he is lifting. That was the early day explanation of how his powers worked. No idea if they ever Retconned it.

[Redbelle]

Humakt83 wrote...

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.

Hum, I think your off the mark on this one.

Sovereign needed Saren to close the citadel and the geth fleet to run interference while he made his run to the citadel tower. Sovereign had the concern that the combined might off all the fleets around the citadel could destroy him. Therefore having Saren close the citadel while he was flying into it was tactically sound as the timing minimised his window of exposure. Once he was on the tower however it is not clear if he still needs Saren. However Sov may not have a choice due to the way Sov indoctrinated Saren. The two have a link which is only increased once Saren dies.

At the point where Sov assumes direct control of Saren it is not clear if Sov does this to continue a mission or if it is to prevent Shepard from taking any action that might jepodise his existance......... hang on. Shep has acces to the citadel open/close control that protects Sov.

Since the Reapers built the citadel, or had it built, I see no reason why a big ship squid does not have the ability to open the realy to dark space. It's like adding an emergency over ride to a peice of equipment. It's not used alot but if everything goes south it's there if needed.

[David7204]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

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.

God damn, some of these are stupid complaints.

First of all, the idea that Vega was created to appeal to the CoD and GOW crowds is just idiocy. People have said the same about literally every feature introduced. And it's just annoying. And of course, the definition of what the "CoD and GOW" crowd is into changes to whatever's convenient at the moment.

Secondly, I never heard a bad word about Walters before ME 3 was released. So saying you knew ME 3 was going to be bad once he took over is stupid. And of course, you just forget about any complaints about ME 1 and ME 2, as well as the books that Drew wrote.

Thirdly, a "brand new hero" taking over is a goddamn awful idea for too many reasons to count. I really should not have to go into all the narrative and technical reasons of why it's moronic. 

Modifié par David7204, 11 octobre 2012 - 07:13 .

[shit's fucked cunts]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

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:
[snip]
10. Michael Gamble releasing a statement that the ending will make some fans angry. That was a HUGE red flag.
[snip]

I think I'd prefer anger to what I'm actually feeling.

[JamesFaith]

Obsidian Gryphon wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

- snip

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.

I don't know but when I think about it, I have my own little theory.

We know only two ways how shut down relays:

1. Keepers

This "switch" must be located somewhere in their tunnels and it is logical to assume that switch can be used only by Keepers - safety precautions in case that some cycle would be too curious and explore even Keepers tunnels. It also can't be too easy to activate it to prevent accidental activation. Reapers probably could regain their control over Keepers, but it would take a time, more then that few dozens hours betwen Cronos and Earth. 

2. Control panel in Citadel tower

This area was directly hitted by huge fragment of Sovereign in ME1. Even if panel wasn't completely destroyed, it would be repaired by Council and surely extremely secured against unauthorised persons. Breaking code should again need more time that Reapers had before Priority:Earth.

But like everything other it is only my theory based on logic assumptions and info from previous games.

[Redbelle]

JamesFaith wrote...

*snip*

2. Control panel in Citadel tower

This area was directly hitted by huge fragment of Sovereign in ME1. Even if panel wasn't completely destroyed, it would be repaired by Council and surely extremely secured against unauthorised persons. Breaking code should again need more time that Reapers had before Priority:Earth.

But like everything other it is only my theory based on logic assumptions and info from previous games.

Despite not being responsive to the Reaper signal anymore the keepers still go about their organised tasks of making the citadel comfortable for it's inhabitants, as per the Reaper design. Therefore, as their selfless acts are designed to make it easy for a Reaper invasion, I have to conclude that the Keepers would have repaired that panel

[3DandBeyond]

Cashmoney007 wrote...

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.

Yes it was about killing them.  They were also very cool foes when they were what Sovereign said-he showed them to be arrogant, to feel they were just too special to be understood by mere people.  Throughout the games, it was a repeated thread that wove the story, killing the reapers.  The last conversation with Hackett is about the way to solve the problem is dead reapers.  Shepard didn't try to have a conversation with the reaper on Rannoch-that reaper made it pretty clear it was trying to kill Shepard.  Harbinger didn't want to be understood in ME2 or at the conduit in ME3.  He was trying to kill Shepard.  And so were the husks that ran out and Marauder Shields.  In all of these cases they aren't just giving Shepard some love taps-if you fail to move forward or kill them, the game ends.

But in the last ten minutes we have an antagonist that says he wants to help, himself.  We have reapers that are just giant lap dogs with an attitude.  Like pit bulls that have been used to kill.  We have the amazing contradictory illogical logic device.  People say he doesn't know what death is and is only trying to preserve organics.  He's such a nice boy.  No he isn't.  With Leviathan he specifically indicates he destroyed his creators. 

He's the worst plot device ever.

[3DandBeyond]

GT Zazzerka wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

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:
[snip]
10. Michael Gamble releasing a statement that the ending will make some fans angry. That was a HUGE red flag.
[snip]

I think I'd prefer anger to what I'm actually feeling.

However his "understanding" of why fans would be angry was because it was to be the end of Shepard's story.  So, you'd think they'd decide to end that story decently.  Instead you have flesh flying off a dying Shepard, a torso treated like garbage and suicide.  Way to understand the importance of the protagonist's role in a story.  And good job trying to make people feel better about Shepard's story ending.

I think the Arrival was the real first red flag but that was pre-production.  But couple it with Mac Walters' statement in Feb. that the galaxy would be a wasteland and the Final Hours app saying the crucible would create a galactic dark ages, and we should have put it all together.  They all die.  Or, they don't.  Ambiguity was embraced so that nothing would be canon.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 11 octobre 2012 - 12:15 .

[Mathias]

David7204 wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

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.

God damn, some of these are stupid complaints.

Well that's your opinion.

First of all, the idea that Vega was created to appeal to the CoD and GOW crowds is just idiocy. People have said the same about literally every feature introduced. And it's just annoying. And of course, the definition of what the "CoD and GOW" crowd is into changes to whatever's convenient at the moment.

He's a giant muscled out jar head who looks like he's from a different game. Granted i don't think he's a bad character, but he doesn't look like he belongs in the Mass Effect universe. There is a certain quota that needs to be filled in order to meet EA's expectations, such as a certain amount of sex appeal in the game, which explains EDI and Ashley's upgrades. They also wanted to appeal to as many gamers as they could, and Vega was a brand new every man character that was most likely created to appeal to the more casual crowd.

Secondly, I never heard a bad word about Walters before ME 3 was released. So saying you knew ME 3 was going to be bad once he took over is stupid. And of course, you just forget about any complaints about ME 1 and ME 2, as well as the books that Drew wrote.

I've read Mac's Mass Effect comics. I wasn't impressed and therefore wasn't happy that he took over. I know other people who felt the same way. Plus the original lead writer who did a damn good job so far, left the game. That in itself wasn't a good sign to me.

Thirdly, a "brand new hero" taking over is a goddamn awful idea for too many reasons to count. I really should not have to go into all the narrative and technical reasons of why it's moronic. 

Again that's your opinion.

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 11 octobre 2012 - 01:32 .

[dreman9999]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

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.

God damn, some of these are stupid complaints.

Well that's your opinion.

First of all, the idea that Vega was created to appeal to the CoD and GOW crowds is just idiocy. People have said the same about literally every feature introduced. And it's just annoying. And of course, the definition of what the "CoD and GOW" crowd is into changes to whatever's convenient at the moment.

He's a giant muscled out jar head who looks like he's from a different game. Granted i don't think he's a bad character, but he doesn't look like he belongs in the Mass Effect universe. There is a certain quota that needs to be filled in order to meet EA's expectations, such as a certain amount of sex appeal in the game, which explains EDI and Ashley's upgrades. They also wanted to appeal to as many gamers as they could, and Vega was a brand new every man character that was most likely created to appeal to the more casual crowd.

Secondly, I never heard a bad word about Walters before ME 3 was released. So saying you knew ME 3 was going to be bad once he took over is stupid. And of course, you just forget about any complaints about ME 1 and ME 2, as well as the books that Drew wrote.

I've read Mac's Mass Effect comics. I wasn't impressed and therefore wasn't happy that he took over. I know other people who felt the same way. Plus the original lead writer who did a damn good job so far, left the game. That in itself wasn't a good sign to me.

Thirdly, a "brand new hero" taking over is a goddamn awful idea for too many reasons to count. I really should not have to go into all the narrative and technical reasons of why it's moronic. 

Again that's your opinion.

1. Those are stupic complaints...None of them effected the core plot.

2.I guess you missed the time where he taked to you and show he had depth. James is not some mindless grunt.

3.ME2 was still a great game.

4. No, he's right. No way would BW do it.

[3DandBeyond]

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...

[/quote]1. Those are stupic complaints...None of them effected the core plot.

2.I guess you missed the time where he taked to you and show he had depth. James is not some mindless grunt.

3.ME2 was still a great game.

4. No, he's right. No way would BW do it.

[/quote]

I liked Vega well enough after awhile but he was not needed.  He is very much there for non-game reasons.  I think he's there as a replacement for Jacob and diversity and so is Steve.  I think his appearance is an appeal to a different sort of balance that you just love to talk about.  He's the counter to the bimbotastic appearance of Ashley.  Her "uniform" makes it look like she's wearing silk stockings and garter belts.  Her lips have been botoxed and she says the stupidest things to Shepard at first.  Right off the bat it is cringe-worthy.  "Sorry for keeping you out of the loop"-yeah ok, go away.  Create a truly ugly female Shepard and play that scene and just look at the way they portray Ashley-she looks like she wants to rip Shepard's clothes off.  My family and I were laughing hysterically at this when I played it with Ugly FemShep.

James is a counter to that.  But he's not even a serious teammate.  He's a buddy, but Shepard already had buddies that mattered.

As for whether or not they'd kill off Shepard-they did consider it for ME1 before 2, for ME2 before 3, and damned if they didn't finally do it.  Because they totally understood that fans would miss Shepard as the hero, they decided to burn him/her alive, electrocute him/her to death, or leave him/her gasping covered in rubble.  But then you think that's balance.

[KaeserZen]

In my mind, they opened up way too many themes and placed them as central.

For example, the genophage issue was a side theme that fleshed out the galaxy, but then somehow became a key to defeating the Reapers, only because the writers wanted it to mean more.
Same for Miranda's father, etc.

All of this diverted the bulk of the writing energy away from fleshing out the main plot line of the series, which is "ermagerd, alienz wiz lazorz is comin' at uz !".
With all due respect to the writers of these themes, which I find have made a hell of a good job, they should never have been central to the storyline.

Let's take a look at the Collectors as well, for example. They are related to the Reapers, but they are not the Reapers. And their actions are not even key to the Reapers' return, as indicated by Arrival. The way they are presented in ME2 is great material for a DLC, but not for a main plot.

They could have been greatly used as a red herring to distract Shepard from the Reapers' arrival preparations, but even that was not put forward in ME2. How great would it have been if Shepdoo realized towards the end that he'd been fighting the wrong enemy, and that the Reapers would arrive anyways, and he had to rush to the events of Arrival.

Once again, the wrong turn in story design imho was taken in ME2, when the side plots became central through being forced to complete recruitment and loyalty missions to unlock the main missions concerning the collectors. It gives way too much importance to the characters and distract from the real main plot : The Reapers are coming.

Disclaimer : I enjoyed ME2 as a game, but I feel it was a self contained experience, only lightly related to ME1.

[JamesFaith]

Redbelle wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

*snip*

2. Control panel in Citadel tower

This area was directly hitted by huge fragment of Sovereign in ME1. Even if panel wasn't completely destroyed, it would be repaired by Council and surely extremely secured against unauthorised persons. Breaking code should again need more time that Reapers had before Priority:Earth.

But like everything other it is only my theory based on logic assumptions and info from previous games.

Despite not being responsive to the Reaper signal anymore the keepers still go about their organised tasks of making the citadel comfortable for it's inhabitants, as per the Reaper design. Therefore, as their selfless acts are designed to make it easy for a Reaper invasion, I have to conclude that the Keepers would have repaired that panel

Yes, they probably repaired it, but only its "hardware".  Prothean sabotage proved that Keepers didnť repaired "software" in damaged systems. So if control panel was restored and Council encrypted it - most probable is that you would need all Council members to activate it (codes + biometric) - Keepers will not restore original programming.

And by this we again returned to my previous theory - Reapers haven't enough time to broke code, before allied fleet arrived to Earth.

Modifié par JamesFaith, 11 octobre 2012 - 02:39 .

[dreman9999]

@3DandBeyond 

You can say that all the Team members of your squad are not needed. Heck, if Garrus Died there is not even a hitch to the games story at all.

The point of putting in character is to see them develop and there point of view...Not to havethem be significate to the plot. If that was the case then Garrus and tali would have not point to be on the crew in ME1.

Modifié par dreman9999, 11 octobre 2012 - 02:36 .

[dreman9999]

KaeserZen wrote...

In my mind, they opened up way too many themes and placed them as central.

For example, the genophage issue was a side theme that fleshed out the galaxy, but then somehow became a key to defeating the Reapers, only because the writers wanted it to mean more.
Same for Miranda's father, etc.

All of this diverted the bulk of the writing energy away from fleshing out the main plot line of the series, which is "ermagerd, alienz wiz lazorz is comin' at uz !".
With all due respect to the writers of these themes, which I find have made a hell of a good job, they should never have been central to the storyline.

Let's take a look at the Collectors as well, for example. They are related to the Reapers, but they are not the Reapers. And their actions are not even key to the Reapers' return, as indicated by Arrival. The way they are presented in ME2 is great material for a DLC, but not for a main plot.

They could have been greatly used as a red herring to distract Shepard from the Reapers' arrival preparations, but even that was not put forward in ME2. How great would it have been if Shepdoo realized towards the end that he'd been fighting the wrong enemy, and that the Reapers would arrive anyways, and he had to rush to the events of Arrival.

Once again, the wrong turn in story design imho was taken in ME2, when the side plots became central through being forced to complete recruitment and loyalty missions to unlock the main missions concerning the collectors. It gives way too much importance to the characters and distract from the real main plot : The Reapers are coming.

Disclaimer : I enjoyed ME2 as a game, but I feel it was a self contained experience, only lightly related to ME1.

There generally 4 themes in ME as a series.

The morality of freedom vs control
The morality of advancement.
The morality of ends vs means.
the issue of organic vs synthetic.

[Podge 90]

dreman9999 wrote...

@3DandBeyond 

You can say that all the Team members of your squad are not needed. Heck, if Garrus Died there is not even a hitch to the games story at all.

The point of putting in character is to see them develop and there point of view...Not to havethem be significate to the plot. If that was the case then Garrus and tali would have not point to be on the crew in ME1.

It's no surprise that you missed the point.

Taking your two examples, Garrus and Tali became influential personalities in their own population.  They are established characters not only to Shepard, but the species that they represent.  Vega is nothing but a grunt who tells you he might go for N7 training at some point. He is superfluous. But most likely you'll ignore that and come back with an even more ignorant reply....

Modifié par Podge 90, 11 octobre 2012 - 02:51 .

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

@3DandBeyond 

You can say that all the Team members of your squad are not needed. Heck, if Garrus Died there is not even a hitch to the games story at all.

The point of putting in character is to see them develop and there point of view...Not to havethem be significate to the plot. If that was the case then Garrus and tali would have not point to be on the crew in ME1.

Uh you do understand you are contradicting yourself right?  Seeing characters develop and understanding their POV is significant to a plot especially when a story is character driven as is ME.  If they were not important to the plot then they would have no role in it.

I think one of the real problems with the game is that there's too many characters that are throw aways and that don't matter when they do factor into the plot heavily.  BW decided to go all mental and got paranoid about not wanting to be accused of creating canon things in the game, so some characters that die are replaced by others or just left out and it doesn't change the game, but it should.  Just as Wrex/Wreav do have an impact, there should be more consequences for doing different things. 

That's the reason EMS exists, in order to avoid canon or decisions with real consequences.  Almost all EMS is offset by some other loss or gain and it's plain stupid.  It makes the game wishy washy and ME2 was not like that.  The loyalty missions specifically had consequences in many ways.  You could do a good thing and lose the loyalty, do a bad thing and gain it, or work to be able to do a good thing and gain loyalty.  It worked far better than EMS.

[dreman9999]

Podge 90 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

@3DandBeyond 

You can say that all the Team members of your squad are not needed. Heck, if Garrus Died there is not even a hitch to the games story at all.

The point of putting in character is to see them develop and there point of view...Not to havethem be significate to the plot. If that was the case then Garrus and tali would have not point to be on the crew in ME1.

It's no surprise that you missed the point.

Taking your two examples, Garrus and Tali became influential personalities in their own population.  They are established characters not only to Shepard, but the species that they represent.  Vega is nothing but a grunt who tells you he might go for N7 training at some point. He is superfluous. But most likely you'll ignore that and come back with an even more ignorant reply....

Garrus does not change the plot atall if he is alive or dead. He may be astablished but he has no major role on the ship. Tali may change the plot on rennoch if she is alive but after rannoch she has little to no influence to the plot. She does not ned to be on the ship after rennoch. Which is my point.

As squad member, any one ofthe character has little influnce on the plot...Every one of them. 

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

@3DandBeyond 

You can say that all the Team members of your squad are not needed. Heck, if Garrus Died there is not even a hitch to the games story at all.

The point of putting in character is to see them develop and there point of view...Not to havethem be significate to the plot. If that was the case then Garrus and tali would have not point to be on the crew in ME1.

Uh you do understand you are contradicting yourself right?  Seeing characters develop and understanding their POV is significant to a plot especially when a story is character driven as is ME.  If they were not important to the plot then they would have no role in it.

I think one of the real problems with the game is that there's too many characters that are throw aways and that don't matter when they do factor into the plot heavily.  BW decided to go all mental and got paranoid about not wanting to be accused of creating canon things in the game, so some characters that die are replaced by others or just left out and it doesn't change the game, but it should.  Just as Wrex/Wreav do have an impact, there should be more consequences for doing different things. 

That's the reason EMS exists, in order to avoid canon or decisions with real consequences.  Almost all EMS is offset by some other loss or gain and it's plain stupid.  It makes the game wishy washy and ME2 was not like that.  The loyalty missions specifically had consequences in many ways.  You could do a good thing and lose the loyalty, do a bad thing and gain it, or work to be able to do a good thing and gain loyalty.  It worked far better than EMS.

Not really. Seeing the character develop develops your relationship with that character...But it does not develop the plot outside of wanting that character to live or not.

A squad mate they don't have dramatic influences on to the plot. If Garrus dies, there is nothing lost out side of a great character. The same can be said for all your squad. Only Tali has influence on the story on hand but that's only on rennoch....After that she has no influence on the plot.

Also, ems does not make the game whishy washy. In war, value are placed on things to how they relate to the war. The thing you miss was the general question ME as a series asked....what are you willing to do to stop an unstopable force. You have more then one why to do that. YOu missing that fact there is more then one way to get to your goal.

Modifié par dreman9999, 11 octobre 2012 - 03:01 .

[Podge 90]

dreman9999 wrote...

Podge 90 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

@3DandBeyond 

You can say that all the Team members of your squad are not needed. Heck, if Garrus Died there is not even a hitch to the games story at all.

The point of putting in character is to see them develop and there point of view...Not to havethem be significate to the plot. If that was the case then Garrus and tali would have not point to be on the crew in ME1.

It's no surprise that you missed the point.

Taking your two examples, Garrus and Tali became influential personalities in their own population.  They are established characters not only to Shepard, but the species that they represent.  Vega is nothing but a grunt who tells you he might go for N7 training at some point. He is superfluous. But most likely you'll ignore that and come back with an even more ignorant reply....

Garrus does not change the plot atall if he is alive or dead. He may be astablished but he has no major role on the ship. Tali may change the plot on rennoch if she is alive but after rannoch she has little to no influence to the plot. She does not ned to be on the ship after rennoch. Which is my point.

As squad member, any one ofthe character has little influnce on the plot...Every one of them. 

Yep, you are spectacularly missing the point.

Podge 90 wrote...
But most likely you'll ignore that and come back with an even more ignorant reply....

Very predictable you are.

[dreman9999]

Podge 90 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Podge 90 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

@3DandBeyond 

You can say that all the Team members of your squad are not needed. Heck, if Garrus Died there is not even a hitch to the games story at all.

The point of putting in character is to see them develop and there point of view...Not to havethem be significate to the plot. If that was the case then Garrus and tali would have not point to be on the crew in ME1.

It's no surprise that you missed the point.

Taking your two examples, Garrus and Tali became influential personalities in their own population.  They are established characters not only to Shepard, but the species that they represent.  Vega is nothing but a grunt who tells you he might go for N7 training at some point. He is superfluous. But most likely you'll ignore that and come back with an even more ignorant reply....

Garrus does not change the plot atall if he is alive or dead. He may be astablished but he has no major role on the ship. Tali may change the plot on rennoch if she is alive but after rannoch she has little to no influence to the plot. She does not ned to be on the ship after rennoch. Which is my point.

As squad member, any one ofthe character has little influnce on the plot...Every one of them. 

Yep, you are spectacularly missing the point.

Podge 90 wrote...
But most likely you'll ignore that and come back with an even more ignorant reply....

Very predictable you are.

No I have not...Tell me if Garrus dies...What is lost?

[Podge 90]

Tell me, where I said characters affect the plot?

The point is here [ ] and you're over.......................................here [ ]

[dreman9999]

Podge 90 wrote...

Tell me, where I said characters affect the plot?

The point is here [ ] and you're over.......................................here [ ]

But that my stating point before you came into the arguement.
Added, them being astablish character is not enough to justify them being on the ship over others.  
Your point is that they are astablish thus they have a reason to be there..
My point is that being astablish is not enough to say they should be there over other characters. It just saying they are there just because.

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...
There generally 4 themes in ME as a series.

The morality of freedom vs control
The morality of advancement.
The morality of ends vs means.
the issue of organic vs synthetic.

You are taking them out of context.  The organic vs synthetic theme is always a solved issue within ME and so it is not a main theme-it's like an overblown side mission.  The ends vs the means is only paragon vs. renegade and every story has that as an element-it adds to the conflict.  It's always this in almost every story because it's about solving a problem, meeting a goal and how the protagonist does this.  It's not a main theme, it is a story element. 

The validity of advancement is a theme, but it's abandoned as a concern at the end-to make a choice you basically have to not care about it because you are denying it's relevance.  Every rational person along the way stated that advancement had problems-and it wasn't its morality.  It was its effects.  It isn't that it's immoral to advance people, it's that it harms them in unforseeable ways.  It's not immoral to give a family with a kid marbles to play with.  It's harmful to do it if the kid is not of an age to be playing with marbles or if the kid just likes to throw things.  If you don't know this will happen you should not give the family marbles for their kid.

This is the thing about advancement.  You don't know what effects it will have.  You may be doing it to even help people, so you aren't being immoral.  You are being stupid.  That's what happened to the Krogan.  They were advanced to solve a problem.  But, the advancement they were given was something they were not ready for.  They got bored and fought and they bred.  The morality of it comes into question in deciding to try to put the genie back in the bottle by stopping them from breeding.

Then there's freedom vs. control.  No this was not a recurrent theme because it was also a rejected idea.  Even TIM rejected it for Shepard.  He didn't want to control Shepard because he wanted Shepard to be Shepard.  It wasn't about freedom so much as it was about remaining true to oneself.  Control was seen as changing the person, not taking freedom away per se, but it made people react and be different.  That's what indoctrination (extreme control) did.  People were changed and ultimately died because of control.  They all reached a state, a point where the dichotomy was too great to ignore and overcome.  Benezia was fighting control because it had changed her-she became herself again before dying.  Saren is actually seen to be figthing it-he had some actually good motives at one time perhaps but indoctrination had changed him.  At last the division within him of who he was and who he had become was too great-he has realization at last and so he kills himself.  TIM is kind of the same but he takes more convincing.  He does have this realization too but he may force you to kill him.  It isn't about freedom-it's about people being themselves.  Under control, they are not.

The themes that most often resonate are unity, diversity, self-determination and autonomy (there's your freedom), and redemption.  These are the parts of this character-driven story.  And in such stories, heroes must be bigger than life and so must the bad guys-the reapers were, until the kid got a hold of them.