426 réponses à ce sujet

[FROST4584]

Autoclave wrote...

The only meaningful storywise game was Mass Effect 1. Everything that cam after it was full of plot holes and just big utter nin-sense. You dont kill the main protagonist at the beginning of a story to ressurect him 5 minutes later. What happened to reaper motivation for destroying organic life that was beyond our comprehension? People turning into goo to make ... A human reaper?

The series was completely destroyed with ME2. After it ME franchise was only able to provide interesting individual team members, races plots. But anything related directly to reapers was complete crap.

ME 3 is just the radioactive fallout left after the nuclear annihilation that ME 2 was. There is nothing to salvage here, no redeeming values. The Reaper plot is the biggest failure in the last 2 decades of gaming story telling.

I agree. ME2 and ME3 didn't live up to ME1 at all, for me at least. They are good games, but not in the same ballpark as ME1.

[fr33stylez]

klarabella wrote...
The leads we had on the Reapers at the end of ME1:
- the Citadel and the relay network
- bits and pieces of Sovereign all over the Citadel
- a Prothean data file that does something to the Citadel controls
- the Keepers
- the cipher in Shepard's (Liara's, Shiala's) brain
- Ilos (including at least Vigil and the Conduit)

What ME2 followed up on:


What ME2 changed in order to make not following up on any leads of ME1 plausible:
- the Council suddenly thinking that giant space squid that caused so much death and destruction was geth
- Vigil non-functional
- Shepard died but got better

What ME2 introduced instead:
- the Collectors
- the derelict Reaper
- the Reaper IFF

Yep. What this cycle had going for it is that it was the first cycle in galactic history to change the course of the cycle. THIS should have been a major point in BOTH ME2 and ME3 - but wasn't. Instead the Collector's distraction which has no bearing on the conflict at hand becomes the focus.

Why were they building a Human-Reaper for 2 years?
What good would it have done when the Reapers would arrive before it's completed?

These questions are never answered and are swept under the rug because you kill the Baby Reaper anyways, end of story. No strategy developed on how to beat the Reapers. Council Amnesia. Resurrection from the dead. Arrival DLC. 

I and many others had these complaints back in 2010, so we can't try to pawn this off on ME3. Granted, ME3 has it's share of problems with narrative consistently and overall for me is probably worse when you take the endings in account. But honestly after ME2, I lowered my expectations signifcantly for ME3 (which apparently wasn't low enough).

Modifié par fr33stylez, 25 janvier 2013 - 04:38 .

[Autoclave]

They probably had been pressured by EA to make ME2 look like a stand alone game, thus making it less of a ME1 plot continuation, hence shepard cyber jesus, hence new enemies, hence cerberus.

you cannot repair ME3 without repairing ME2 first. Its impossible. They can keep the plot stories of your team members and other conflicts between milky way species, but they have to rewrite everything related to reapers after ME1. And killing Shepard was stupid.

[Landon7001]

....dumb question, as Mass Effect 2 is my undisputed best game of all time...and YES, I loved Me 1 {ash is my fav character even}

[Dark_Caduceus]

KingZayd wrote...

spirosz wrote...

fainmaca wrote...

My point is, it was up to ME3 to make ALL of the story that had come before matter. That's the point of a conclusion to a story. Themes, choices and characters NEEDED to be kept relevant and brought to a satisfying end-point for it to do its job. Instead, ME3 chose to tell its own story as an entirely independant beast. Previous ideas and plot points were cast aside or neglected in favour of the mission of the day.

^

This.

ME2 was consistent with what came before. ME3 was not. The trilogy is better off without ME3.

While I won't dispute that the trilogy is better off without ME3, I find it rather hard to believe someone actually thinks ME1 and ME2 are consistent. ME2 retcons ME1 within 5 minutes with thermal clips.

[NovaBlastMarketing]

 No other than  the  the great improvement  to <3 Ashley's  apreance  ( ** i think she looked awsome in me1 ** ) except for that  bulky armor.

but <3<3 WOW<3<3 they made  her even hotter with her makeover and her new variouse outfits are HUGE improvement  (red one is my fav)  that is one of the only things they got right  with ME3 other than that

 I think the serise would have been better off without ME3  perosnaly  .

I enjoyed Me2  infinately more than ME3.

ME3  had servral flaws as i point out in my review  but the ending of ME3 actaully put a stain on the entire franchise

Modifié par NovaBlastMarketing, 25 janvier 2013 - 10:48 .

[wright1978]

fr33stylez wrote...

Why were they building a Human-Reaper for 2 years?
What good would it have done when the Reapers would arrive before it's completed?

These questions are never answered and are swept under the rug because you kill the Baby Reaper anyways, end of story. No strategy developed on how to beat the Reapers. Council Amnesia. Resurrection from the dead. Arrival DLC. 

The question is why ME3 completely drops this thread, not with ME2 for introducing it.

[Dean_the_Young]

wright1978 wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

Why were they building a Human-Reaper for 2 years?
What good would it have done when the Reapers would arrive before it's completed?

These questions are never answered and are swept under the rug because you kill the Baby Reaper anyways, end of story. No strategy developed on how to beat the Reapers. Council Amnesia. Resurrection from the dead. Arrival DLC. 

The question is why ME3 completely drops this thread, not with ME2 for introducing it.

Why should it fall on ME3 to explain why ME2's plot is retroactively relevant?

[wright1978]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

Why were they building a Human-Reaper for 2 years?
What good would it have done when the Reapers would arrive before it's completed?

These questions are never answered and are swept under the rug because you kill the Baby Reaper anyways, end of story. No strategy developed on how to beat the Reapers. Council Amnesia. Resurrection from the dead. Arrival DLC. 

The question is why ME3 completely drops this thread, not with ME2 for introducing it.

Why should it fall on ME3 to explain why ME2's plot is retroactively relevant?

It should fall on ME3 to carry forward Me2's plot.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

BringBackNihlus wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Except that whole ditching of every important plot point of the Reapers. You know, the important things.

While ME2 may not have been the best continuation, it at least never smacked off "No, to hell with what you learned earlier. THIS is how it is now and this is how it will be. To hell with those writers from ME1."

"May not have the best continuation?" What continuation? There isn't any. Other than BioWare acknowledging the existence of the Reapers - which kind of surprises me that they even bothered to do that - there is literally nothing written in Mass Effect 2's main plot that continues the events of Mass Effect. Nothing. As far as I'm concerned, Mass Effect 2 feels like a reboot of the series, and there's no way I'm going to call it a "trilogy" if I feel like that. Mass Effect 2's writing is how you end up with lame, contrived plot devices like the Crucible.

All three games feel independent of each other, though this is no fault of the original. Mass Effect 2 set off this chain of events.

I started with ME2 and I didn't even understand what a Reaper was until my 3rd time playing it.

There was a Codex entry on it, but that only left me more confused (by calling them a myth).

[Ticonderoga117]

BringBackNihlus wrote...
"May not have the best continuation?" What continuation? There isn't any. Other than BioWare acknowledging the existence of the Reapers - which kind of surprises me that they even bothered to do that - there is literally nothing written in Mass Effect 2's main plot that continues the events of Mass Effect. Nothing. As far as I'm concerned, Mass Effect 2 feels like a reboot of the series, and there's no way I'm going to call it a "trilogy" if I feel like that. Mass Effect 2's writing is how you end up with lame, contrived plot devices like the Crucible.

All three games feel independent of each other, though this is no fault of the original. Mass Effect 2 set off this chain of events.

Stopping the Collector's as they are acting as the Reaper's proxies. Were you expecting the giant space squids to leave behind a giant weapon that could kill them in a very close by planet?

Some aspects could've been better, like when dealing with the council, and thermal clips suck, but it led decently towards a "Unite the Galaxy and kick Reaper butt in ME3" plotline.

[Ticonderoga117]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
I started with ME2 and I didn't even understand what a Reaper was until my 3rd time playing it.

There was a Codex entry on it, but that only left me more confused (by calling them a myth).

Well... yeah. That's what happens when you skip the introduction. I wouldn't expect to know what's going on in the second LOTR movie since I fell asleep during the first one.

[Dean_the_Young]

wright1978 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

Why were they building a Human-Reaper for 2 years?
What good would it have done when the Reapers would arrive before it's completed?

These questions are never answered and are swept under the rug because you kill the Baby Reaper anyways, end of story. No strategy developed on how to beat the Reapers. Council Amnesia. Resurrection from the dead. Arrival DLC. 

The question is why ME3 completely drops this thread, not with ME2 for introducing it.

Why should it fall on ME3 to explain why ME2's plot is retroactively relevant?

It should fall on ME3 to carry forward Me2's plot.

ME2's plot resolved itself: it just never raised why it was an important plot, nor did it set appropriate ground work for how it could be carried forward. It never raised a reliable means for advancing a means to defeat the Reapers, it never initiated a context to bring the galaxy together, and it never delivered a convincing rational for the Collectors before it killed them, at which point it was irrelevant because they were stopped.

Before ME3 can carry forward ME2's plot, ME2 has to provide a plot to actually carry. Where it did, ME3 did: the Rannoch and Genophage arcs. But they clearly had no clue what the Collector Base was going to do if you kept it, let alone if you destroyed it, and that's a forward planning that ultimately needs to be done by the game presenting its own plot elements.

[Ticonderoga117]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
ME2's plot resolved itself: it just never raised why it was an important plot, nor did it set appropriate ground work for how it could be carried forward. It never raised a reliable means for advancing a means to defeat the Reapers, it never initiated a context to bring the galaxy together, and it never delivered a convincing rational for the Collectors before it killed them, at which point it was irrelevant because they were stopped.

Before ME3 can carry forward ME2's plot, ME2 has to provide a plot to actually carry. Where it did, ME3 did: the Rannoch and Genophage arcs. But they clearly had no clue what the Collector Base was going to do if you kept it, let alone if you destroyed it, and that's a forward planning that ultimately needs to be done by the game presenting its own plot elements.

This is wrong. Beating the Reapers? Well let's see, we have the option to keep the Collector Base, or the giant starhip graveyard to plunder tech from, or that data we get either way after the Suicide Mission. All possible ways to introduce some tech that'll give us a leg up.

To uniting the galaxy, everyone single one of your crew is either an important person in regards to thier affiliation, or are badass operational assets that can help in other aspects.

ME3 dropped these balls so hard they exploded.

[wright1978]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

ME2's plot resolved itself: it just never raised why it was an important plot, nor did it set appropriate ground work for how it could be carried forward. It never raised a reliable means for advancing a means to defeat the Reapers, it never initiated a context to bring the galaxy together, and it never delivered a convincing rational for the Collectors before it killed them, at which point it was irrelevant because they were stopped.

Before ME3 can carry forward ME2's plot, ME2 has to provide a plot to actually carry. Where it did, ME3 did: the Rannoch and Genophage arcs. But they clearly had no clue what the Collector Base was going to do if you kept it, let alone if you destroyed it, and that's a forward planning that ultimately needs to be done by the game presenting its own plot elements.

ME3 completely ignores the idea of a human reaper. If it's important enough for them to get their advanced scouts working on starting before their arrival surely they should start to start again on arrival. ME3 completely pretty much ignores the idea of reaping before trying to claim leaving bodies to rot is preserving them.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...
I started with ME2 and I didn't even understand what a Reaper was until my 3rd time playing it.

There was a Codex entry on it, but that only left me more confused (by calling them a myth).

Well... yeah. That's what happens when you skip the introduction. I wouldn't expect to know what's going on in the second LOTR movie since I fell asleep during the first one.

I thought you claimed ME2 did a great job laying the groundwork for how we beat the villains. Now I'm being told it didn't need to tell me who the villains actually are because it's the middle of the series. I have a hard time believing it was a great foundation while barely even identifying the key players in the main plot, so which is it??

I don't remember the LOTR movies (only saw them once and it was long ago) but I'll take Star Wars as an example instead... it doesn't matter where I start watching -- Episode 5, Episode 2 -- there's no confusion who the bad guys are (the Sith).

classic case of hero/villain syndrome. People will make excuses for ME2 all day.

[Ticonderoga117]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
I thought you claimed ME2 did a great job laying the groundwork for how we beat the villains. Now I'm being told it didn't need to tell me who the villains actually are because it's the middle of the series. I have a hard time believing it was a great foundation while barely even identifying the key players in the main plot, so which is it??

I don't remember the LOTR movies (only saw them once and it was long ago) but I'll take Star Wars as an example instead... it doesn't matter where I start watching -- Episode 5, Episode 2 -- there's no confusion who the bad guys are (the Sith).

classic case of hero/villain syndrome. People will make excuses for ME2 all day.

Those are two completely different things. It does setup a way to beat them (Laying the groundwork of a united galaxy). It also tells you who the bad guys are without going into the Codex (See these Collectors? They work for the Reapers. This is bad. Wreck thier ****.)

However, the game doesn't need to go over "What a Reaper is" because they ALREADY did that in ME1.

If I start watching Episode 2, I don't know what's so special about Anakin, or Obi-wan, or why this annoying lizard is involved.

[Dean_the_Young]

wright1978 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

ME2's plot resolved itself: it just never raised why it was an important plot, nor did it set appropriate ground work for how it could be carried forward. It never raised a reliable means for advancing a means to defeat the Reapers, it never initiated a context to bring the galaxy together, and it never delivered a convincing rational for the Collectors before it killed them, at which point it was irrelevant because they were stopped.

Before ME3 can carry forward ME2's plot, ME2 has to provide a plot to actually carry. Where it did, ME3 did: the Rannoch and Genophage arcs. But they clearly had no clue what the Collector Base was going to do if you kept it, let alone if you destroyed it, and that's a forward planning that ultimately needs to be done by the game presenting its own plot elements.

ME3 completely ignores the idea of a human reaper.

It doesn't: that species are turned into Reapers is acknowledged at various points in the game, explicitly in the codex describing the Reapers themselves, and that the Reapers are bothering to harvest us rather than wipe us out is the entire basis of the Reaper strategy.

If it's important enough for them to get their advanced scouts working on starting before their arrival surely they should start to start again on arrival.

Which they do. It's not just resigned to the Codex either, but also referenced by the Prothean VI (the Reapers are preparing to finish the harvest of Humans) and in discussions with EDI (about the slaughtership prisoners).

ME3 completely pretty much ignores the idea of reaping before trying to claim leaving bodies to rot is preserving them.

If you ignore when they don't, sure. Even if you don't, ME2 never raised it as a plot thread, only as a big reveal about their nature: the Reapers make more of themselves from each cycle they destroy. That was certainly new information, but ME2 never set up a reason as to why the Collectors would start before the Arrival, and making itself relevant on its own grouds is really something ME2 needs to do be able to do on its own.

[Bizantura]

In the end Bioware's bite seems to be bigger then they could chew. I think constraints from all platforms has I huge say in it too. I play on pc so it doesn't matter how big or small a game is but it is not so for consoles apparently. Making a consistenly trilogy story wise that also has to be playable as a single game is a massive undertaking. I think a too massivly undertaking for the hardware curently at our disposal or widely in use by the public who play the games.

With that in mind I do think they did there best nevertheless I detest the ending and the introduction of spacebaby the last ten minutes of the game. Maybe they would of added bigger parts for the npc's from ME2 without the hardware constraints, maybe the story would be worked out better and dieper but the contraints.....

All in all I am curious if they will make trilogy's like this again? I don't doubt the story's will loosly connect but a real follow up I somewhat doubt it, too many constraints.

[Seboist]

Removing ME2 out of the picture would also get rid of the plot hole of the Collectors not helping Saren and co in ME1(which was far more important than anything they were doing in 2). Those seeker swarm, Occuli and extra ship would have been useful.

[nos_astra]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...
This is wrong. Beating the Reapers? Well let's see, we have the option to keep the Collector Base, or the giant starhip graveyard to plunder tech from, or that data we get either way after the Suicide Mission. All possible ways to introduce some tech that'll give us a leg up.

It's not ME3's job to retroactively give ME2 a point. 

By the end of ME1 we knew that the Reapers were out there, trying to reach the galaxy. They were a destructive force that used the Citadel and the relay network as a trap for a surprise decapitation strike. In one fell swoop they removed the galaxy's government and disabled any means of travel or communication between star systems. We knew that the Citadel was itself a mass relay and controlling the relay network. We knew that the Keepers were the Citadel's caretakers and had the means to study them more closely. We knew about Ilos where a bunch of Prothean scientists managed to actually survive the Reaper invasion (!) in stasis pods for hundreds of years, built their own mass relay, hooked it into the network (!) and wrote a program to override the Citadel's security protocols. We were also informed that the Reapers use the Citadels records to find the homeworlds and colonies.

I don't know about you but to me that sounds like pretty damn solid information and gives me several options to effectively prepare for the invasion: Use the research of the Protheans and Chorban to understand the Citadel and the keepers. Remove the galactic seat from the Citadel. Remove all records from the Citadel. Fortify the Citadel if possible. Gain control of the relay network (even if it's only partly). Create farms of stasis pods where people could possibly survive for centuries.

By the end of ME2 all of this is ignored and instead replaced with the Collector base. Which will provide Reaper tech.
What sort of tech? *shrug* What exactly could we use this for? *shrug* We now knew the Reapers harvest to reproduce and were witnesses as to how this happens. How might this information useful? *shrug*

ME1 gave itself a point and can solidly stand on its own. 
ME2 ignored what was the point of ME1 and refused to have one on its own.

To uniting the galaxy, everyone single one of your crew is either an important person in regards to thier affiliation, or are badass operational assets that can help in other aspects.

Most of my ME2 members are nobodys. A galaxy is just huge. There are way too many individuals for your squad of random 12 mercs to be considered remotely important enough to achieve something ... or badass enough to be irreplaceable assets. Short of silly comic book logic, of course.

Modifié par klarabella, 26 janvier 2013 - 12:29 .

[force_echo]

justafan wrote...
2.  The catalyst's logic is more sound:  The original endings were hated mostly because they contained glaring plot holes and inconsistencies.  For one, the catalyst proclaims that "the created will always destroy their creators".  A lot of longtime fans took issue with this because Rannoch allows us to lay the framework for peace between organics and synthetics, in clear contradiction with the catalyst's asserion.  Without ME2, peace would be impossible, and the conflict between organic and synthetic can not be solved.  Furthermore, with the Geth VI, the Geth in general remain unsympathetic, much in line with their ME1 presentation.  Without Legion, the Geth remain genocidal machines in the player's eyes and are consistent with their original purpose as evil enemies.  In this way, not only are the endings improved, but the contrivances of the Rannoch arch make a lot more sense as well.

3.  Cerberus:  In ME1, Cerberus was a rogue black ops organization we knew little about.  In ME3, they were the second coming of the Sith Empire.  In ME2, they were a borderline terrorist organization that had noble goals but little in the way of morality, we got to know them better as well as get a general picture of their numbers and resources.  ME3 blew of the morally gray portrayal of Cerberus in favor of a large villanous force.  While it may not necessarily make more sense for them to go from ME1 Evil black ops to ME3 Evil Empire, it is easier for me to stomach than ME2 somewhat sympathetic gray to ME3 Evil Empire.

4.  ME2 didn't have much impact on ME3 anyways:  Consider this, the only squadmates to return from ME2 were already in ME1.  The most far reaching decisions in the game were made almost entirely in ME1, such as the fate of the original council, Whether Wrex survived to save the council, and the fate of the Rachni Queen.  The ME2 missions really only mattered in side missions if at all, and you get a few surviving secondary characters.  The only ME2 missions that would matter are the ones in regards to the Genophage arch, as Mordin and Maelon's data play an important role there.  Not even Rannoch would be an issue, since as mentioned above, the Geth would have retained their ME1 persona, making the conflict logical.

Most of this is just plain wrong.

2. That's the whole point. The Reapers are logical machines. They use the scientific method. Using a sample data size, they have determined that no matter what happens, synthetic and organic continue to war. They didn't anticipate this cycle, the Starchild says as much himself. They couldn't come to grips witht he fact that organic beings, especially humans are so psychologically malleable. 

3. The growth in size is explained by the use of indoctrination technology. Also, Cerberus is still in the gray area, some players still think the Control option is the best option, that the Illusive Man was right all along. Now the question is would the ends have justified the means?

4. This is just plain wrong? No squadmates from ME2? All of your squadmates from ME2 return. Also, the biggest choice as far as impact on ME3 goes is the decision to destroy or save the Collector Base from ME2. So, yes, your ME2 choices do matter. A lot.

[Kabooooom]

3. Cerberus: In ME1, Cerberus was a rogue black ops organization we knew little about. In ME3, they were the second coming of the Sith Empire. In ME2, they were a borderline terrorist organization that had noble goals but little in the way of morality, we got to know them better as well as get a general picture of their numbers and resources. ME3 blew of the morally gray portrayal of Cerberus in favor of a large villanous force. While it may not necessarily make more sense for them to go from ME1 Evil black ops to ME3 Evil Empire, it is easier for me to stomach than ME2 somewhat sympathetic gray to ME3 Evil Empire.

Without reading the books, Cerberus in ME3 is a giant WTF - and that is no excuse on Bioware's behalf, they shouldn't have to rely on alternative media to tell a story in a game - didn't think I had to clarify but one time this moron flamed me here because they thought I was defending Bioware's ****ty writing.

Basically, between the end of ME2 and ME3 the Alliance virtually wipes out Cerberus - every major base is destroyed and TIM himself is nearly killed, narrowly escaping with his life. Now, they know the Reaper invasion is imminent and they have access to the Collector Base/remains and the Omega-4 relay. There is only one way to survive the coming invasion - they begin recruiting or kidnapping large numbers of people, ironically similar to the Collectors, and implanting them with Reaper tech to create a rapid army on demand. This played directly into the Reaper's hands, and one could even argue in favor of indoctrination prior to this since they directly opposed the Alliance every step of the way in ME3.

So that's basically it, the story outside of the games set them up to either become the Sith empire in ME3 or become eradicated. Bioware chose the sith route, since that keeps them in the story. Hope that helped elucidate the Cerberus backstory a little.

[nos_astra]

The Sith route doesn't really explain where the ressources came from. I mean who build the ships? Weapons? Armors? All within 6 months? On a huge scale! And who the hell paid for this?