KingZayd wrote...
But it really is.
Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 26 janvier 2013 - 02:53 .
Wow. That's rather extreme.The Night Mammoth wrote...
KingZayd wrote...
The Night Mammoth wrote...
KingZayd wrote...
The Night Mammoth wrote...
ThePhoenixKing wrote...
Cutting out ME2 and leaving ME3 is like amputating the healthy parts of an injured limb and leaving the rotting, gangrenous parts in place instead. Why would you ever consider doing it?
I wouldn't call ME2 healthy, in this context.
much healthier than ME3.
In this context, not really.
But it really is.
ME2 is no more narratively coherent with its predecessor than ME3 is.
Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...
KevShep wrote...
Actually the main writer(Drew K) had an overall plan that went from ME1 to ME2 and then BioWare abandaned his story in ME3 when he left for SWTOR.
Drew had showed everyone what he wanted to do with the story that Bioware canned after ME3 release. The story was the Dark Energy Plot.
And let's thank the Eight that never came to fruition.
Fifmut wrote...
I think the trilogy is better off without ME3.
KevShep wrote...
The current ending of ME3 was WAY worse then the dark energy plot. Keep in mind that Drew is the one doing the writing...It WOULD have been good.
Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...
KevShep wrote...
The current ending of ME3 was WAY worse then the dark energy plot. Keep in mind that Drew is the one doing the writing...It WOULD have been good.
The logic of the DE plot was just as bad, if not worse, than that of the current ending. To rehash the hackneyed "Yo Dawg" quip: "Yo dawg, we don't want you to produce Dark Energy, so here are some machines that produce Dark Energy so we can stop you from producing Dark Energy." The conceptual excecution is similar, in that Shepard meets with the collective embodiment of the Reapers, learns that the Reapers aren't really the Bad Guys, and is presented with a galaxy altering choice. The choice? Either allow some sort of super-Reaper to be created out of Humans, because raisins, or bank on Cerberus scientists and hope they fix the mess. That is in no way better than what we have now.
Kill the Reapers and pray you can solve the problem before everyone diesModifié par Belisarius25, 26 janvier 2013 - 03:06 .
Belisarius25 wrote...
*snip*
Not really.
It lays the groundwork for Rannoch if you play your ME2 cards right (which ME3 follows up on), and Tuchanka (which ME3 follows up on). That's about it.
Your only connection with the Turians is Garrus, and his importance to the Turians comes offscreen and after ME2 and is due to his Reaper-fighting expertise which occurred in ME1. Neither Samara nor Morinth offer anything for the Asari. Mordin (due to his evolving views on the genophage) isn't influencing the Salarian government or STG. None of the secondary races (Batarians, Volus, Elcor, etc.) are worked with at all and ME3 does a lot of work to finish the storylines too.
ME2 could and should have done more to set up the global coalition, but instead did almost nothing beyond the Geth-Quarians (if you did things the 'right' way) and laying the groundwork for the Turian/Krogan/Tuchanka plotline while focusing heavily on the underworld/underside of galactic civilization. It works really well within the game, but it really doesn't do much good for setting up an actual anti-Reaper coalition.
KingZayd wrote...
Wow. That's rather extreme.
I disagree.
Belisarius25 wrote...
Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...
KevShep wrote...
The current ending of ME3 was WAY worse then the dark energy plot. Keep in mind that Drew is the one doing the writing...It WOULD have been good.
The logic of the DE plot was just as bad, if not worse, than that of the current ending. To rehash the hackneyed "Yo Dawg" quip: "Yo dawg, we don't want you to produce Dark Energy, so here are some machines that produce Dark Energy so we can stop you from producing Dark Energy." The conceptual excecution is similar, in that Shepard meets with the collective embodiment of the Reapers, learns that the Reapers aren't really the Bad Guys, and is presented with a galaxy altering choice. The choice? Either allow some sort of super-Reaper to be created out of Humans, because raisins, or bank on Cerberus scientists and hope they fix the mess. That is in no way better than what we have now.
Yeah, that whole
(A) Sacrifice humanity to the Reapers
(
planned ending totally would have gone over well on BSN!
I think people look to the Dark Energy plot favorably because it's "not what we got" and they're trying to latch onto other possibilities. Maybe it could have been rewritten to be better, but it's really not a very good story (and the "bad guys are actually the good guys" twist is pretty lame).
Ticonderoga117 wrote...
And what about Garrus' father?
And I would think an Asari justicar would have some political clout. Not much but something.
I would refute the STG claim since Kirrahe offers you help no matter what.
Now true, it's not perfect, but Shepard is still, considered by most, to be dead. And the secondary races could've been covered in ME3. But oh well.
Doesn't really matter since the writers decided to introduce a cheap plot device.
Modifié par Belisarius25, 26 janvier 2013 - 03:32 .
Belisarius25 wrote...
*snip*
Yeah, i'm not saying ME2 needed to be "fly around to planet X and negotiate a treaty with race Y" or anything - I mean the Geth/Quarian and Tuchanka arcs aren't explicit "YOU ARE FORMING A COALITION" stories, but they serve their purpose well. I just think that side of the story really needed more attention and it makes the opening to ME3 really grating (Reapers are here and every race is doing their own thing and is unprepared; it just makes everyone look stupid).
They're fond of that in the series (I like the games but I have to confess I was expecting a lot fewer things like Shepard dying/Lazarus/Crucible/Catalyst, etc., having started the series only right before ME3 came out.
KevShep wrote...
At least Drew would have had it made sense unlike Casey H. You guys forget that alot.
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.wright1978 wrote...
Dean_the_Young wrote...
Why should it fall on ME3 to explain why ME2's plot is retroactively relevant?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.
It should fall on ME3 to carry forward Me2's plot.
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.
Drew said the exact opposite: that ME2 was largely designed after ME1 was already complete, and that Dark Energy was one of multiple vague ideas.KevShep wrote...
laecraft wrote...
The parts of the trilogy don't go well together. Probably because ME wasn't created as a trilogy in the beginning, but instead the devs invented plot for each game as they went forward. It would've been better to create each game as a stand-alone. Fans would be spared failed expectations.
For example, Shepard dies at the end of ME1. Then ME2 starts with a new hero - Jacob. Who doesn't know much about the Reapers and is more concerned with the immediate threat - Collectors. Then Jacob dies in the suicide mission. Cerberus is destroyed by the turians off-screen. ME3 starts with a new hero - Admiral Hackett (let's face it, there is no way a criminal like Shepard would be put in charge of diplomatic negotiations). The Admiral does everything in his power to stop the Reapers, however all his efforts are in vain, the alien friends ditch the Earth to save themselves, the Reapers win, and the cycle begins anew (let's face it, there could be no other outcome after ME2).
This is what the plot would be like without constant...divine interference. It's a little darker, but makes a little more sense. Reapers' victory is the logical outcome given what we saw in ME1. To prevent that outcome, something radically changing the situation needs to be done before the invasion. But nothing is done. And so we see the Crucible descending on the stage.
Actually the main writer(Drew K) had an overall plan that went from ME1 to ME2 and then BioWare abandaned his story in ME3 when he left for SWTOR.
Drew had showed everyone what he wanted to do with the story that Bioware canned after ME3 release. The story was the Dark Energy Plot.
That's how it feels to me. Dark Energy contradicts ME1, too. In order to stop the dark energy build-up they make sure every cycle has immediate access to fully-developed mass effect technology as soon as they master space flight to a point where they can reach the nearest relay. That's a sure sign ME1 was created as a stand-alone game with a hook for a sequel: Reapers are still out there (though not likely to arrive soon without divine intervention). Somehow they never really knew what to do with that hook.Dean_the_Young wrote...
Drew said the exact opposite: that ME2 was largely designed after ME1 was already complete, and that Dark Energy was one of multiple vague ideas.
Modifié par klarabella, 26 janvier 2013 - 08:53 .
Hell, you don't even need to kill the previous characters and end the series as such: just put their end-game trajectories in such a way to justify an appropriate cameo, and the ME1 and ME2 PCs could return as NPC roles in 3.laecraft wrote...
The parts of the trilogy don't go well together. Probably because ME wasn't created as a trilogy in the beginning, but instead the devs invented plot for each game as they went forward. It would've been better to create each game as a stand-alone. Fans would be spared failed expectations.
For example, Shepard dies at the end of ME1. Then ME2 starts with a new hero - Jacob. Who doesn't know much about the Reapers and is more concerned with the immediate threat - Collectors. Then Jacob dies in the suicide mission. Cerberus is destroyed by the turians off-screen. ME3 starts with a new hero - Admiral Hackett (let's face it, there is no way a criminal like Shepard would be put in charge of diplomatic negotiations). The Admiral does everything in his power to stop the Reapers, however all his efforts are in vain, the alien friends ditch the Earth to save themselves, the Reapers win, and the cycle begins anew (let's face it, there could be no other outcome after ME2).
This is what the plot would be like without constant...divine interference. It's a little darker, but makes a little more sense. Reapers' victory is the logical outcome given what we saw in ME1. To prevent that outcome, something radically changing the situation needs to be done before the invasion. But nothing is done. And so we see the Crucible descending on the stage.
Drew's proposal wasn't even that dignified: it would have been more like 'Yo dawg, the galaxy is dying from Dark Energy and only Human slushies can maybe stop it.'Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...
KevShep wrote...
The current ending of ME3 was WAY worse then the dark energy plot. Keep in mind that Drew is the one doing the writing...It WOULD have been good.
The logic of the DE plot was just as bad, if not worse, than that of the current ending. To rehash the hackneyed "Yo Dawg" quip: "Yo dawg, we don't want you to produce Dark Energy, so here are some machines that produce Dark Energy so we can stop you from producing Dark Energy." The conceptual excecution is similar, in that Shepard meets with the collective embodiment of the Reapers, learns that the Reapers aren't really the Bad Guys, and is presented with a galaxy altering choice. The choice? Either allow some sort of super-Reaper to be created out of Humans, because raisins, or bank on Cerberus scientists and hope they fix the mess. That is in no way better than what we have now.
Modifié par klarabella, 26 janvier 2013 - 09:17 .
That's not a contradiction as such, and can pretty easily be explained in the setup of the presentation. So long as Mass Relays and current Mass Effect tech are more efficient uses of dark energy than initial-development technologies (which would occur regardless since e-zero is naturally occuring), and so long as Dark Energy can be disappated between cycles (and thus give any reason to tolerate a rise of any civilization at all), managing the buildup of Dark Energy on the relay trap would be more effective at stopping it galaxy-wide than trying to crush decentralized empires across the entire galaxy.klarabella wrote...
That's how it feels to me. Dark Energy contradicts ME1, too. In order to stop the dark energy build-up they make sure every cycle has immediate access to fully-developed mass effect technology as soon as they master space flight to a point where they can reach the nearest relay. That's a sure sign ME1 was created as a stand-alone game with a hook for a sequel: Reapers are still out there (though not likely to arrive soon without divine intervention). Somehow they never really knew what to do with that hook.Dean_the_Young wrote...
Drew said the exact opposite: that ME2 was largely designed after ME1 was already complete, and that Dark Energy was one of multiple vague ideas.
It's not common, but it does happen. The more recent final fantasy games have stepped away from central protagonists,klarabella wrote...
One of the ideas I had while "headcanoning" around in the ME universe: As a book oder a movie or a tv show it definitely would have had an ensemble cast instead of one overpowered, incredibly lucky protagonist who is single-handedly saving the galaxy with a bunch of "minions" who help point him into the right direction.
I wonder if it's possible for a video game to pull off the ensemble cast instead of one player avatar who gets elevated to space messiah.
Imagine you are concerned about the build-up of dark energy and looking for a solution.Dean_the_Young wrote...
That's not a contradiction as such, and can pretty easily be explained in the setup of the presentation. So long as Mass Relays and current Mass Effect tech are more efficient uses of dark energy than initial-development technologies (which would occur regardless since e-zero is naturally occuring), and so long as Dark Energy can be disappated between cycles (and thus give any reason to tolerate a rise of any civilization at all), managing the buildup of Dark Energy on the relay trap would be more effective at stopping it galaxy-wide than trying to crush decentralized empires across the entire galaxy.
make sure ME technology is never used begin with by removing organics from the equation as soon as they master space flight.Modifié par klarabella, 26 janvier 2013 - 09:18 .
, so I wouldn't pay too much attention to his "logic" if I were you. He clearly don't know ****.. Wrex, not sure why he came along actually, aside from the Fist thing. Tali had vital evidence against Saren, that's why she came along, and she was once again encountered by chance on Freedom's Progress, which paved the way for her to return onto the Normandy.
Retour en haut