426 réponses à ce sujet

[Ticonderoga117]

justafan wrote...

The only thing I am proposing is that the series would be more consistent without ME2.  Actually, no, I guess what I should be saying is that ME3 would be vastly improved by the lack of ME2, ME1 is fine on its own, and ME2 did a good enough job continuing the series.  Both ME2 and ME3 work as sequels to ME1, however, ME3 is horrible as a sequel to ME2, and since only ME3 provides a conclusion to the Reaper conflict, we must disregard the best of the series for the conclusion to make more sense from a story point of view.  The story is far more consistent going straight from ME1 to ME3, it is not necessarily better.

No. Just no.

ME3 would be vastly improved if the writers put the work in that ME3, nay, the franchise, deserves.

After the Collector Base, and possibly Arrival, there is a trial, there is a way to choose to be pro-Alliance or pro-Cerberus. There is a way to deal with the diplomatic problems that plague the MEU before the Reapers come.

A game where we actually have a freakin' Reaper War and not just Cerberus, with the background Reapers that are hardly antagonists.

Just because ME3 refused to be written well, doesn't mean we ditch what came before, because to make ME3 as it is the best, you need to ditch BOTH ME1 and ME2.

[justafan]

simfamSP wrote...

How about we keep the three games and forget the mutated growth on ME3 we call 'the ending.'

Were it so easy.

[Ticonderoga117]

simfamSP wrote...

How about we keep the three games and forget the mutated growth on ME3 we call 'the ending.'

While that treats the most visible problem, there still exists the fundamental issues with ME3 that are in the beginning.

[oldag07]

No. Next question.

[ME859]

Mass Effect 2 is an excellent game with a wonderful self-contained story. It reminds me a lot of the skypeia arc in One Piece for those who follow that show. However in relation to Mass Effect 3, ME2 wasted to much time and a bit more of the game should have been dedicated towards finding a way to stop the reapers. That or ME3 could have at least paired you up with a genius scientist or two that had studies the Reapers for years and found a way to beat them.

Either way the result of ME2 is the need for a plot device like the crucible and in retrospect that laid the foundation for a lot of the sloppy storytelling and lore breaking we saw in ME3.  Of course they could have done a million things better with ME3 but the fact that ME2 left you without at least a real lead to stop the reapers didn't help.

Finding out the Collectors were husk by the reapers, and that husk in general where Reaper tech, as well as learning one or two things about indoctrination is the equivilant of learning that a football team with a great QB like to throw the ball.  Doesn't tell me how to stop it just that "hey they like to throw the ball with their star QB."

Modifié par ME859, 21 janvier 2013 - 10:51 .

[78stonewobble]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

How about we keep the three games and forget the mutated growth on ME3 we call 'the ending.'

While that treats the most visible problem, there still exists the fundamental issues with ME3 that are in the beginning.

Which one is that again? *genuinely confused*

[Gfletch]

I never really saw the need for an actual antagonist, the reapers were enough themselves to maintain my immersion.

ME2 was an interesting take on what happens AFTER you save the world in an RPG game (read: galaxy). Some people love you, some hate you, some say you didn't exist, some say it never happened, etc etc.

Probably the best game in the series, but it would have been awful without ME1's detailed back story, and it needed ME3 to make it all worthwhile.

I just wish they hadn't mucked about with the bloody Presidium and the Citadel so much.

[justafan]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

justafan wrote...

The only thing I am proposing is that the series would be more consistent without ME2.  Actually, no, I guess what I should be saying is that ME3 would be vastly improved by the lack of ME2, ME1 is fine on its own, and ME2 did a good enough job continuing the series.  Both ME2 and ME3 work as sequels to ME1, however, ME3 is horrible as a sequel to ME2, and since only ME3 provides a conclusion to the Reaper conflict, we must disregard the best of the series for the conclusion to make more sense from a story point of view.  The story is far more consistent going straight from ME1 to ME3, it is not necessarily better.

No. Just no.

ME3 would be vastly improved if the writers put the work in that ME3, nay, the franchise, deserves.

After the Collector Base, and possibly Arrival, there is a trial, there is a way to choose to be pro-Alliance or pro-Cerberus. There is a way to deal with the diplomatic problems that plague the MEU before the Reapers come.

A game where we actually have a freakin' Reaper War and not just Cerberus, with the background Reapers that are hardly antagonists.

Just because ME3 refused to be written well, doesn't mean we ditch what came before, because to make ME3 as it is the best, you need to ditch BOTH ME1 and ME2.

You are dealing with hypotheticals and what could have been.  I am talking about dealing with what we have.  What we have is not going to change without some sort of divine intervention, a DeLorean, or the greatest piece of DLC ever.  ME3 was a ****** poor sequel to ME2, but would be a decent sequel to ME1, or at least a more decent sequel than to ME2.  Without ME2, a few more things make sense or at least are not as glaring a contradiction to past games.

In other words, I am trying to say that a new to Mass Effect gamer could potentially be more satisfied with the series if he plays only ME1 and ME3, instead of ME1, 2 and 3.  However, he would be happiest if you just had him play ME1 and 2, then lied and said Bioware went bankrupt.

Modifié par justafan, 21 janvier 2013 - 10:51 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

How though? The Reapers, before ME3, were decently competent in cleanign the Galaxy of advanced tech they didn't want to leave behind. There would be no "Super awesome device that can stop them" left behind, because again, they are competent.

In ME1, the Reapers missed Ilos and paid the price for it.

In ME2, they left a Reaper corpse floating around space, which subsequently allowed a frigate to enter their territory (galactic core). A territory so poorly defended that not even a single fleet, but a single frigate, was able to get invade and conquer.

Indoctrinated agents found/sabotaged Javik's mission, but he still managed to go to ground with numerous others.

Our best chance was to unite the galaxy. Making a team of the best the galaxy has to offer is a way to start this. Why ME3 failed to pick this up is beyond me.

And then what?

[AlanC9]

The main advantage of eliminating or rewriting ME2 is that the companions were a terrible resource sink for the next game. Too many, and all optional since anyone can die.

[Gfletch]

AlanC9 wrote...

The main advantage of eliminating or rewriting ME2 is that the companions were a terrible resource sink for the next game. Too many, and all optional since anyone can die.

Yep.

Too many potential loose ends and variations, and not enough time or disk space to fully realise them all.

So, they essentially shot themselves in the foot by making ME2 as big as it was. Hopefully they'll learn from it and make DA3 better for it.

[frostajulie]

Fifmut wrote...

I think the trilogy is better off without ME3.

lol yeah I agree with this guy.

[Ticonderoga117]

78stonewobble wrote...
Which one is that again? *genuinely confused*

Why has Shepard been sitting on his butt for 6 months?
Why is Anderson not Councilor when me, as the player, made that choice?
Why has Shepard been sitting on his butt for 6 months?

[Gfletch]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

78stonewobble wrote...
Which one is that again? *genuinely confused*

Why has Shepard been sitting on his butt for 6 months?
Why is Anderson not Councilor when me, as the player, made that choice?
Why has Shepard been sitting on his butt for 6 months?

Lack of time to write & record every single permutation, and lack of disc space to stop it going onto 3+ discs (in my opinion they should have done this)

If only you didn't have to keep swapping disks around, even if the game was installed...

[78stonewobble]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...
Why has Shepard been sitting on his butt for 6 months?
Why is Anderson not Councilor when me, as the player, made that choice?
Why has Shepard been sitting on his butt for 6 months?

Ah ok, I thought it was a reference to the crucible/catalyst being mentioned/introduced allready on mars.

Just wanted to be on the same page.

[Ticonderoga117]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
In ME1, the Reapers missed Ilos and paid the price for it.

In ME2, they left a Reaper corpse floating around space, which subsequently allowed a frigate to enter their territory (galactic core). A territory so poorly defended that not even a single fleet, but a single frigate, was able to get invade and conquer.

Indoctrinated agents found/sabotaged Javik's mission, but he still managed to go to ground with numerous others.

All true. However, for the Crucible there are two known facts that conflict. We know the Catalyst knew of the Crucible. We also know every cycle before hand has worked and passed down the Crucible plans. We also know that the Reapers use indoctrinated agents, a LOT. Those plans would've never made it down like that. It's crap.

The Ilos Protheans made it extremely difficult for ANYONE to find them, and they went dark to avoid detection.

The lost Reaper is in the atmosphere of a gas giant where not many venture.

And then what?

Fight a war. Learn how to beat Reapers. Make a last ditch attack to hit something vital. There's so many different ways they could've written that, but no. Crucible and StarKid go!

[Meltemph]

AlanC9 wrote...

The main advantage of eliminating or rewriting ME2 is that the companions were a terrible resource sink for the next game. Too many, and all optional since anyone can die.

That issue only comes up because of the way they decided to handle the game in ME3 though...  The hindisight in pointing out why ME3 had issues is kind of odd, seeing as they didnt have to go a particular route.  Hell, the only reason it was a trillogy is because they said so, but obviously they changed things between all 3 games. I'm not sure why they wanted to end it with 3 if the clearly made so many plot points for what they wanted to do in 3.

They chose to have the reapers invade in teh way they did.  They could have had everything happen before the invasion, then find the reapers achilles heel.  Any consequences ME2 gave ME3 was of their own making.

Modifié par Meltemph, 21 janvier 2013 - 11:11 .

[Ticonderoga117]

Gfletch wrote...
Lack of time to write & record every single permutation, and lack of disc space to stop it going onto 3+ discs (in my opinion they should have done this)

If only you didn't have to keep swapping disks around, even if the game was installed...

So then why are we bothering with choices? If the effort to do the permutations was never going to be there, then a generic FPS would've sufficed. Or a generic RPG. Now, I know not every single possible outcome can be worked out, but at least give us the big ones.

And disk space can be gained by ditching that horrendous MP generic horde mode.

[Geomon19]

The trilogy is better off without ME3.

[MegaSovereign]

Not really.  Most of the decisions that had a major effect in ME3 were from the ME2 loyalty missions.

And regardless of how ME2 "fits" with the rest of the series, it's my favorite because it was ambitious in design.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 21 janvier 2013 - 11:19 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

All true. However, for the Crucible there are two known facts that conflict. We know the Catalyst knew of the Crucible. We also know every cycle before hand has worked and passed down the Crucible plans. We also know that the Reapers use indoctrinated agents, a LOT. Those plans would've never made it down like that. It's crap.

It was just another miss on their part, like Javik's mission. They sent their thralls to go sabotage/destroy it. They did F it up. They may have died believing they were successful. To some extent, they were, but we just squeezed it by.

Its a small, but significant weakness of the Reapers. They are oversized. They have to rely on indoctrinated agents -- mentally-unstable organics -- to do this kind of work for them. In the end, nobody bats 1.000.

Fight a war. Learn how to beat Reapers. Make a last ditch attack to hit something vital. There's so many different ways they could've written that, but no. Crucible and StarKid go!

Or, the Crucible/Starchild was the way they chose to write that.

There's was war: we recruited, built alliances, signed treaties, fought battles, dealt with traitors. There was a last-ditch attack on Earth to finish them. Biggest issue was that the Reapers were phased-out in favor of Cerberus, not much info-gathering on them or contributing to the weapon we were building, but other than that...

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

I'd much rather have kept the tone and theme that ME2 developed and ran with that than remove ME2 to try and "fix" 3.

[JesseLee202]

No, ME2 is not at fault for ME3's shortcomings.

[BonFire5]

BioWare thinks so considering anything passing on from there is retconned/not mentioned/barely seen.