426 réponses à ce sujet

[Ticonderoga117]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
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.

*snip*

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...

But they have been until the Ilos Protheans. Every other cycle got bush-whacked by them. And the Crucible as it is makes very little sense.

We never really fought the Reapers in a war like way, or at least Shepard didn't. Every time we fought the Reapers was just because they were in the way to another goal. The Reapers were just there. Not a threat, but an obstacle.

[3DandBeyond]

ME2 provides a bridge between the death of Sovereign and the insurgence of the reapers. It explains the interest in humans, but ME3 fails both ME1 and 2 completely. It was ME3's responsibility to tie this all together. ME1 presented the problem to come and it showed how it was delayed. ME2 set up the obsession with humans and it also showed the growth of Shepard along the way. It set the tone for the galaxy and showed just how divided everyone was, but that it was possible to work together-Shepard showed that you could take very damaged people and get them to respect you and to respect themselves. It also showed a kind of microcosm for the whole galaxy, with Krogan, Turian, Salarian, Cerberus, and anti-Cerberus all working together. It showed people who only lived for a paycheck finding a reason to be altruistic again. And it showed the redemption of the lost soul (Thane) and of one trying to find a soul (Legion) and of deadly enemies all working together. ME3 held out the promise of this same kind of thing happening on a larger scale. But it became a much smaller story that focused on two main issues and one main planet. ME3 evaded the issues set up in ME2, most notably the collector base.

Again, it is ME3's fault if the stories in ME1 are not all tied up in the end. And some great things are left dangling. ME2 fits ME1 because it makes sense that if the reapers could not easily return or had fear that they might be destroyed by Shepard, they would send in proxies like the Collectors. What doesn't make sense is that after the Collector Base is destroyed, there's no effect on the galaxy or the reapers. If you save it, Cerberus should be stronger. If you destroy it, Cerberus should be weaker. And the suicide mission should make the reapers fear the human. Maybe they do and that's why the kid wants Shepard to commit suicide.

[Ticonderoga117]

3DandBeyond wrote...

ME2 provides a bridge between the death of Sovereign and the insurgence of the reapers. It explains the interest in humans, but ME3 fails both ME1 and 2 completely. It was ME3's responsibility to tie this all together. ME1 presented the problem to come and it showed how it was delayed. ME2 set up the obsession with humans and it also showed the growth of Shepard along the way. It set the tone for the galaxy and showed just how divided everyone was, but that it was possible to work together-Shepard showed that you could take very damaged people and get them to respect you and to respect themselves. It also showed a kind of microcosm for the whole galaxy, with Krogan, Turian, Salarian, Cerberus, and anti-Cerberus all working together. It showed people who only lived for a paycheck finding a reason to be altruistic again. And it showed the redemption of the lost soul (Thane) and of one trying to find a soul (Legion) and of deadly enemies all working together. ME3 held out the promise of this same kind of thing happening on a larger scale. But it became a much smaller story that focused on two main issues and one main planet. ME3 evaded the issues set up in ME2, most notably the collector base.

Again, it is ME3's fault if the stories in ME1 are not all tied up in the end. And some great things are left dangling. ME2 fits ME1 because it makes sense that if the reapers could not easily return or had fear that they might be destroyed by Shepard, they would send in proxies like the Collectors. What doesn't make sense is that after the Collector Base is destroyed, there's no effect on the galaxy or the reapers. If you save it, Cerberus should be stronger. If you destroy it, Cerberus should be weaker. And the suicide mission should make the reapers fear the human. Maybe they do and that's why the kid wants Shepard to commit suicide.

That's beautifully well put.

[AlanC9]

Meltemph wrote...

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.

So too many different consequences from ME2 can be managed by having an ME4 as well as an ME3? How so? Unless ME3 kills a bunch of companions off you still have to handle them being either dead or alive in ME4. Adding more games just makes the number of different consequences worse for the last game unless a game reduces the number of options n play.

[Meltemph]

So too many different consequences from ME2 can be managed by having an ME4 as well as an ME3? How so? Unless ME3 kills a bunch of companions off you still have to handle them being either dead or alive in ME4. Adding more games just makes the number of different consequences worse for the last game unless a game reduces the number of options n play.

Not really. ME3 could have been used to wrap up all the things unrelated to the reaper plot and used it for nothing but that. So yes, with your last sentence, that is exactly what ME3 could have done.

Modifié par Meltemph, 22 janvier 2013 - 01:22 .

[Cobretti ftw]

No. Its better without ME3.

[EnvyTB075]

Nope, was the best of the series, it would have helped if ME3 had something to do with ME2.

[AlanC9]

Meltemph wrote...

No really. ME3 could have been used to wrap up all the things unrelated to the reaper plot and used it for nothing but that. So yes, with your last sentence, that is exactly what ME3 could have done.

And then the ME2 squadmates.... don't appear in ME4? "That's our plan?"

[Ticonderoga117]

AlanC9 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

No really. ME3 could have been used to wrap up all the things unrelated to the reaper plot and used it for nothing but that. So yes, with your last sentence, that is exactly what ME3 could have done.

And then the ME2 squadmates.... don't appear in ME4? "That's our plan?"

Where was that said?! No, they'd still be there, but any issues not primary to beating the Reapers (IE. tons of diplomacy and Cerberus) would've been dealt with already.

[Meltemph]

AlanC9 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

No really. ME3 could have been used to wrap up all the things unrelated to the reaper plot and used it for nothing but that. So yes, with your last sentence, that is exactly what ME3 could have done.

And then the ME2 squadmates.... don't appear in ME4? "That's our plan?"

Ya...you seem to making logical leaps, for reasons I dont know.  

[MattFini]

Nope.

ME2 is a great game through and through.

It's ME3's fault for not tying it in better.

Now that we look back on the trilogy, it's easy to say "hey, ME2 didn't amount to much in the overall story..." but that's BioWare's fault.

The Collector Base should've been a huge consequence in the third game. Dark energy could've surely been addressed in some way (I know it was the original ending, but it still could've been relevant) and the human reaper could've certainly been factored into ME3's story.

I don't blame ME2 at all for this. When the writers approached 3, it's a shame they marginalized the second game's biggest plot points for no reason.

[AlanC9]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...
No really. ME3 could have been used to wrap up all the things unrelated to the reaper plot and used it for nothing but that. So yes, with your last sentence, that is exactly what ME3 could have done.

And then the ME2 squadmates.... don't appear in ME4? "That's our plan?"

Where was that said?! No, they'd still be there, but any issues not primary to beating the Reapers (IE. tons of diplomacy and Cerberus) would've been dealt with already.

Which still leaves us with the problem I was talking about, which had nothing to do with Cerberus or diplomacy. Was it a mistake to assume that Meltemph's reply to me had something to do with what I was talking about?

[FlyinSquirrel]

simfamSP wrote...

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

That's really what it comes down to. ME3 was amazing up until the last ten minutes really

[AlanC9]

Meltemph wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...
No really. ME3 could have been used to wrap up all the things unrelated to the reaper plot and used it for nothing but that. So yes, with your last sentence, that is exactly what ME3 could have done.

And then the ME2 squadmates.... don't appear in ME4? "That's our plan?"

Ya...you seem to making logical leaps, for reasons I dont know.  

Sorry. I assumed you had read the post you replied to.

I said the problem with ME2 was that there were too many companions who could be either alive or dead in ME3. You responded with a proposal that turns out to have had nothing to do with the problem I was talking about.

Unless the argument was that with a simple ME4 plot they could have spent lots of time on all the ME2 squadmates?

Modifié par AlanC9, 22 janvier 2013 - 02:32 .

[Jeffonl1]

ME2 is a "Thursdays Child"

[Ticonderoga117]

AlanC9 wrote...

Which still leaves us with the problem I was talking about, which had nothing to do with Cerberus or diplomacy. Was it a mistake to assume that Meltemph's reply to me had something to do with what I was talking about?

Well, what' you were saying isn't a problem. Was it a problem during ME2 to have that many squaddies? No. Then it wouldn't be an issue for ME3.

[Meltemph]

AlanC9 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...
No really. ME3 could have been used to wrap up all the things unrelated to the reaper plot and used it for nothing but that. So yes, with your last sentence, that is exactly what ME3 could have done.

And then the ME2 squadmates.... don't appear in ME4? "That's our plan?"

Ya...you seem to making logical leaps, for reasons I dont know.  

Sorry. I assumed you had read the post you replied to.

I said the problem with ME2 was that there were too many companions who could be either alive or dead in ME3. You responded with a proposal that turns out to have had nothing to do with the problem I was talking about.

And why couldnt they have wrapped up any interpersonal issues with these cahracters, and then in 4 just had them more as relegatory positions in the game's story?  I dont see anyone outside of perhaps Wrex that was of any particular importance/need to the over-all plot of the reapers.  

If you minimize their impact in 4 it is much easier to deal with them.

[AlanC9]

Meltemph wrote...

And why couldnt they have wrapped up any interpersonal issues with these cahracters, and then in 4 just had them more as relegatory positions in the game's story?  I dont see anyone outside of perhaps Wrex that was of any particular importance/need to the over-all plot of the reapers.  

If you minimize their impact in 4 it is much easier to deal with them.

You think Miranda fans would have been happy with her only having a cameo in ME4 because she'd had a big part in ME3? Really?

I think that would have gone over even worse than what we got with ME3. 

Edit: too bad the character board isn't around anymore, or we could have tested this.

Modifié par AlanC9, 22 janvier 2013 - 02:41 .

[Slayer299]

No, the trilogy is better of without ME3.

[KeraWildmane]

simfamSP wrote...

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

^ Exactly.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

I feel least connected to my character in ME2 because it feels like a side story compared to the first and third. It's like I'm being forced down a side road when I could have just stayed going in the same direction. Arrival was the one time in the game that made me feel like I was finally getting back to the main story arc.

That said, I met a lot of cool people in ME2. Maybe that makes it worth it, but I prefer ME1 and ME3 because they both deal with the same subject matter: stopping the reapers.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 22 janvier 2013 - 04:27 .

[Jadebaby]

Fifmut wrote...

I think the trilogy is better off without ME3.

[Jadebaby]

Kerasth wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

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

^ Exactly.

corrected for jerstice.

[Meltemph]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

I feel least connected to my character in ME2 because it feels like a side story compared to the first and third. It's like I'm being forced down a side road when I could have just stayed going in the same direction. Arrival was the one time in the game that made me feel like I was finally getting back to the main story arc.

That said, I met a lot of cool people in ME2. Maybe that makes it worth it, but I prefer ME1 and ME3 because they both deal with the same subject matter: stopping the reapers.

I always found the reapers to be the least interesting thing to the MAss Effect Universe to be honest.  The less about reapers, the better the setting is to me, simply becuase what they created, in terms of a setting, was much better then their main plot(at any point in the trilogy).

Learning about all the people, places, cultures, races, governments, and ect we learned, to me, was what I enjoy most about Mass Effect as a game.

[greengroove]

Belisarius25 wrote...

I think a better way to phrase it is that the trilogy really needed better editorial/writing control to ensure each installment worked well with each other and the overall narrative worked better and didn't feel so disjointed. There's too many jarring changes (Cerberus' status, for example), inability to follow up on plot points or characters (i.e. introducing too many new squadmates/romances/etc. in ME2 given where they evidently wanted to go in ME3), and so on.

There's the saying 'greater than the sum of its parts', in some ways the trilogy - when taken as a whole - is less than the sum of its parts for me, mainly because of the various issues from changing writers, plans, etc. too many times.

This.