648 réponses à ce sujet

[chemiclord]

iakus wrote...

edisnooM wrote...

And how hard would have been for the Crucible to just knock out the Reapers barriers? That's how we beat Sovereign. So take them down and let us fight it out, use our EMS, and take our chances.

That's what I think the Crucible should have done.  Give the unified galaxy a chance to fight off the Reapers on a level-ish playing field.  It's not a "conventional" victory, because the Crucible is still deplayed.  Casualties are still pretty much a given.  But it's not a forced, arbitrary sacrifice.  It's living or dying based on strength, skill, and preparedness.

But how do you play that out in an ending though?  Since a 4th game is not on the table?  Do you play out the ENTIRE rest of the war in a cutscene?  Would fans have accepted that (having the agency of the conclusion ripped COMPLETELY out of their hands)?

I dunno.  I don't think that would have been generally accepted either.

[edisnooM]

ScriptBabe wrote...

And if you enjoyed Dragon Age I'd skip DA2. Let us wait for reviews and hope. Hope can sometimes be rewarded, right?

...



And I've always loved the idea that one small pebble can change an outcome. Luck does play a part in the affairs of nations.

Yeah I still quiet like hope.

Also

But that is not the only part they have to play. They were brought to Fangorn, and their coming was like the falling of small stones that starts an avalanche in the mountains.

:-)

@iakus

Aye, could've been grand.

Edit:

@chemiclord

I dunno, victory or defeat would be dependent on EMS I would imagine, so it would be dependent on how well you as a player prepared, who you rallied to the cause, what choices you had made. If they had showed the fleet complete with our war assets fighting, even just around Earth that probably would have been enough. I don't think you'd have to show every part of the fighting against the Reapers, just enough for the player to know the outcome.

They could even skip ahead a bit after the outcome and show the result, either a Galaxy Triumphant or the Reapers heading back to Dark Space, the harvest complete (and varying degrees in between).

Modifié par edisnooM, 26 mars 2013 - 02:50 .

[DeinonSlayer]

Sauruz wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

...what we got WAS the ending they had in mind- Casey seemed to think Mac's late-night scribbles, including the "speculations from everyone" was a genius plan, hence the nonsensical, confusing crap we got.

EDIT:

I love the "But why did he have to die?" without a proper answer. Not even the devs know why. Or "How do they feel?" - probably just wrote that out as a side thought and didn't bother to really think through what they felt like.
God, this is like something written by a person that was either very, very stupid or very, very drunk. Or both.

Both. I vote both.

[Kudas]

After replaying Mass Effect with the DLCs again. I feel that the overall arching structure of the franchise as a trilogy should have been better. Most plot elements and characters seem rather one-off or reintroduced hastily. The Crucible truly appeared out of no where and has to tie up all the plots from the first two games. Also I feel that as the 3rd entry in a trilogy, the game should have incorporated all the strengths from the previous entries: customization from ME1 and the mission + journal structure from ME2. I wish that the following features were included in ME3 and would have gladly waited for any extended period of development time (in fact that builds hype and anticipation for the game)

With regards to the mission structures (sidequests) in ME3, the fetch quests could have been like the assignments in the previous games. Going to the planets and instead of scanning, go down to it and fight through resistance (Reaper forces) and extract the war assets with your squad mates.

Once again I feel that the war assets are THE BIGGEST missed opportunity in the whole franchise. In terms of the story and gameplay I will explain how this can be incorporated into the game:

I think every player of ME3 would have wanted the war assets to play a part in the final battle. I feel that ME3 could easily have been the entry with the most gameplay hours. Your squad mates could been present from a narrative viewpoint as Wrex should be available as Eve can take charge of the Krogans after Truchanka, Miranda/Jacob/Jack/Zaeed etc after their respective missions and should have been present on Earth. The strategy aspect that war assets have could have been used in the means of liberating the systems that are occupied by Reapers. The game-play can be branched into strategy (simulation) and actual firefight that players can choose either. The former means you don't have to spend time in multi-player like matches to liberate the system but instead use your current war assets to simulate the battle against the Reapers in the planet (with strengths and uniqueness of the war assets taken into account), of course the losses will be less if you participate directly in the fight, this can allow the Multiplayer aspect to lead into Single Player as well, where you can choose your multi-player character to participate in the battle in the mission structure of multiplayer as well.

After liberating the planets, more war assets can be gathered to your cause all for the final battle on Earth. The suicide mission structure in ME2 should be expanded for Priority Earth. That is your war assets (Geths, Quarians, Turians, Asari, Humans, Mercenaries, Warships etc) can be allocated in both the Space battle and the ground fight in London. All your squad mates from ME2 and 3 should be available to lead the fire team/ diversion teams in London and making the final push. There the cinematic of your war assets in action and even branching results can play out and you can assist any fire team to prevent them from being overwhelmed and in turn help towards the final push to eliminate the Reapers.

I feel that the Crucible plot point should have been planned as an alternate path (like in the Witcher games) ie a worse scenario where you have not done enough in the previous 2 games to convince the Council and garner support for the war in ME3, hence the situations of loss are more plausible in ME3 and hence the 3 endings can be implemented, since there is simply not enough EMS to ensure a conventional victory over the reapers and choices/sacrifices had to be made.

Hence the narrative of ME3 has sort of started off on the wrong foot. It should not be established in the beginning of the game that the war cannot be won conventionally. If that is the case, then why the process of gathering every war asset from every race to fight, if the Crucible is the only option? This is also rather contradictory, as it has been mentioned by many characters in ME3 that never before has the entire galaxy unite to stop a common threat. That strength of unity and combined resources and efforts is never in the previous Prothean cycle and hence the cause of their defeat as stated by Javik during Priority Earth.

Hence a "best ending" should have been possible, especially when your choices and impacts from the last 2 games are brought into ME3. Since from the start of the franchise, the games encourage player participation and effort in the storyline and the outcomes. Everything that you have done should give you the opportunity of a conventional victory, Shepard gets to be alive and the war is won without compromising the peace you have achieved among the races (Geth and Quarian) where one has to die (Destroy vs Control/Synthesis). Then the Citadel DLC would have tied in nicely to serve as the focus on the characters emphasis theme of the DLC as the reaper threat is over and should have been the proper sendoff to the whole trilogy and cinematics can flesh out the lives of your squad mates and the races after the war then the Stargazer ending would not have been so jarring.

I understand that the above suggestions would require massive effort and definitely greater resources and development time. But the trilogy truly deserves more than what it is now. The ME franchise should have been the greatest of its generation, but as it is now, it will always be remembered as the greatest missed opportunity for all of us and the studio.

[chemiclord]

When you plan a trilogy, and your second part does absolutely NOTHING to advance the core plot, you're REALLY screwed over trying to wrap things up. As much as it is loved by the fans for the characters it introduced... ME2 was really a major part of the problem.

[Iakus]

chemiclord wrote...

But how do you play that out in an ending though?  Since a 4th game is not on the table?  Do you play out the ENTIRE rest of the war in a cutscene?  Would fans have accepted that (having the agency of the conclusion ripped COMPLETELY out of their hands)?

I dunno.  I don't think that would have been generally accepted either.

Assuming it played out differently for low, medium, and high EMS endings, and particularly if there were actual War Assets seen in action, yeah, I think people would have accepted that.

I mean, it's not like players have a lot of agency in the endings as they are now...

[Kudas]

Also for the narrative, I find the skepticism and contempt for Shepard's words to be illogical even after 2 games. They should (depending on players' decisions in the 2 games), be more ready to believe Shepard and muster more war assets for the effort.

[ScriptBabe]

chemiclord wrote...

When you plan a trilogy, and your second part does absolutely NOTHING to advance the core plot, you're REALLY screwed over trying to wrap things up. As much as it is loved by the fans for the characters it introduced... ME2 was really a major part of the problem.

Having just finished a replay of game one, and then game two, I can't argue with that.  The first time I played ME2 the Collectors were so creepy and I really did enjoy Miranda, Thane, Zaeed, etc. that I didn't spend a lot of time analyzing the plot.  But on the replay it felt almost dull, a bit at arms length.  My analysis was that the lack of a personalized villain was a problem, but  in addition it really doesn't start to bend the plot back toward the conclusion, does it?

Interesting insight.  Thank you.

[edisnooM]

chemiclord wrote...

When you plan a trilogy, and your second part does absolutely NOTHING to advance the core plot, you're REALLY screwed over trying to wrap things up. As much as it is loved by the fans for the characters it introduced... ME2 was really a major part of the problem.

I had a longer version of this running in my mind, but the short version is that I think the Crucible should have targetted the Reapers IFF signal, with EMS effecting the degree of efficiency.

In Destroy for example, Low EMS means high collateral damage, Geth, ships, planets etc. High EMS it's like a surgical strike only hitting the Reapers.

This would also have put the Normandy in the crosshairs instead of the Geth, again with EMS affecting the outcome, Low completely destroyed, Medium they crash land and EDI dies, High they crash land and EDI survives in her mobile platform.

I think this would also have made the choice a bit more personal which was something a bit lacking at the end, asking Shepard to sacrifice the Normandy is like asking Kirk or Picard to sacrifice the Enterprise, The Doctor the Tardis, Captain Mal Serenity.

And it would have something from ME2 mean something which would be a real treat.

Modifié par edisnooM, 26 mars 2013 - 03:04 .

[KingZayd]

David7204 wrote...

Look, the Catalyst was not a 'new' villain in any meaningful sense. He easily could have been replaced with Harbinger, who could have said the exact same things and offered the exact same options. And it would not have made one bit of difference. The endings would still be exactly as they are now, just with people shrieking how stupid Harbinger is instead of how stupid the Catalyst is. So his introduction is clearly not the problem.

The problem is that people dislike the ending in general and are looking for something tangible to blame it on.

My problems are with the Starchild, his nonsensical dialogue, his location and his complete inactivity despite holding such a strategic location. Not so much the end choice, which I find to very interesting, despite what sets it up (and how badly written synthesis is)

Modifié par KingZayd, 26 mars 2013 - 03:03 .

[chemiclord]

ScriptBabe wrote...

Having just finished a replay of game one, and then game two, I can't argue with that.  The first time I played ME2 the Collectors were so creepy and I really did enjoy Miranda, Thane, Zaeed, etc. that I didn't spend a lot of time analyzing the plot.  But on the replay it felt almost dull, a bit at arms length.  My analysis was that the lack of a personalized villain was a problem, but  in addition it really doesn't start to bend the plot back toward the conclusion, does it?

Interesting insight.  Thank you.

I appreciate the thanks, and I appreciate talking to a person who understands how it feels from the other side of the fan/creator divide.  With Bioware's people in full retreat, that perspective is lacking.

But really, even ME2 isn't the heart of the problem.  It's a symptom rather than the disease.  The problem is that Bioware's writing team (yes, even when Karpyshyn was in charge) was pretty much playing it by ear.  They've effectively admitted as much.  ME2 goes nowhere because even as they were making ME2 they didn't even exactly know where they were going.  They might have had some idea what they wanted to do with it, but they had so many routes thrown out there (like Dark Energy) because even by that point in the story, there had been no decision made.

And while I don't quite share the static immutability of the rules of writing that you appear to have (although I readily acknowledge I might be misreading your stance), it takes an exceptionally great writer to be able to break the rules and make it work, especially when it comes to what amounts to improvisational writing.

Modifié par chemiclord, 26 mars 2013 - 03:11 .

[drayfish]

chemiclord wrote...

When you plan a trilogy, and your second part does absolutely NOTHING to advance the core plot, you're REALLY screwed over trying to wrap things up. As much as it is loved by the fans for the characters it introduced... ME2 was really a major part of the problem.

You know what, though.  It can be done.

Others have made this point far, far better than I (and I know it's probably not the best example to use, given that it eventually devolves into a parade of munchkin furbies), but the original Star Wars trilogy has a very similar structure, and it manages to pull it all together (again: ignore the half-pint Chewy knock-offs for a minute).

Empire was a phenomenal film (I would argue without question the best thing the words 'Star' and 'Wars' have ever been applied to), but really, what exactly does it add to the overarching plot besides some charcter business?  We find out some backstory that Luke is the son of Vader, we see the Rebels get a bloody nose, but really, no one is closer to solving the problems of the galactic stage.  Leia and Han get romanceful, Lando betrays and then rescues his new buddies, C3PO get 'sploded, Luke spends the film having D'n'Ms with a muppet, and the hyperdrive barely works.  It's a bunch of personality building asides, few of which are crucial to the narrative told in the final arc.

It's about tone, about widening the parameters of the universe and allowing different sides of the conflict to be measured and explored by the multiplicity of its participants' perspectives.  Through that we get thematic shades that come to colour our own vision of the central conflict as we move into the final run.

Just as ME2 was.



(Except it has a big weird Terminator thing in it...)

Modifié par drayfish, 26 mars 2013 - 03:28 .

[ScriptBabe]

chemiclord wrote...

ScriptBabe wrote...

Having just finished a replay of game one, and then game two, I can't argue with that.  The first time I played ME2 the Collectors were so creepy and I really did enjoy Miranda, Thane, Zaeed, etc. that I didn't spend a lot of time analyzing the plot.  But on the replay it felt almost dull, a bit at arms length.  My analysis was that the lack of a personalized villain was a problem, but  in addition it really doesn't start to bend the plot back toward the conclusion, does it?

Interesting insight.  Thank you.

I appreciate the thanks, and I appreciate talking to a person who understands how it feels from the other side of the fan/creator divide.  With Bioware's people in full retreat, that perspective is lacking.

But really, even ME2 isn't the heart of the problem.  It's a symptom rather than the disease.  The problem is that Bioware's writing team (yes, even when Karpyshyn was in charge) was pretty much playing it by ear.  They've effectively admitted as much.  ME2 goes nowhere because even as they were making ME2 they didn't even exactly know where they were going.  They might have had some idea what they wanted to do with it, but they had so many routes thrown out there (like Dark Energy) because even by that point in the story, there had been no decision made.

And while I don't quite share the static immutability of the rules of writing that you appear to have (although I readily acknowledge I might be misreading your stance), it takes an exceptionally great writer to be able to break the rules and make it work, especially when it comes to what amounts to improvisational writing.

There's an old saying that you have to know and understand the rules before you can break them.  Yes, we can bend the structure, but if you have no structure the story is going to fail no matter how good a writer you might be.  Before I type the first word of a novel or a script I know how it ends.  As I'm writing toward that climax I may find a cooler path to that ending, but if I don't know where I'm going I'll end up in a swamp.  Writers are like magpies -- we are fascinated by cool, shiny things.  By doing an outline I find out at that stage if that cool shiny thing is actually quicksand.  Something may sound great, but once you start laying out the steps you realize it's going to make more problems for you so you put it aside.

My friend George R.R. has this description that writers are either architects or gardners.  I'm an architect.  He's a gardner, but even George knows the climax that he's writing towardk with Song of Ice and Fire aka Game of Thrones.  Just as punctuation and grammer makes sentences understandable, structure makes a story satisfying and understandable.

I really wish that before they ever started Mass Effect 1 somebody on the team had said -- "So how _are_ we going to solve the Reaper problem?"

Modifié par ScriptBabe, 26 mars 2013 - 03:29 .

[Xilizhra]

Empire was a phenomenal film (I would argue without question the best thing the words 'Star' and 'Wars' have ever been applied to), but really, what exactly does it add to the overarching plot besides some charcter business? We find out some backstory that Luke is the son of Vader, we see the Rebels get a bloody nose, but really, no one is closer to solving the problems of the galactic stage. Leia and Han get romanceful, Lando betrays and then rescues his new buddies, C3PO get 'sploded, Luke spends the film having D'n'Ms with a muppet, and the hyperdrive barely works. It's a bunch of personality building asides, few of which are crucial to the narrative told in the final arc.

Well, Luke receiving actual Jedi training is absolutely vital to much of the rest of the series.

But going by this... I do believe, strongly, that the reveal about the Reapers at the end of ME3 was not a bad thing. The problem was in the execution; more hints of it should have been dropped throughout the game, if not in ME2 itself, as opposed to all being revealed at the end. In fact, the "all being revealed at the end" was the main problem with the plot, not what was being revealed.

[ScriptBabe]

drayfish wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

When you plan a trilogy, and your second part does absolutely NOTHING to advance the core plot, you're REALLY screwed over trying to wrap things up. As much as it is loved by the fans for the characters it introduced... ME2 was really a major part of the problem.

You know what, though.  It can be done.

Others have made this point far, far better than I (and I know it's probably not the best example to use, given that it eventually devolves into a parade of munchkin furbies), but the original Star Wars trilogy has a very similar structure, and it manages to pull it all together (again: ignore the half-pint Chewy knock-offs for a minute).

Empire was a phenomenal film (I would argue without question the best thing the words 'Star' and 'Wars' have ever been applied to), but really, what exactly does it add to the overarching plot besides some charcter business?  We find out some backstory that Luke is the son of Vader, we see the Rebels get a bloody nose, but really, no one is closer to solving the problems of the galactic stage.  Leia and Han get romanceful, Lando betrays and then rescues his new buddies, C3PO get 'sploded, Luke spends the film having D'n'Ms with a muppet, and the hyperdrive barely works.  It's a bunch of personality building asides, few of which are crucial to the narrative told in the final arc.

It's about tone, about widening the parameters of the universe and allowing different sides of the conflict to be measured and explored by the multiplicity of its participants' perspectives.  Through that we get thematic shades that come to colour our own vision of the central conflict as we move into the final run.

Just as ME2 was.



(Except it has a big weird Terminator thing in it...)

Empire was a wonderful movie with a great script.  But it actually followed a very tried and true structure if you consider the trilogy as a three act structure.  In the second act our heroes face reversals.  They are at a low point from which they have to fight back.  It has great emotional resonance -- Luke stands in real danger of succumbing like his father.  It upped the tension and the stakes very nicely.  Then Lucas got bored with the franchise and just phoned in Return of the Jedi

[chemiclord]

drayfish wrote...

Others have made this point far, far better than I (and I know it's probably not the best example to use, given that it eventually devolves into a parade of munchkin furbies), but the original Star Wars trilogy has a very similar structure, and it manages to pull it all together (again: ignore the half-pint Chewy knock-offs for a minute).

Empire was a phenomenal film (I would argue without question the best thing the words 'Star' and 'Wars' have ever been applied to), but really, what exactly does it add to the overarching plot besides some charcter business?  We find out some backstory that Luke is the son of Vader, we see the Rebels get a bloody nose, but really, no one is closer to solving the problems of the galactic stage.  Leia and Han get romanceful, Lando betrays and then rescues his new buddies, C3PO get 'sploded, Luke spends the film having D'n'Ms with a muppet, and the hyperdrive barely works.  It's a bunch of personality building asides, few of which are crucial to the narrative told in the final arc.

Using The Empire Strikes Back as an example is slightly faulty, because Empire actually DOES advance the core plot.  The Star Wars trilogy wasn't REALLY about the Rebellion.  It was about the rebirth of the Jedi and the fall of the Order's nemesis, Darth Sidious.

On THAT score, Empire advances the story quite a bit.  We get a backdrop and backstory to what led the galaxy to that point.  We have Luke growing and coming into his own as a full Jedi (a path he completes at the end).  The seeds for Darth Vader's redemption are planted in that movie as well.

THAT'S why it works.

Mass Effect 2 really doesn't give us much of ANYTHING.  We don't really learn ANYTHING about the Reapers outside of how they make more of themselves.  But THAT doesn't even play into anything (which admittedly is a judgment made in retrospect).  You don't gain any new insight in how to stop them.  You don't mobilize anyone to be ready for the imminent Reaper invasion.  The character development that is given is neutered to some extent by the fact that any of them could die at the end.

The few things that ARE set in motion by ME2 (the expansion of the Genophage arc and Geth/Quarian conflict as examples) are often seen as the highlights of ME3 by even the most disappointed of fans.

But outside of a handful of tangential plot points, ME2 does nothing to move the story along.

Modifié par chemiclord, 26 mars 2013 - 03:53 .

[jacob taylor416]

I wonder how the series would be like if Mass Effect 2 was about finding the crucible plans by exploring Promethean ruins and eventually the collectors; it would not only make Mass Effect 2 relevant but also make the crucible seem more reasonable. Also if Cerberus was a bit more well done in 3, than ME 2 would have seemed more relevant as well.

[Iakus]

chemiclord wrote...

Using The Empire Strikes Back as an example is slightly faulty, because Empire actually DOES advance the core plot.  The Star Wars trilogy wasn't REALLY about the Rebellion.  It was about the rebirth of the Jedi and the fall of the Order's nemesis, Darth Sidious.

On THAT score, Empire advances the story quite a bit.  We get a backdrop and backstory to what led the galaxy to that point.  We have Luke growing and coming into his own as a full Jedi (a path he completes at the end).  The seeds for Darth Vader's redemption are planted in that movie as well.

THAT'S why it works.

Mass Effect 2 really doesn't give us ANYTHING.  We don't really learn ANYTHING about the Reapers outside of how they make more of themselves.  But THAT doesn't even play into anything (which admittedly is a judgment made in retrospect).  You don't gain any new insight in how to stop them.  You don't mobilize anyone to be ready for the imminent Reaper invasion.  The few things that ARE set in motion by ME2 (the expansion of the Genophage and Geth/Quarian as examples) are often seen as the highlights of ME3 by even the most disappointed of fans.

But outside of a handful of tangential plot points, ME2 does nothing to move the story along.

I actually agree with every word of this.

It's actually the impression I had upon first completing ME2.  Okay, the whole Suicide Mission was fun.  Met some cool characters with interesting backstories.  But what did Shepard learn or accomplish?  How is any of this going to be relevant in ME3?

In that sense the Crucible as a plot device to stop the Reapers didn't bother me so much because ME2 did nothing to show us a weakness the Reapers had that Shepard could exploit.  Not even a missing scale above the heart.  

Yet even with such lowered expectations, they still managed to disappoint me.

[chemiclord]

jacob taylor416 wrote...

I wonder how the series would be like if Mass Effect 2 was about finding the crucible plans by exploring Promethean ruins and eventually the collectors; it would not only make Mass Effect 2 relevant but also make the crucible seem more reasonable. Also if Cerberus was a bit more well done in 3, than ME 2 would have seemed more relevant as well.

If ME2 had been about finding and CONSTRUCTING the Crucible, and using it as a weapon to level the playing field against the reapers (basically if much of what was ME3 was instead ME2), then ME3 could be all about wrapping up the war against an enemy that the galaxy now had a chance in hell of defeating.

And THAT could have worked brilliantly.

[drayfish]

chemiclord wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Others have made this point far, far better than I (and I know it's probably not the best example to use, given that it eventually devolves into a parade of munchkin furbies), but the original Star Wars trilogy has a very similar structure, and it manages to pull it all together (again: ignore the half-pint Chewy knock-offs for a minute).

Empire was a phenomenal film (I would argue without question the best thing the words 'Star' and 'Wars' have ever been applied to), but really, what exactly does it add to the overarching plot besides some charcter business?  We find out some backstory that Luke is the son of Vader, we see the Rebels get a bloody nose, but really, no one is closer to solving the problems of the galactic stage.  Leia and Han get romanceful, Lando betrays and then rescues his new buddies, C3PO get 'sploded, Luke spends the film having D'n'Ms with a muppet, and the hyperdrive barely works.  It's a bunch of personality building asides, few of which are crucial to the narrative told in the final arc.

Using The Empire Strikes Back as an example is slightly faulty, because Empire actually DOES advance the core plot.  The Star Wars trilogy wasn't REALLY about the Rebellion.  It was about the rebirth of the Jedi and the fall of the Order's nemesis, Darth Sidious.

On THAT score, Empire advances the story quite a bit.  We get a backdrop and backstory to what led the galaxy to that point.  We have Luke growing and coming into his own as a full Jedi (a path he completes at the end).  The seeds for Darth Vader's redemption are planted in that movie as well.

THAT'S why it works.

Mass Effect 2 really doesn't give us much of ANYTHING.  We don't really learn ANYTHING about the Reapers outside of how they make more of themselves.  But THAT doesn't even play into anything (which admittedly is a judgment made in retrospect).  You don't gain any new insight in how to stop them.  You don't mobilize anyone to be ready for the imminent Reaper invasion.  The character development that is given is neutered to some extent by the fact that any of them could die at the end.

The few things that ARE set in motion by ME2 (the expansion of the Genophage arc and Geth/Quarian conflict as examples) are often seen as the highlights of ME3 by even the most disappointed of fans.

But outside of a handful of tangential plot points, ME2 does nothing to move the story along.

Again though, that is a fault that I would argue lies with ME3 rather than ME2.  Much as ScriptBabe has noted, it is the traditional point of the second entry in a trilogy to advance the plot by allowing the characters to explore themselves, their own ingenuity and resources, while facing increasingly perilous odds - to be placed at the nadir of their journey toward the eventual reformation and reclamation of agency.  They have to fall, to see the fight ahead as arduous and perhaps impossible, before they can overcome these odds and fight back against seemingly overwhelming odds.

In that respect, ME2 could have (I'm not saying it did, but could have had ME3 decided to take up the opportunities it speckled through there), allowed for such a rally and retaliation.

Remember: the journey toward understanding/becoming allies with the Geth occurred in ME2.  The research into and potential curing of the Gennophage was delivered in ME2.  The revelation of the Prothean mutations were dealt with (and all but forgotten) in ME2.  The introduction of Thanix canons and shielding that can protect against Collector lasers: ME2.  Allusions to Dark energy and its galaxy altering influence upon the universe: expanded upon in ME2, only to be utterly abandoned in ME3.  Indeed, the whole thematic drive of races working together as one,
uniting to fight back against an oppressive force through cooperation and unification (played out in microcosm in the Normandy's mess hall in ME2), is completely abandoned in ME3's nihilistic ending.

Any of these threads - and many more that I've not even touched upon - could have been expanded upon and justified (just as Luke's bond to Vader was from Empire into Jedi).  Retroactively dismissing ME2 because the writers of ME3 were to lazy to run with the (admittedly rather nebulous, but fertile) ball that they had been passed does a disservice to a text that was - as it needed to be - more a tale about broad theme and ideology, than a singular focussed narrative progression.

Again, as I would argue: like Empire.

Had Lucas decided: nah, that 'Vader's my dad' stuff doesn't need to go anywhere in the denouement, then you could direct the very same arguments at Star Wars.

Modifié par drayfish, 26 mars 2013 - 05:00 .

[Iakus]

drayfish wrote...
Again though, that is a fault that I would argue lies with ME3 rather than ME2.  Much as ScriptBabe has noted, it is the traditional point of the second entry in a trilogy to advance the plot by allowing the characters to explore themselves, their own ingenuity and resources, while facing increasingly perilous odds - to be placed at the nadir of their journey toward the eventual reformation and reclamation of agency.  They have to fall, to see the fight ahead as arduous and perhaps impossible, before they can overcome these odds and fight back against seemingly overwhelming odds.

In that respect, ME2 could have (I'm not saying it did, but could have had ME3 decided to take up the opportunities it speckled through there), allowed for such a rally and retaliation.

Remember: the journey toward understanding/becoming allies with the Geth occurred in ME2.  The research into and potential curing of the Gennophage was delivered in ME2.  The revelation of the Prothean mutations were dealt with (and all but forgotten) in ME2.  The introduction of Thanix canons and shielding that can protect against Collector lasers: ME2.  Allusions to Dark energy and its galaxy altering influence upon the universe: expanded upon in ME2, only to be utterly abandoned in ME3.  Indeed, the whole thematic drive of races working together as one,
uniting to fight back against an oppressive force through cooperation and unification (played out in microcosm in the Normandy's mess hall in ME2), is completely abandoned in ME3's nihilistic ending.

Any of these threads - and many more that I've not even touched upon - could have been expanded upon and justified (just as Luke's bond to Vader was from Empire into Jedi).  Retroactively dismissing ME2 because the writers of ME3 were to lazy to run with the (admittedly rather nebulous, but fertile) ball that they had been passed does a disservice to a text that was - as it needed to be - more a tale about broad theme and ideology, than a singular focussed narrative progression.

Again, as I would argue: like Empire.

Had Lucas decided: nah, that 'Vader's my dad' stuff doesn't need to go anywhere in the denouement, then you could direct the very same arguments at Star Wars.

Interesting that you mentioned the genophage and the geth, because that ties into the two sections of ME3 that are in fact, praised:  Tuchanka and Rannoch.  Those are where decisions from all three games actually come into play to affect the outcome.  It's where it does, in fact, play out kind of like a thought-out series (Legion's "Reaper code!  Nom nom nom! notwithstanding)

But as far as the central Reaper storyline, ME2 does almost nothing.  Whether this is a weakness of ME2 (they were winging it the whole time) or ME3 (they changed their horses midstream), it caused serious disconnect between the entries. it causes a major disconnect.  And likely contributed to the complete and utter thoughtlessness of the ending.

[drayfish]

iakus wrote...

drayfish wrote...
Again though, that is a fault that I would argue lies with ME3 rather than ME2.  Much as ScriptBabe has noted, it is the traditional point of the second entry in a trilogy to advance the plot by allowing the characters to explore themselves, their own ingenuity and resources, while facing increasingly perilous odds - to be placed at the nadir of their journey toward the eventual reformation and reclamation of agency.  They have to fall, to see the fight ahead as arduous and perhaps impossible, before they can overcome these odds and fight back against seemingly overwhelming odds.

In that respect, ME2 could have (I'm not saying it did, but could have had ME3 decided to take up the opportunities it speckled through there), allowed for such a rally and retaliation.

Remember: the journey toward understanding/becoming allies with the Geth occurred in ME2.  The research into and potential curing of the Gennophage was delivered in ME2.  The revelation of the Prothean mutations were dealt with (and all but forgotten) in ME2.  The introduction of Thanix canons and shielding that can protect against Collector lasers: ME2.  Allusions to Dark energy and its galaxy altering influence upon the universe: expanded upon in ME2, only to be utterly abandoned in ME3.  Indeed, the whole thematic drive of races working together as one,
uniting to fight back against an oppressive force through cooperation and unification (played out in microcosm in the Normandy's mess hall in ME2), is completely abandoned in ME3's nihilistic ending.

Any of these threads - and many more that I've not even touched upon - could have been expanded upon and justified (just as Luke's bond to Vader was from Empire into Jedi).  Retroactively dismissing ME2 because the writers of ME3 were to lazy to run with the (admittedly rather nebulous, but fertile) ball that they had been passed does a disservice to a text that was - as it needed to be - more a tale about broad theme and ideology, than a singular focussed narrative progression.

Again, as I would argue: like Empire.

Had Lucas decided: nah, that 'Vader's my dad' stuff doesn't need to go anywhere in the denouement, then you could direct the very same arguments at Star Wars.

Interesting that you mentioned the genophage and the geth, because that ties into the two sections of ME3 that are in fact, praised:  Tuchanka and Rannoch.  Those are where decisions from all three games actually come into play to affect the outcome.  It's where it does, in fact, play out kind of like a thought-out series (Legion's "Reaper code!  Nom nom nom! notwithstanding)

But as far as the central Reaper storyline, ME2 does almost nothing.  Whether this is a weakness of ME2 (they were winging it the whole time) or ME3 (they changed their horses midstream), it caused serious disconnect between the entries. it causes a major disconnect.  And likely contributed to the complete and utter thoughtlessness of the ending.

Fair point - but the more I think about ME3, the more disenchanted I am by the treatment of the Geth.

They could have been a legitimate window into the destruction of the Reapers, had the plot of ME3 played out differently.

A synthetic species that has been under the sway of the Reaper influence, who arguably have a unique perspective into their identity and perhaps eventual destruction?  As themes go: sloughing off the shackles of an oppressive false god seems pretty ripe for exploration, and the Geth narrative arc was primed (had the writers of ME3 wanted to follow it through) to go there.  What better rebellion to stab at the Reaper's heart than a species that were once helplessly in their sway and that want to assert their autonomy and newfound alliance with the organics that they are wrongly accused of wanting to annihilate?

Add the Prothean mutation into Collectors of ME2, the vague weird allusions to Reaperdisation going on in that naff Human Reaper, and this potential for a profound rejection of dominance and control, and the plot of ME3 could have been a sprawling, rollicking statement about the downtrodden and abused throwing off the enslavement under which they have been living for countless generations.

That ham-fisted Garden of Eden reference in the end, rather than being soured by war crimes and acts of grotesque, hateful intolerance, might have sung with an urgency and grace as the unified species of the galaxy were truly able to grow together, out from under the oppressive shadow of their self-appointed 'masters', creatures now finally overthrown through their own mad hubris. 

Modifié par drayfish, 26 mars 2013 - 05:54 .

[David7204]

The problem with introducing the Crucible in ME 2 is that I would really, really prefer to have players asking "How the hell are we going to do this?" at the end of ME 2 instead of "How is this thing going to save us?" It kills a whole lot of the drama, I think. Cause players are going to know. They're going to know that this thing is going to be the solution.

And of course, no matter how good the plan is in ME 2, it has to go wrong somehow.

And could we lighten the quote stacks?

Modifié par David7204, 26 mars 2013 - 05:46 .

[David7204]

Yeah, the Dark Knight Rises was awful, I thought. I think I would have laughed if Batman died.