1093 réponses à ce sujet

[MassivelyEffective0730]

mass perfection wrote...

Was Assassin's Creed Revelations filler?

Totally and completely. So was Brotherhood.

[mass perfection]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Was Assassin's Creed Revelations filler?

Totally and completely. So was Brotherhood.

Was because everyone loved Ezio?

[AresKeith]

mass perfection wrote...

Was Assassin's Creed Revelations filler?

Not really, it ended the story of both Altair and Ezio

The problem with Revelations was that it was basically an expansion to brotherhood because of the length of the game

[The Heretic of Time]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Personally, I chalk that up to how bad ME3 ended up being in that aspect than to any merits that BO2 might've had. It wasn't that it was a massive achievement in storytelling, even beating out Mass Effect. It's that Mass Effect 3 just ended up being so bad with its payout for its storylines and decisions and choices that it was actually less than BO2, an FPS. As I said though, this is my opinion.

You keep blaming everything on ME3 yet you do not realize that it's ME2 that made the ME3 that we got pretty much inevitable.

ME2 is the game that led us to ME3.  You can't blame everything on ME3 yet ignore that ME2 and its flaws is the thing that inevitably led us to the ME3 we got. That's actually one of the points I tried to make in my OP.

[HiddenInWar]

The only complaint I have about ME2 is the sprinting system. I think they should have kept ME3's running style the same throughout the trilogy.

[mass perfection]

AresKeith wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Was Assassin's Creed Revelations filler?

Not really, it ended the story of both Altair and Ezio

The problem with Revelations was that it was basically an expansion to brotherhood because of the length of the game

I wouldn't know.I got REAL bored of Revelations after afew missions.

[HiddenInWar]

Assassin's Creed: Internet Arguments 2

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

social.bioware.com/4325464/polls/46452/

[AlexMBrennan]

Well, at least Black Ops 2 had choices with actual consequences that actually had a significant impact on the ending though

You are going to use that as an example? Because the "important" choice is completely causally unrelated to the effect (Farid takes the bullet for Karma, and the bad guys don't bother shooting her again despite the fact that they clearly tried to kill her just now, and clearly didn't succeed thanks to Farid's heroic sacrifice)

[The Heretic of Time]

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

social.bioware.com/4325464/polls/46452/

Can't acces your poll mate because for some reason you have me on your block list.

[mass perfection]

HiddenInWar wrote...

Assassin's Creed: Internet Arguments 2

What?

[mass perfection]

Who'd win in a fight,the Reapers or the Brethren Moons from Dead Space?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

As much as I like ME2, it was a filler game because Bioware didn't know what to do for a trilogy

It ended up being filler, but the reason I think it did was because of the direction ME3 ended up going.

That is not true. ME2 clearly already is a filler as soon as you blow up the Collector base.

The only thing that can potentially be gained in ME2 that could potentially have been of any significance was the Collector base. Without it, you're literally no furter than you were at the end of ME1.

ME2 literally is a status-quo. In the end of ME2 I couldn't help but conclude that story had not progressed one single inch from where it was at the end of ME1.

ME2 was leading up to a different ME3 to what we got. That's why it feels so disjointed in my opinion.

Please explain this, because I don't understand what you mean with this.

It's not filler as soon as you blow up the Collector base. It progressed in the understanding of the Reapers, in setting up the cards for their arrival in ME3, in preparing the variables for the final action. It was the more in-depth and alternative look into the universe from ME1.

Could it have done a better job? Yes. It could have done a much better job. But I do believe that it succeeded in doing its job nonetheless.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

What I mean is that with the transition from ME1 to ME2, it's a bit like a pattern.

We'll call ME1 the starting point, correct? What it does it establish the story, the universe, the plot, the conflict, the lore, several of the characters, etc. Once it's finished, it can go in any direction it pleases so long as it satisfies all of the criteria. It's a lot more expansive and a lot more open with where you can go with the story, going from the first game to the second (and this is for more than just Mass Effect.)

Mass Effect 2 doesn't go against this, mainly because it is really hard to go against it narratively in the second game. The second game sets up more of a permanent problem and is the critical juncture in pointing the direction for the final juncture, the endgame, the finale.

Once that has been accomplished, it is now up to ME3 to finish this. ME3 isn't acting as a sequel for ME1 now. It's acting as a sequel to ME2 now too. It must follow the line that was established by ME2, and complete it within the confines of that story.

So basically what I'm trying to get at is that ME1 establishes the background for the story, ME2 takes the background and defines the line for where the story will conclude. It's up to ME3 now follow the line to a proper stopping point and finish within the constraints set by ME2.

Mass Effect 3 did not do this. It broke away from that line from ME2.

ME2 ended up pointing to an ME3 that was different from the ME3 we ended up getting. 

In my opinion, this isn't ME2's fault. This is ME3's fault. ME3 failed to properly build upon the constraints set by ME2. That is why ME2 can feel rather meaningless in the context of the story.

Am I making sense? I can paint a picture for you if you need me to.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 14 juillet 2013 - 12:18 .

[The Heretic of Time]

mass perfection wrote...

Who'd win in a fight,the Reapers or the Brethren Moons from Dead Space?

They're both EA creations both from two sh*tty EA sci-fi series... so who knows....

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 14 juillet 2013 - 12:17 .

[Reorte]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

In my opinion, this isn't ME2's fault. This is ME3's fault. ME3 failed to properly build upon the constraints set by ME2. That is why ME2 can feel rather meaningless in the context of the story.

Am I making sense? I can paint a picture for you if you need me to.

ME3 is at fault for that but IMO ME2 is at fault for not really setting much up anyway that could've been used by ME3 (a couple of dark energy references were about all).

[BaladasDemnevanni]

mass perfection wrote...

Was Assassin's Creed Revelations filler?

I wouldn't say so. It moves our protagonist around to where he needs to be, on a narrative level. It puts him on a clear path forward and has allowed him to overcome the Bleeding Effect.

Desmond actually has character development for a change (yes, I laughed typing that).

Whether they were good stories is another question entirely, but Brotherhood and Revelations did push the story forward.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Personally, I chalk that up to how bad ME3 ended up being in that aspect than to any merits that BO2 might've had. It wasn't that it was a massive achievement in storytelling, even beating out Mass Effect. It's that Mass Effect 3 just ended up being so bad with its payout for its storylines and decisions and choices that it was actually less than BO2, an FPS. As I said though, this is my opinion.

You keep blaming everything on ME3 yet you do not realize that it's ME2 that made the ME3 that we got pretty much inevitable.

ME2 is the game that led us to ME3.  You can't blame everything on ME3 yet ignore that ME2 and its flaws is the thing that inevitably led us to the ME3 we got. That's actually one of the points I tried to make in my OP.

No.

I do blame ME3.

I think ME2 led to a different ME3 than what we ended up getting. 

That's why I think ME2 is being bashed here. I'm not saying I'm right, but I'm saying why I think I'm right.

I think ME2 is being bashed (unfairly, in my opinion) because ME3 didn't come from the lead that ME2 established.

I'm not denying ME2 or its flaws. I'm saying that ME3 is the reason why ME2 feels so disjointed from the rest of the story.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Reorte wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

In my opinion, this isn't ME2's fault. This is ME3's fault. ME3 failed to properly build upon the constraints set by ME2. That is why ME2 can feel rather meaningless in the context of the story.

Am I making sense? I can paint a picture for you if you need me to.

ME3 is at fault for that but IMO ME2 is at fault for not really setting much up anyway that could've been used by ME3 (a couple of dark energy references were about all).

And that's where ME2's faults come in of course. I won't deny that.

[mass perfection]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Was Assassin's Creed Revelations filler?

I wouldn't say so. It moves our protagonist around to where he needs to be, on a narrative level. It puts him on a clear path forward and has allowed him to overcome the Bleeding Effect.

Desmond actually has character development for a change (yes, I laughed typing that).

Whether they were good stories is another question entirely, but Brotherhood and Revelations did push the story forward.

He does?

[AlexMBrennan]

It's not filler as soon as you blow up the Collector base.

Taking out a newly introduced threat that is virtually unrelated to and only present for the sake of having a non-Reaper antagonist is filler.

[The Heretic of Time]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

It's not filler as soon as you blow up the Collector base. It progressed in the understanding of the Reapers, in setting up the cards for their arrival in ME3, in preparing the variables for the final action. It was the more in-depth and alternative look into the universe from ME1.

Everything you mentioned there is meaningless exposition and doesn't really move the plot forward. It is exactly as I said, a filler-arc.

One could easily skip directly to ME3 after beating ME1 and still he would perfectly understand what is going on. 

In fact, some arcs make even MORE sense WITHOUT Mass Effect 2, such as the Cerberus story-arc (Cerberus are villains in ME1, pseudo-good guys in ME2 and then back to absolute villains in ME3, skipping the ME2 Cerberus makes more sense in this case, going from villain ME1 Cerberus directly to evil villain ME3 Cerberus).

*snip*

Am I making sense? I can paint a picture for you if you need me to.

No sorry, you're not making any sense at all. You keep talking about this "line" that ME2 sets, but ME2 doesn't set a line at all. ME2's "plot" is everywhere and nowhere. It introduces a bunch of new villains, which are all dealt with within the same game. It does not lead to anything or anywhere. The only signifant thing that ME2 establishes is the fact that the reapers are coming to get us by manually flying over to our galaxy. ME3 picks this up as expected, with a reaper invasion at the start of the game.


Honestly, NOTHING of Mass Effect 3 was UNEXPECTED to me. Everything that happened was completely expected because of ME2. The only thing that came by surprise to me is that Cerberus was back to being a villain again. Okay, and he Starchild, that thing also caught be by surprise, even though I did expect a grand speech from the reaper leader somewhere in ME3, I simply expected that leader to be Harbinger, not a ghost child. Aside from that, ME3 was utterly predictable, because of what ME2 set us up with.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 14 juillet 2013 - 12:27 .

[mass perfection]

Deus Ex Human Revolution is Mass Effect 2 done right.


/Fact

[The Heretic of Time]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I think ME2 is being bashed (unfairly, in my opinion) because ME3 didn't come from the lead that ME2 established.

What lead did ME2 establish and how did ME3 not follow up on this?

I'm completely unware of any lead being established by ME2, other than "omg the reapers are coming", which ME3 clearly does follow up on.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

mass perfection wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Was Assassin's Creed Revelations filler?

I wouldn't say so. It moves our protagonist around to where he needs to be, on a narrative level. It puts him on a clear path forward and has allowed him to overcome the Bleeding Effect.

Desmond actually has character development for a change (yes, I laughed typing that).

Whether they were good stories is another question entirely, but Brotherhood and Revelations did push the story forward.

He does?

Indeed he does. If you explore his dialogue with Lucy between AC1, 2, and the beginning of Revelations, they go into more detail about Desmond's being a reluctant hero, not ever wanting to be an assassin to begin with.

If you explore those puzzle areas, the narrative deals with Desmond confronting his past and realizing that he can't keep setting aside his role/identity.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I think ME2 is being bashed (unfairly, in my opinion) because ME3 didn't come from the lead that ME2 established.

What lead did ME2 establish and how did ME3 not follow up on this?

I'm completely unware of any lead being established by ME2, other than "omg the reapers are coming", which ME3 clearly does follow up on.

Well, in scenarios where the Base survives at least (ignoring my opinion on the save import scheme), ME2 left the impression that TIM would data mine the base and get something useful from that (much like our own Thanix cannons off Sovereign).

Of course, the Collector Base didn't do anything useful, so meh.