1093 réponses à ce sujet

[The Heretic of Time]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Come to think of it, I still don't actually understand this drawing.


How do you know where ME3 was supposed to be / supposed to go? And what is wrong wih the fact that ME3 takes up points from both ME1 and ME2?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

dreamgazer wrote...

I should draw something.

Please do so!

[Steelcan]

TexasToast712 wrote...

 Mass Effect 1 < Mass Effect 2 < Mass Effect 3

People focus too much on one flaw. (endings) Regardless of the endings, Mass Effect 3 was a solid game and my favorite. Before that it was Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect 1 combat was terrible compared to the other 2. Story was decent across all 3. As with any game that does a import system, there will always be unavoidable problems.

And the award for dumbest post goes to......

the endings were only a small part og why ME3 is sub par to the other entries.

[The Heretic of Time]

Steelcan wrote...

The artistic skills expressed here rival those of Botticelli and Leonardo da Vinci

I actually CAN draw somewhat decently you know, just saying. 

But thanks for the compliment. I'm rather proud of my beautiful ME storyline drawing. I shall title it:


"Red, Blue, Green" 


I think that's a very artistic title for a very artistic piece of art, don't you think so?

[in it for the lolz]

Steelcan wrote...

The artistic skills expressed here rival those of Casey Hudson and SuperMac

Fixed that for you

[The Heretic of Time]

in it for the lolz wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

The artistic skills expressed here rival those of Casey Hudson and SuperMac

Fixed that for you

It's Chud.

SuperMac and Chud.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Come to think of it, I still don't actually understand this drawing.


How do you know where ME3 was supposed to be / supposed to go? And what is wrong wih the fact that ME3 takes up points from both ME1 and ME2?

Does anybody else here understand my drawing at all?

ME2 is going in a particular direction, based on what was established in the opening game. The lines around ME1 are other possibilities the game could have gone in.

However, once ME2 was laid down, there was only one (or a very limited number of paths storywise) that ME3 could take that fit both ME2 and ME1.

Instead, ME3 ended up simply jumping straight from ME1, taking elements from ME2 along with it, but ignoring the development in ME2. 

Had ME3 been written properly, ME2 might not be as bashed as it is by the people here for being pointless. At least, that's what I think.

Lets put it another way. 

A showerhead is spewing out water. The showerhead represents ME1. The water represents the story possibilities for sequels.

There is a funnel that catches some of the water from the showerhead. That funnel is ME2. It channels the water down through the hole into the bucket. The water is the story progression. The bucket represents ME3.

You with me?

That's how the story should have gone. 

The Showerhead (ME1) spews out the water (the possibilities for the story). The funnel (ME2) takes some of those possibilities and puts them into a cohesive stream of water out the bottom (the story progression) into the bucket (ME3).

What we got was the showerhead spewing some of the water directly into the bucket. The funnel was catching some of the water, but it was being emptied into a drain, not the bucket. Some of the water was bouncing off the funnel and into the bucket. 

Is that a good analogy? Do I need to draw it out?

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 14 juillet 2013 - 02:24 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

...what are you guys even fighting about anymore?

[The Heretic of Time]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

ME2 is going in a particular direction, based on what was established in the opening game. The lines around ME1 are other possibilities the game could have gone in.

You keep repeating this, yet you fail to explain or even address what "particular direction" that is supposed to be.

WHAT "line"?

WHAT "particular direction"?

However, once ME2 was laid down, there was only one (or a very limited number of paths storywise) that ME3 could take that fit both ME2 and ME1.

WHAT (limited) path(s)?

Instead, ME3 ended up simply jumping straight from ME1, taking elements from ME2 along with it, but ignoring the development in ME2. 

WHAT development in ME2?

Is that a good analogy? Do I need to draw it out?

No, I don't need analogies, I need to know WHAT EXACTLY in Mass Effect you're talking about. I somehow get the feeling you don't even know the answer to that yourself...

[dreamgazer]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

...what are you guys even fighting about anymore?

Drawings.  Apparently the ones with lines. 

[The Heretic of Time]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

...what are you guys even fighting about anymore?

Basically, I said (as in my OP) that Mass Effect 2 is a pointless filler arc that ends in a status-quo. The plot is nog progressed at all in ME2 and the story literally ends on the same terms as that is starts. We're literally no step furter at the end of ME2 than we were at the end of ME1.

The reason why ME3 sucks, is because ME2 sucks. ME2 sidetracked the story, leaving ME3 to basically cover 2/3th of the story, which is why it results in a crammed, rushed mess with such bad pacing. It's why the reaper war feels so rushed, why the Crucible introduction is so sudden and why the end is so abrupt.


 MassivelyEffective0730 begs to differ and argues that ME2 set up a certain line/direction (yet he fails to explain what this "line" or "direction" exactly is) and ME3 fails to follow up on that "line" or "direction" (whatever that "line/direction" may be, I don't even know/understand this myself, because in my opinion ME2 doesn't even have a coherend line or direction).

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 14 juillet 2013 - 02:38 .

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

 Now it's about art huh?Here's mine

[AlanC9]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...g

Does anybody else here understand my drawing at all?

ME2 is going in a particular direction, based on what was established in the opening game. The lines around ME1 are other possibilities the game could have gone in.

I don't know what others think, but the drawing's OK for me. It's the substantive point I don't follow.

Which possibility is it ME3.should have run with, again?

[in it for the lolz]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

...what are you guys even fighting about anymore?

I fight....













.......FOR THE EMPEROR!!!!

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

ME2 is going in a particular direction, based on what was established in the opening game. The lines around ME1 are other possibilities the game could have gone in.

You keep repeating this, yet you fail to explain or even address what "particular direction" that is supposed to be.

WHAT "line"?

WHAT "particular direction"?

However, once ME2 was laid down, there was only one (or a very limited number of paths storywise) that ME3 could take that fit both ME2 and ME1.

WHAT (limited) path(s)?

Instead, ME3 ended up simply jumping straight from ME1, taking elements from ME2 along with it, but ignoring the development in ME2. 

WHAT development in ME2?

Is that a good analogy? Do I need to draw it out?

No, I don't need analogies, I need to know WHAT EXACTLY in Mass Effect you're talking about. I somehow get the feeling you don't even know the answer to that yourself...

I'm talking about the story, the plot, the direction, the line, the development, etc. that Mass Effect 2 established.

It pointed in a direction. It was supposed to go into Mass Effect 3.

Everything, including the plot, lead into a Mass Effect 3 that was different from the Mass Effect 3 that we got.

The Mass Effect 3 that we got was based off of Mass Effect 1, taking elements from Mass Effect 2.

It should have been vice versa. ME3 should have been based on Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect 2 was already based on Mass Effect 1, so Mass Effect 3 would have fit ME1 by fitting into ME2. 

Instead Mass Effect 3 was built from Mass Effect 1, and it happened to come into contact with Mass Effect 2 at several points. 

I really don't know how I can explain it to you if you don't get it already. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

AlanC9 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...g

Does anybody else here understand my drawing at all?

ME2 is going in a particular direction, based on what was established in the opening game. The lines around ME1 are other possibilities the game could have gone in.

I don't know what others think, but the drawing's OK for me. It's the substantive point I don't follow.

Which possibility is it ME3.should have run with, again?

Mass Effect 3 should have been completely based on the ME2 we got. Since ME2 is already based from ME1, there's no point trying to connect ME3 to ME1 since it's already inherently fundamentally based on it by its connection to ME2. 

[Steelcan]

The only factor that ME2 adds is the CB decision. I

[Cainhurst Crow]

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

 Now it's about art huh?Here's mine

It's a talking potato turd.

[dreamgazer]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

 Now it's about art huh?Here's mine

It's a talking potato turd.

It's your genetic destiny. 

[The Heretic of Time]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

ME2 is going in a particular direction, based on what was established in the opening game. The lines around ME1 are other possibilities the game could have gone in.

You keep repeating this, yet you fail to explain or even address what "particular direction" that is supposed to be.

WHAT "line"?

WHAT "particular direction"?

However, once ME2 was laid down, there was only one (or a very limited number of paths storywise) that ME3 could take that fit both ME2 and ME1.

WHAT (limited) path(s)?

Instead, ME3 ended up simply jumping straight from ME1, taking elements from ME2 along with it, but ignoring the development in ME2. 

WHAT development in ME2?

Is that a good analogy? Do I need to draw it out?

No, I don't need analogies, I need to know WHAT EXACTLY in Mass Effect you're talking about. I somehow get the feeling you don't even know the answer to that yourself...

I'm talking about the story, the plot, the direction, the line, the development, etc. that Mass Effect 2 established.

It pointed in a direction. It was supposed to go into Mass Effect 3.

Everything, including the plot, lead into a Mass Effect 3 that was different from the Mass Effect 3 that we got.

The Mass Effect 3 that we got was based off of Mass Effect 1, taking elements from Mass Effect 2.

It should have been vice versa. ME3 should have been based on Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect 2 was already based on Mass Effect 1, so Mass Effect 3 would have fit ME1 by fitting into ME2. 

Instead Mass Effect 3 was built from Mass Effect 1, and it happened to come into contact with Mass Effect 2 at several points. 

I really don't know how I can explain it to you if you don't get it already. 

You still fail the answer my questions. That's all you need to do really, answer my questions. If you can do that, then I might understand you.


Again, WHAT direction did Mass Effect 2 take according to you? WHAT (plot) line does it set out or advance?

WHAT direction SHOULD Mass Effect 3 have taken according to you? WHY should Mass Effect 3 have taken this direction?

According to you, in WHAT way does Mass Effect 3 not follow up on the plot of ME2 (as far as ME2 has a plot)?

WHY do you think ME3 was build from ME1 and not from ME2?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

...what are you guys even fighting about anymore?

Basically, I said (as in my OP) that Mass Effect 2 is a pointless filler arc that ends in a status-quo. The plot is nog progressed at all in ME2 and the story literally ends on the same terms as that is starts. We're literally no step furter at the end of ME2 than we were at the end of ME1.

The reason why ME3 sucks, is because ME2 sucks. ME2 sidetracked the story, leaving ME3 to basically cover 2/3th of the story, which is why it results in a crammed, rushed mess with such bad pacing. It's why the reaper war feels so rushed, why the Crucible introduction is so sudden and why the end is so abrupt.


 MassivelyEffective0730 begs to differ and argues that ME2 set up a certain line/direction (yet he fails to explain what this "line" or "direction" exactly is) and ME3 fails to follow up on that "line" or "direction" (whatever that "line/direction" may be, I don't even know/understand this myself, because in my opinion ME2 doesn't even have a coherend line or direction).

There! You have it! There's what I was getting at! You got it!

The "line" and "direction" is the plot, the story of ME2. Everything that ME2 brings to the table is added to that line which is going in one specific direction. I honestly don't know how much more clear I can be.

If we're not getting each other now, I don't think going to get each other at all. I think there is a fundamental difference in our perspective here.

What I'm saying is that ME3 simply builds itself from ME1 instead of ME2.

We differ in our opinions of why things are the way they are:

You say that ME2 messed up the story.

I say ME3 messed up the story.

You say the problems and issues of ME2 messed up the rest of the story for ME3.

I say the problems and issues of ME3 were messed up the story because it was not connected adequately to ME2, and that the reason ME2 looks so bad is because it ends up being pointless because of ME3 not following up on it.

There's our difference: We agree the story is messed up, but we don't agree on how its messed up.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 14 juillet 2013 - 02:58 .

[in it for the lolz]

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

 Now it's about art huh?Here's mine

You call that art?

Now this is art:

[The Heretic of Time]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

The "line" and "direction" is the plot, the story of ME2. Everything that ME2 brings to the table is added to that line which is going in one specific direction.

What does ME2 bring tot he table that actually adds to the main plot of the trilogy?

And what might this "one specific direction" be?

What I'm saying is that ME3 simply builds itself from ME1 instead of ME2.

What makes you thinkt hat?

We differ in our opinions of why things are the way they are:

You say that ME2 messed up the story.

I say ME3 messed up the story.

The thing is, I give understandable, coherend arguments why I think ME2 messed up. You however fail to back up why you think ME2 is "perfect" and ME3 messed up by "not following the line of ME2".

You say the problems and issues of ME2 messed up the rest of the story for ME3.

I say the problems and issues of ME3 were messed up the story because it was not connected adequately to ME2, and that the reason ME2 looks so bad is because it ends up being pointless because of ME3.

And I give arguments with proper examples to explain why I believe this. You however fail to back up your arguments with examples.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 14 juillet 2013 - 02:59 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

dreamgazer wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

 Now it's about art huh?Here's mine
*snip*

It's a talking potato turd.

It's your genetic destiny. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

The "line" and "direction" is the plot, the story of ME2. Everything that ME2 brings to the table is added to that line which is going in one specific direction.

What does ME2 bring tot he table that actually adds to the main plot of the trilogy?

And what might this "one specific direction" be?

What I'm saying is that ME3 simply builds itself from ME1 instead of ME2.

What makes you thinkt hat?

We differ in our opinions of why things are the way they are:

You say that ME2 messed up the story.

I say ME3 messed up the story.

The thing is, I give understandible, coherend arguments why I think ME2 messed up. You however fail to back up why you think ME2 is "perfect" and ME3 messed up by "not following the line of ME2".

You say the problems and issues of ME2 messed up the rest of the story for ME3.

I say the problems and issues of ME3 were messed up the story because it was not connected adequately to ME2, and that the reason ME2 looks so bad is because it ends up being pointless because of ME3.

And I give arguments with proper examples to explain why I believe this. You however fail to back up your arguments with examples.

It's a conceptual problem. I really can't use an example past saying "the plot". I really can't. There's no way to simplify it further. As for our disagreement, there really is nothing I can do to be more clear. We fundamentally don't understand each others issue. You aren't giving coherent arguments. I'm not understanding what you're looking for with your arguments. I'm not saying that by any fault of yours, but I'm saying we aren't understanding each other.

As for why I like ME2, I can't state any reason you would agree with. This alone comes down to preferrence.

Again, I guess we have to agree to disagree here: Not much more to say since we seem to be talking at and past each other. We'll just leave it at this: You think ME2 is the source of all problems. I think ME3 is. That's about all we can do now.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 14 juillet 2013 - 03:09 .