199 réponses à ce sujet

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Stupid writing in ME3?

Surely you must be joking!

[KaiserShep]

The only thing that's really bad about the beginning is Shepard's dialogue. What he/she says to the Defense Council makes no sense whatsoever, but other than that, it was an effective enough mini mission.

[Erez Kristal]

StreetMagic wrote...

What's so bad about the beginning? The ending definitely sucks, but I don't understand what's so bad about the rest.. When I first played, I was as stoked as I am with any good game. It kept me interested. Which is why I complain about the ending even more. It doesn't live up to the rest.

In a roleplaying game, you are supposed to make the tone of your character and to make the best decisions available to you which match your taste. in the beginning we see that shepard was hijacked by the writers and changed into something which destroying and betrayed the characterization we imprinted in him in me1 and me2 in order to do the stupidest thing he could that would harm the war efforts against the reapers in the greatest way possibile.
Thats what is so terribile about the beginning, i felt nerfed and betrayed. like the shepard I was seeing was no longer my shepard. this was no longer my story. The biggest and first time it happens is in the begining when you discover shepard was sitting on his ass on vancouver while the reapers were harvesting batarians in order to have cannibals to raid earth.

[Tron Mega]

i hate the beginning to ME2 the most. mainly because and probably only because shepard dies.

for no reason.

then brought back to life!

for no reason.

i felt absolutely nothing when shepard dies. and thats after 50+ playthrough of ME1.

contrived, to the core.

[jkflipflopDAO]

Seriously. We've hashed this out to no end. If you really want an answer, read through the 100,000+ threads all talking about the exact same thing.

[Tron Mega]

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

Seriously. We've hashed this out to no end. If you really want an answer, read through the 100,000+ threads all talking about the exact same thing.

if only ME3 was good.

<_<

[AlanC9]

I call shenanigans on the thread title. If you want to talk about the beginning, that should be in the title.

It's also an obvious failure, since this looks like it's going to be snother ending thread anyway.

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 juillet 2013 - 11:56 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I'm going to go ahead and report this thread for spam.

Just because.

[Reorte]

There's still people actually defending the drivel in ME3? Wave a bit of vague nonsense at some people and they thank it for being clever, it's really quite tragic.

Modifié par Reorte, 18 juillet 2013 - 11:56 .

[hpjay]

Tron Mega wrote...

i hate the beginning to ME2 the most. mainly because and probably only because shepard dies.

for no reason.

then brought back to life!

for no reason.

i felt absolutely nothing when shepard dies. and thats after 50+ playthrough of ME1.

contrived, to the core.

 It took me three tries and about as many days to get thru the beginning on ME2 the first time around.  There were three reasons.   One was the Shepard dies and is brought back to life.  Two was thermal clips.  Don't have a problem with them in and of themselves, but it was a weird mismatch with ME1.  Third, ammo types as a POWER, not as an inventory item.  After that I was golden.  The only other issue I had was it got a little busy mission wise when act 2 started.

ME3 was fine for me till Thessia.  I had no issue with being under arest at the start for my Shepard (or the Shepard I was ushering thru the game).  Also, some of the LOOOOONNNNNNGGGGGG auto dialogs were a bit much.  But otherwise I was good until...  Thessia.   Thessia seemed half done.  It was short, it was a single mission (unlike Palavan, Tuchanka, or Rannoch), it had Kai Lame and a Thessian temple built over a seemingly bottomless hole (WTF was up with that).  Also, there was an abrupt mood change.  All of a sudden people seemed to be talking about how the war was almost ready to be lost.  Problem was it didn't show anything for that, they just kinda said, "OK were really loosing the war now".  And don't get me started on Earth or that stupid little star kid:(

Modifié par hpjay, 19 juillet 2013 - 12:15 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Yeah, it seemed like we were doing okay. Then Thessia, and Liara's eyes filled with tears, and all was lost to the galaxy. The bottomless hole in the world of Thessia in that Temple. Walters wrote the most derp-filled dialogue for her at the temple: FFS, she's a goddamn Prothean expert. She's been inside of Prothean ruins. She's seen drawings of Protheans FFS on the fracking walls of the ruins. She's seen a goddamn Prothean (day 1 DLC), but if you don't take Javik with you she doesn't recognize the drawings of the ancient Asari of the Prothean Athame.

Why no other missions? Well, I guess because all was lost. The hole in the ground? To emphasize that Derpard was now helpless in spite of all the successes earlier. Derpard was beaten by Kai Lame because of the Derpy cutscene Derp. -- NO YOU CAN'T SHOOT KAI LAME NOW. YOU MUST TALK TO TIM.

But it wasn't the reapers that beat Shepard. It was Cerberus. How did Cerberus find out? It was C-sec, and Udina's office was bugged -- it is called Purposeful Plot Derp. Councilor Tevos should have met you in HER office or come aboard the Normandy when it was docked -- if security was of prime concern, the latter. But that would have been smart, and David wouldn't have approved. Protagonists must be hampered by DERP. There should have been no way Cerberus beat you to the punch.

Then you go back to fighting our real enemy Cerberus and Kai Lame for a while and bail out Miranda and Oriana due to information gathered by the most unlikely source, Traynor, since that info in the original script was supposed to come from Liara, but we'll accept this ass pull... EDI? I could have actually bought coming up with it.

[Argetfalcon]

Because I story needs to be consistant with itself. The reason many people didn't like the ending was because it didn't fit with the rest of the story.

You should play the game "Alan Wake". Story Line is a huge plot point

[Erez Kristal]

The begining was a lot less consistent than the endings.
For all those who compare with me2, yes shepard was brought back to life shortly afterwards. but the story didnt introduce new problems because of it, your shepard only got better and stronger, the world stayed the same. and most importantly shepard acted in character(dead) While in mass effect 3 shepard was no longer our character, some of you may agree with him turning himself in, despite all the evidence i wrote in the first post show how stupid that decision is.

My shepard was a martyr, he had a galaxy to save. seeing earth burning after the writers character hijacking was the biggest character steal in roleplaying games.

[KaiserShep]

I don't agree with Shepard turning him/herself in, but as I said, this is a fixed event determined by The Arrival's conclusion. So ME3's only fault in this respect is actually following through on that decision. Of course, it would've been nice if they were able to conjure up reasonable circumstances that prevented this from happening, but there it is. I guess they needed a reason for Shepard to be stuck on Earth to witness the first wave of the reaper invasion, as Shepard holding on to the Normandy would probably leave him/her somewhere far off. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 19 juillet 2013 - 06:05 .

[TheProtheans]

The intro was horrible, but lets not for forget all the crap in between.

[KaiserShep]

I was under the impression that the stuff in between was given a largely positive consensus.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 19 juillet 2013 - 06:11 .

[Erez Kristal]

KaiserShep wrote...

I don't agree with Shepard turning him/herself in, but as I said, this is a fixed event determined by The Arrival's conclusion. So ME3's only fault in this respect is actually following through on that decision. Of course, it would've been nice if they were able to conjure up reasonable circumstances that prevented this from happening, but there it is. I guess they needed a reason for Shepard to be stuck on Earth to witness the first wave of the reaper invasion, as Shepard holding on to the Normandy would probably leave him/her somewhere far off. 

The only conclusion from arrival was that shepard may have been a wanted man in a case where hacket decided to sell him off.
Nothing more
Some shepards are good old alliance brats who agree to play along and not disrupt hacket promotion
Some shepards prefer to do things their wayl.

And even if shepard was forced to played along he could still only be captived by name while he goes around the galaxy kicking ass.

There was also no reason to hand over the normandy, there was a capable crew on it capable of kicking ass without shepard

This is just a glorfied plot mess without any room for justification. this for me was the most terribile part about me3 story. and what rendered the game unplayable storywise. its breaks all story legitimacy. since i know my shepard would never do that.

[Erez Kristal]

KaiserShep wrote...

I was under the impression that the stuff in between was given a largely positive consensus.

its was because they were fun to play, but once you start to judge them story wise, you start seeing the cracks.

Geth-quarrian conflict is the best example

Cerberus is the obvious one.

[KaiserShep]

Mass Effect 2 is no different in this regard. I would argue that if you put the fun factor aside, and actually judged the story based purely on its logic, it would be just as problematic, if not more so, than Mass Effect 3. But this goes back to a point I made a while back about the fun factor making flaws easier to forgive. Tuchanka and Rannoch were both enjoyable missions, and though there's things to pick apart in the Rannoch arc, its effectiveness made its flaws forgivable. Had the ending managed to maintain this level of enjoyability, it would not be drawing fire as it has.

[Erez Kristal]

KaiserShep wrote...

Mass Effect 2 is no different in this regard. I would argue that if you put the fun factor aside, and actually judged the story based purely on its logic, it would be just as problematic, if not more so, than Mass Effect 3. But this goes back to a point I made a while back about the fun factor making flaws easier to forgive. Tuchanka and Rannoch were both enjoyable missions, and though there's things to pick apart in the Rannoch arc, its effectiveness made its flaws forgivable. Had the ending managed to maintain this level of enjoyability, it would not be drawing fire as it has.

i already mentioned why it isnt just the fun factors.
for me its very important to be able to immerse myself in the character and control what it say and think. i could do this in masseffect 1&2 but i couldnt in mass effect 3.
This is acceptable in a new action game. but not in the closing chapter of an established rpg seres.

I have watcehd many attempts of reaping mass effect 2 plot and only instance can agree on is the IFF test. the rest of the issue presented are easily explained and fit well into the plot without creating any holes or plot inconsistencies
Which is why me2 was so beloved by the gamers.

[KaiserShep]

Fun factor encompasses anything that adds greater enjoyment to the game. Immersive dialogue options are included.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 19 juillet 2013 - 06:54 .

[wright1978]

KaiserShep wrote...

It's not a matter of blaming Mass Effect 2. I'm telling you that all of these things, and even the decision for Shepard to turn him/herself into the Alliance, happens before Mass Effect 3. Say what you want, but the retcon occurred before ME3 starts, and the decision Shepard makes was a done deal. Going back on that decision in 3 would be more of a retcon in itself, unless something occurred that changed it reasonably.

The decision to come in was framed to allow players to voice a range of views from zippydee doo dah i'm going to Alliance all the way along to i'm coming back kicking & screaming . ME3 intro just utterly refuses to acknowledge anything other than the former. That alone without going into the narrative weaknesses of the opening is enough to make me hate the opening where they introduced the idea of replacing the player character with their own doppelganger.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

erezike wrote...

The beginning is clearly the most terrible part of the game.
Forcing shepard to go to jail and making him express hes rather ok about it when he already know how incompetent the galaxy is, was the biggest character hijacking and stupidity forced decision making i have ever seen in a rpg.

To answer your thread title, I think it's because the ending dropped the narrative ball at almost every turn for ~10 minutes straight... the intro can't compare.

To answer your post though, you're right in the sense that the intro had some things wrong with it.  I had assumed that Shepard made preparations prior to ME3's intro (as the Arrival DLC suggested would happen).  But you could always assume that the original plan fell apart without his leadership and his pleas fell on deaf ears for weeks to the point that he said "Then screw it, I'm going on vacation."

But again, you're absolutely right that the intro had holes.

[AlexMBrennan]

There was also no reason to hand over the normandy, there was a capable crew on it capable of kicking ass without shepard

A terrorist crew - I don't care how much you want to marry Timmy and have his illusion babies, but the fact of the matter is that Cerberus is considered a terrorist organisation by the Council; Shepard is damn lucky that he and his entire crew weren't executed like the asari councillor demanded and obviously they will cease the ship once Shepard stops being useful as a deniable operative tasked with hunting the collectors.