199 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

The narrative is sent on a certain trajectory in the previous game, and that's really all there is to it. In order for my argument to be baseless, there would have to be absolutely nothing that gives me reason to believe that these things were going to happen at some point. You can't claim that it's just an interpretation on my part, then claim that my argument is baseless. What am I interpreting if there's no basis in the first place? Things like definite time frames are not really relevant. You don't need to know exactly when; you only need to know that it's going to happen. In The Two Towers, when Gollum is talking to himself about his plan to lure Frodo and Sam into Shelob's lair, this is a promise provided by the narrative. Anything could happen that prevents this, but then it would be going back on the promise provided by the narrative.

They could've come up with any number of different ways to twist this around, but they didn't. Anything that could've happened to prevent this impending invasion is no longer relevant, because it's just a matter of could've/should've. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 19 juillet 2013 - 06:59 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

^Doesn't he talk about it at the beginning of Return of the King?

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 19 juillet 2013 - 06:59 .

[KaiserShep]

He goes on about it again in Return of the King, but he makes his plan known to the audience at the end of The Two Towers, so expectations are already drawn out before the final installment. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 19 juillet 2013 - 07:02 .

[Erez Kristal]

As said earlier, there is no guarantee to when the reapers will arrive. all we know is that they are coming.
Mass effect 3 could have and should have had a great story. there is no way for mass effect 3 to put the blame on me2.
On the contray, mass effect 2 established a vast and rich universe for me3 to follow, It failed.

[dreamgazer]

erezike wrote...

I wanted to point out that it was the beginning of the game which caused all the mess.

"The problems with ME3 started with the beginning."

Or, "the intro in ME3, the worst in the series?"

[Erez Kristal]

dreamgazer wrote...

erezike wrote...

I wanted to point out that it was the beginning of the game which caused all the mess.

"The problems with ME3 started with the beginning."

Or, "the intro in ME3, the worst in the series?"

it would have been less boring if you actually spent some time on earth.
would have been a chance for bioware to show off earth of 2187 and change pace in gameplay.

[mopotter]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

erezike wrote...

The beginning is clearly the most terrible part of the game.
....snip....

Because we waited five years....

Yes the intro to the game was bad. Shepard was thrown into lock up for doing a job that clearly Hackett wanted him/her to do. Come on, it was a full facility on an asteroid in Batarian space. An Alliance facility, FFS. Kenson? Right.

Then you play through this story that builds and leads you to this final battle where you've finally got the entire galaxy united. You've done everything, and milked every single war asset out of the galaxy to get the very best possible result. You've defeated Cerberus at Cronos. Your fleet is massed. Hackett boards YOUR ship to give his final address to the entire fleet. Now it's on. You make it to London for the ground assault to get to the conduit. You fire the Cain for the first time in the game. You say your goodbyes to your team. (It's like the writing team is beating it over your head -- you gonna die sucka) But they've done this before in every game. You've gone against the odds and come out on top. We can do this. You give your final address to your troops and make your final push to the Conduit.

You're dodging Harbinger's beams right, then left, then suddenly you get hit and it goes ..... "there's no one left" and you struggle to your feet... your armor has been burned off.... but you make it... and three husks appear... you shoot them and you move to your right.... then you round a barricade and you see Marauder Shields and you plug him twice in the head. Then into the beam.

You confront The Illusive Man and defeat him. And we get to decide whether to destroy or control the reapers. And now it's time for the EPIC ending.

"Mein Fueher! ... We regret to inform you that all of the endings are the same except for the color of the explosions on your screen: You die; the relays explode; and the Normandy crashes."



You never understood why players were so angry about the endings? Who the **** thought this was a good idea?

Five years! Five years we waited for this? To have our entire experience of this universe completely ruined in the last 10 minutes?

What was seen cannot be unseen.

Yep.  November 20, 2007 started playing this series.  Continued to play ME1 until I got my copy of ME 2 on January 26, 2010 and then played both until I got ME3 March 6 2012.  I don't buy a lot of games so I play ones I like over.  

Five years of getting to know all of the charcters, watching Kaidan the LI die sometimes and live others.  Learning about the Quarian from Tali and playing Shepard as female, male, as rude or polite or a combination.  So much time, so many play-throughs.  Then adding ME2  to the mix, so many runs, where different NPC's lived, died, the crew were saved or not.   Some times working hard to get Tali and Legion to work together, or not.  Learning about Jack's past, having Garrus as a friend who helped me blow things up or as a friend turned lover.  Having a wide range of endings.  

And then Me3.  I expected a game where choices I made would define the ending.  Got Talia and Legion to work together, then Quarian and Geth survive to build a new world.  Didn't, then choose who you support and the others will die.  

Do the job of destroying the reapers one way and they die, you and some or all of your team survive to help build again.  Do the job another way and loses increase, Shepard can die to win or everyone can die.  Do it differently and the reapers run back to their dark space and someone will have to follow them in some future instalment.  Instead there are 3 choices and it really made no difference what i did, it was always the same.  

Someone else mentioned that if ME3 had been a stand alone game, it would have been fine.  But it wasn't a stand alone game.  It was the end of a 3 part series.  Really too bad.

[PinkysPain]

KaiserShep wrote...
Mass Effect 2 didn't just have "rumors". The ending of the main game and the Arrival confirmed that they were coming.

That's not my problem with arrival, it's the grim derp fatalism of it all ... Mac's writing is the anti-thesis of player agency, he literally does not understand the meaning of the words (well either that or he just really hates us).

In ME1 and ME2 you were Shepard, the baddass who surmounts all odds to come out on top ... in Arrival you were merely a spectator to tragedy, a foreshadowing of ME3.

[TheMyron]

My main problem with ME2's intro is that it almost tricked me into thinking there would be a "first-person view" option when Shepard first opened his eyes and saw Miranda's (apply your own adjective) face.

But in ME3, I immediately noticed the excessive amount of auto-dialogue, and the dialogue wheel on the rare occasion that it appeared, consisted of just two choices; take it or leave it.

[PinkysPain]

TheMyron wrote...
But in ME3, I immediately noticed the excessive amount of auto-dialogue, and the dialogue wheel on the rare occasion that it appeared, consisted of just two choices; take it or leave it.

You mean take it or take it grudgingly.

[tanisha__unknown]

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. 

Unless Shepard is going completely renegade, you could expect that [s]he had to answer at least for working with Cerberus, an organisation, deemed terroristic by alliance leadership. Add arrival, and I think being grounded at the beginning of ME3 is the least of the narrative problems ME3 has.

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 agree that parts of the main plot of ME2 may be deemed idiotic, too. The Lazarus project comes to mind and the essence stuff from the collector ship, however the main story line itself I think was pretty solid, even though it may have been more fit for a Mass Effect 1.5 or a side game which has little to do with the main story.

[TheMyron]

PinkysPain wrote...

TheMyron wrote...
But in ME3, I immediately noticed the excessive amount of auto-dialogue, and the dialogue wheel on the rare occasion that it appeared, consisted of just two choices; take it or leave it.

You mean take it or take it grudgingly.

I was referring to the variety of choices for Shepard's responses; take it or leave it. Sometimes they were virtually identical, like when you respond to Joker's joke after the battle at Thessia.

[KaiserShep]

Jinx1720 wrote...

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. 

Unless Shepard is going completely renegade, you could expect that [s]he had to answer at least for working with Cerberus, an organisation, deemed terroristic by alliance leadership. Add arrival, and I think being grounded at the beginning of ME3 is the least of the narrative problems ME3 has.

I never really had a huge issue with Shepard's being grounded, because aside from being brief, it's irrelevant once the reapers arrive. It has little to no effect on the rest of the game. 

[AlanC9]

TheMyron wrote...

I was referring to the variety of choices for Shepard's responses; take it or leave it. Sometimes they were virtually identical, like when you respond to Joker's joke after the battle at Thessia.

That dialogue is maybe the worst one in the whole series.

[tanisha__unknown]

It's just that you said that you don't agree with Shepard turning herself in and I don't see a lot of other ways for the alliance to find Shepard in the most advanced stealth ship of this cycle somewher in the emptiness of space...

For renegade Sheps I agree that siding with Cerberus might be an option, but for any other Shep the collaboration with TIM was merely a means to stop the Collectors. Paragon Sheps agree with neither the aims nor the means of Cerberus and I think it is plausible that they will hand over the most advanced piece of tech to the alliance and not return it to TIM.

That aside, I agree with you.

[AlanC9]

erezike wrote...

As said earlier, there is no guarantee to when the reapers will arrive. all we know is that they are coming.
Mass effect 3 could have and should have had a great story. there is no way for mass effect 3 to put the blame on me2.
On the contray, mass effect 2 established a vast and rich universe for me3 to follow, It failed.

Exactly what is it you're proposing ME3 should have done? Have the Reapers not show up and then..... what?

[AlanC9]

mopotter wrote...

Do the job of destroying the reapers one way and they die, you and some or all of your team survive to help build again.  Do the job another way and loses increase, Shepard can die to win or everyone can die.  Do it differently and the reapers run back to their dark space and someone will have to follow them in some future instalment.  Instead there are 3 choices and it really made no difference what i did, it was always the same.  

What you were expecting sounds like less variation than what we got.

[thehomeworld]

o Ventus wrote...

As dumb as the intro is, it doesn't commit thematic suicide and question the plot to both previous games.

Leave that for the ending.

And invalidate info given or entire game plots. The intro sucks because it was obviously hastly rewritten but kept the same scenes and changed a few room models but the end destroys lore, concepts, and in game universal rules established through out the sereies and 3 till those last space brat moments.

[Synergizer]

As if the beginning of Mass Effect 2 wasn't dumb enough?
All of Shepard's crew knew about the Reapers, so when Shepard is MIA, they go off to kill druglords, deal in information, teach in schools, etc, etc... Instead of saving the Galaxy.
And everyone who complains about the storyline always offers up their own ideas like "The Alliance can just say they have Shepard in lock-down while (s)he's out kicking ass" which absolutely would not make sense. Presumably Shepard would be incognito, but the moment (s)he's recognised by anyone (which happens a lot!), cover is blown and the Alliance are caught in a lie.
Anyway, this kind of game is about shooting up bad guys with a loose plot to sting together action sequences, if you're seriously interested in some deep, thoughtful story - I suggest you hit the library/bookstore - not the video shop.

[clarkusdarkus]

Hmmm the intro in ME2 was just as disheartening to be honest, Like a couple above have stated, Back in 2007 when the series started it was the beginning of something special.....i feel ME2 did more damage to it all than ME3 did. In fact all 3 are treated as standalone games by me. I said a year ago that the ending to ME3 will taint this trilogy and it will never go away.

[Obadiah]

For the most part I enjoyed the original ending, and the EC version.

Mostly I just blame Bioware and the forum mods for the negative state of these forums. They just did not handle the negative reaction well (ie, didn't do much and let it spiral endlessly).

Modifié par Obadiah, 20 juillet 2013 - 12:44 .

[SilJeff]

The post-Extended Cut hate is easily blown WAY out of proportion here, but the pre-EC hate I understood even if I wasn't one of the more vocal ones

Modifié par SilJeff, 20 juillet 2013 - 01:32 .

[Oni Changas]

SilJeff wrote...

The post-Extended Cut hate is easily blown WAY out of proportion here, but the pre-EC hate I understood even if I wasn't one of the more vocal ones

The problem with EC is that it adds sprinkles to crap. It gives context for what we see in the RGB but it doesn't fix the inherent problems with the RGB such as the massive shift in tone or the trivialization of the reapers. It also gives us a total fail ending and a slideshow. The effeort can be applauded but it leaves much to be desired.

Personally, I prefer the original RGB, as it doesn't tell us just how badly we violated the galaxy and leaves interpretation completely open. Though if your Shepard is a suicidal, indoctrinated moron, then green works.

[KaiserShep]

Synergizer wrote...

As if the beginning of Mass Effect 2 wasn't dumb enough?
All of Shepard's crew knew about the Reapers, so when Shepard is MIA, they go off to kill druglords, deal in information, teach in schools, etc, etc... Instead of saving the Galaxy.
And everyone who complains about the storyline always offers up their own ideas like "The Alliance can just say they have Shepard in lock-down while (s)he's out kicking ass" which absolutely would not make sense. Presumably Shepard would be incognito, but the moment (s)he's recognised by anyone (which happens a lot!), cover is blown and the Alliance are caught in a lie.
Anyway, this kind of game is about shooting up bad guys with a loose plot to sting together action sequences, if you're seriously interested in some deep, thoughtful story - I suggest you hit the library/bookstore - not the video shop.

You know, it's too bad that Shepard couldn't do like Kai Leng did in ME3 and just copy Vigil onto the omnitool. 

[wright1978]

Jinx1720 wrote...

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. 

Unless Shepard is going completely renegade, you could expect that [s]he had to answer at least for working with Cerberus, an organisation, deemed terroristic by alliance leadership. Add arrival, and I think being grounded at the beginning of ME3 is the least of the narrative problems ME3 has.

Being grounded isn't the issue, it is not being given any choice other than to be apparently happily stuffing your face & enjoying the soft bed at being grounded. Basically they made no effort in the intro to accomodate the player character & instead went a defined Alliance loyalist one.