223 réponses à ce sujet

[silverexile17s]

aprilia1k wrote...

I am ambivalent about chiming in here -- but it seems clear that this should be dropped. FTMP all have had their say, and while there is one voice calling for an ME2 rewrite - right? I know I heard it at least once. ;-) There seem to be a few voices that are mostly in agreement. Let it go, man. Just remain convinced that you'll be able to say "I told you so" if you must. Joking aside - I, for one, found alleyd's last post quite compelling - and it opened with something that seemed to slip right by:

"I never set the parameters. nor claimed it was a trilogy.".

Also - the repeated argument about needing to do this ME2 rewrite doesn't ring as true, to all ears, as it's proponent thinks it does. This is fiction. Science Fiction, yes - but fiction nonetheless. One could argue that many different technologies and "facts" regarding wormhole mechanics and dark energy physics are just minor (and generally accepted) variations on deus ex machina. We invent what we need to drive the story forward, and try to keep it within the subjective realm of "believable". Your claim about needing two games to "fix" things makes so many assumptions, all of which conveniently support the claim, that you have to approach from such a rigid position - wherefrom there's "no way X could have happened" (e.g. souv tech being unaccounted for - which alleyd very clearly showed, with verbatim quotes from ME2, was contrary to some of those assumptions). IT IS FICTION. These things aside - what is the exact "size" of one game anyway? Is it a certain number of characters or words, dialogs, scenes? This is a story. It begins where ME2 leaves off. Let's move on. Perhaps it is time to let go of the need to convince everyone that a singular ME3 rewrite is doomed. That's not only impossible to prove, it is pretty defeatist. With good planning, passionate writing and <u>an open mind</u> then of course it can be done. Hell -- what odds would you have given Shepard for most of his efforts in any of the games? Getting to Ilos and back? Returning from the core after jumping the Omega-4? There is NO WAY these things could have possibly happened? You might think that, yet there's a rather large group of passionate fans that more-or-less accepted the story. Note that I'm not arguing about the merits of ME2's story and whether it advanced plot. It's just moot now.

I would caution that care be taken, however, with the minimization of Shepard and his activities and role. I even find myself bristling a little bit when someone says he's just a "bit player". Let's not lose sight of the concept of the "singular protagonist" of the evolving story thus far. The player. It even ticked some people off that he was incarcerated while the Admiral and Liara went about discovering how to defeat Shepard's Nemesis. I think one or two writer's egos, and the need to create a comic-book hero (Liara) may have actually detracted from the main story. Just a thought. Not going to argue or elaborate further. It's one viewpoint.

Cheers.

Just give up then, huh? No one's going to find answers to anything if they do that. Great weapons are forged in fire. Consider me the flames -- a self-proclaimed nit-picker and likely the biggest sceptic on Earth.

@erezkie did. In the very beginning. He made the claim to it being rewritng to make the trilogy better. And in admitting that it needs to be a series, it's the same as admitting that ME3 couldn't be rewritten "seemlessly" to finish the trilogy -- they had to make another game to do it.

Wrong. ME2 didn't create enough of a foundation for galactic war, causing narrative problems for ME3 since they had to rush to fill everyone in. They didn't pace key plot-points right because there wasn't enough time -- ME2 squandered most of that by being so self-centrilized and self-contained.
Dude --  You aren't even talking with in-game logic or mechanics. And "believable" went out the window a long time ago. Collector husks 50,000 years later? Lazarus Project? Mind-melding prothean beacons? Reaper's being organically made? Vigil's Citadel off-switch? The Saren-Husk's psi-backlash disabling Sovergein? Biotics in general? The concept of the Reapers in general? How is the Crucible any more or less far-fetched then those things?
It isn't an assumption -- it's simple fact. ME2 didn't create enough foundation. You spend the entire time playing shadow war with terrorists going after the symptioms rather then the cause. You recurit single individuals to fight cyborg bugs when you should be recurting factions in preperation for the Reapers. You could be trying to lessen tensions with the turians and krogan. Or the quarians and geth -- hell, you could prevent the second quarian-geth war right there by setting up talks with the two factions, since you have representitive menbers from both on the same ship as you. Instead, you waste time, effort and resources fighting a lesser enemy rather then the big bosses in the shadows
Wrong. Alleyd recited his personal interpertation on what happened, when every other credible information source in the game (Anderson, Liara, and Cerberus) say the exact opposate. Tell me again how that's "clearly showed" or "contrary to some of those assumptions" when everything he said about his theroy is discredited by all the above? Hell, watching the explosion of Sovergein sould be evidence enough of how little of value survived with how big the explosion was, or how little the past 2 years glemed from what was left. There was little advancement, so by terms of equivilant exchange, it means that little of the valuible parts of Sovergein survived. Little advancement = little tech survived.
The exact "size" of a game is determined by the lable put on it, and the classification given to it by the company. The difference between "trilogy" and "saga." ME3 was a trilogy -- hence there was a finite amount of size to work with. ME2 didn't effectively manage the overall plot -- it would have been good as an addition to a saga, but to a trilogy, it was filler, giving nothing to the overall plot of ME besides some elaboration on the Reaper's harvesting methods. And FYI, it was said that "ME3" needed to be re-written, not made into "ME3 and ME4." Doing that's basically admitting that re-write of ME3 alone wouldn't be a "seemless rewrite." You'd need to make an entirely seperate extra game. Perhaps you sould acknowledge that simple fact. Without either re-write of ME2, or an extra game between it and ME3, it's just not possible. It's not being "defeatest," it's being honest. And FYI, @Alleyd Agreed with me on that, saying that one game wasn't enough to make a "seemless rewrite " and that ME3 would need to be changed from "trilogy" to "saga." 
No. The lack of focused direction in ME2 already made that impossible. Without another game to bridge them, or re-write of ME2 to make it more focused on the overall plot, it's not going to work. Drew Karpyshyn, the lead writer of ME himself, couldn''t do it -- that's why he invented the Crucible for his Dark Energy plot, then scrapped the Dark Energy plot later on when he left to work on "Star Wars: The Old Republic."
And Again, the entire point of this is that the Reapers AREN'T like any of the chalanges Shepard faced before -- they are another level entirely then the Collectors or a single Reaper were. Things have gotten progressively more difficult and intense as the Reapers drew nearer - Ilos is no longer anything to brag about when faced with thousands of Reapers. The Suicide Mission is a stroll in the park compared to what the Collector's masters can do -Shepard said as much about them in ME2. 
If it was moot, you wouldn't be here, would you? It's not moot because it's basically filler. It's half the reason ME3's narrative was so rushed.

Shepard's still one person -- can't be everywhere at once, you know. Shepard may be the central character, but someone'd going to start pulling their own weight somewhere. Nuff said on that.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 01 octobre 2013 - 09:11 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Silver I sent you a friends request so I don't betray the plot on the forum.

[Erez Kristal]

I really dont know what you are trying to do here silverexile.
Yes mass effect 2 was kickass game with a kick ass story.
Yes we are rewriting me3 into m3-m4. we are splitting it into two chapters.
We have made this decision at the beginning of the project.

With this direction we believe we will be able to create a more fun, logical, coherent and interesting story than what we all exprienced with the original mass effect 3

[silverexile17s]

erezike wrote...

I really dont know what you are trying to do here silverexile.
Yes mass effect 2 was kickass game with a kick ass story.
Yes we are rewriting me3 into m3-m4. we are splitting it into two chapters.
We have made this decision at the beginning of the project.

With this direction we believe we will be able to create a more fun, logical, coherent and interesting story than what we all exprienced with the original mass effect 3

-Yet no matter how "kick-ass" the story was, it doesn't change the fact that it was still filler in terms of overall story.
-Then you admit that "seemless" rewrite of ME3 was never possible. You had to create a completely new game between them. The only way you can go, since you refuse to acknowledge ME2's faults - which were the catalyst for ME3's narrative faults.

Not possible. Not with how little ME2 left us. And the past games alone show that what we got in ME3 was pretty damn accurate in terms of what the Reapers are capable of. Their strength was logical and coherent compared to past displayes. And the Crucible is just as logical and coherent as Vigil's datafile, the Saren-Husk psi-backlash, the Lazarus project, and the Collector Base being surrounded by black holes.
In other words, you're making alot of unessessary scraps.

[Erez Kristal]

We are not recreating bioware me3. we are keeping up where mass effect 2 left. we arent obligated to the plot of me3 in anyway. only to mass effect1&2.
Mass efffet 2 was a good story. there is no dead line. the only obligation is to continue and tell a good story.
that is all, and mass effect 2 had a good story. it was engaging, fun. there is not need to change it. there is no point to changing it. whatever extra introduction the reapers will need. will be waiting for them in our story.

There is nothing to argue about here. this decision is not going to change. the mass effect 3 rewrite team will continue from where the story of mass effect 2&retribution left. nothing that will be said here is ever going to change that. this is the time to open your mind to the possibilities of telling a better reaper story. without putting extra draconic limitations.

Modifié par erezike, 01 octobre 2013 - 07:49 .

[silverexile17s]

alleyd wrote...

aprilia1k wrote...

I am ambivalent about chiming in here -- but it seems clear that this should be dropped. FTMP all have had their say, and while there is one voice calling for an ME2 rewrite - right? I know I heard it at least once. ;-) There seem to be a few voices that are mostly in agreement. Let it go, man. Just remain convinced that you'll be able to say "I told you so" if you must. Joking aside - I, for one, found alleyd's last post quite compelling - and it opened with something that seemed to slip right by:

"I never set the parameters. nor claimed it was a trilogy.".

Also - the repeated argument about needing to do this ME2 rewrite doesn't ring as true, to all ears, as it's proponent thinks it does. This is fiction. Science Fiction, yes - but fiction nonetheless. One could argue that many different technologies and "facts" regarding wormhole mechanics and dark energy physics are just minor (and generally accepted) variations on deus ex machina. We invent what we need to drive the story forward, and try to keep it within the subjective realm of "believable". Your claim about needing two games to "fix" things makes so many assumptions, all of which conveniently support the claim, that you have to approach from such a rigid position - wherefrom there's "no way X could have happened" (e.g. souv tech being unaccounted for - which alleyd very clearly showed, with verbatim quotes from ME2, was contrary to some of those assumptions). IT IS FICTION. These things aside - what is the exact "size" of one game anyway? Is it a certain number of characters or words, dialogs, scenes? This is a story. It begins where ME2 leaves off. Let's move on. Perhaps it is time to let go of the need to convince everyone that a singular ME3 rewrite is doomed. That's not only impossible to prove, it is pretty defeatist. With good planning, passionate writing and <u>an open mind</u> then of course it can be done. Hell -- what odds would you have given Shepard for most of his efforts in any of the games? Getting to Ilos and back? Returning from the core after jumping the Omega-4? There is NO WAY these things could have possibly happened? You might think that, yet there's a rather large group of passionate fans that more-or-less accepted the story. Note that I'm not arguing about the merits of ME2's story and whether it advanced plot. It's just moot now.

I would caution that care be taken, however, with the minimization of Shepard and his activities and role. I even find myself bristling a little bit when someone says he's just a "bit player". Let's not lose sight of the concept of the "singular protagonist" of the evolving story thus far. The player. It even ticked some people off that he was incarcerated while the Admiral and Liara went about discovering how to defeat Shepard's Nemesis. I think one or two writer's egos, and the need to create a comic-book hero (Liara) may have actually detracted from the main story. Just a thought. Not going to argue or elaborate further. It's one viewpoint.

Cheers.

I am glad you found anything I wrote compelling.  

Yes it is a passion for MEU and for trying to be learn how to be creative with that passion. That's my own personal motivation in any case. I find the setting and the characters compelling, but the compromised format of the gaming experiment that was Mass Effect felt as if it was railroaded down to a level that disappointed me.

I want to clarify that I may have said Sheaprd was a bit player, that wasn't me minimizing his contribution but putting a global perspective on things. Shepard in ME2 was operating on the fringes of the Galactic community for an avowed enemy of the council, or he was "dead". He was out of the picture to an almost total degree and had no information sources that could contradict the obvious Spin Doctoring. He could not plausibly be involved iin the everyday life if he was "dead"

He was a small bit of a huge system, one man in a galaxy of trillions. That was the point I was trying to convey.

My own vision is that he has to come into the fold and prove himself to be capable of motivating a scared or confused Galactic Community to get motivated. It will seem an impossible taqsk, he is even further out of the Spectrum now because of his actions and alliances in ME2. One small crew, in a damaged ship with enemies all around. The enemies are important becasue he will have to try and convince them of the truth and get them motivated. You need every body and mind on side, or removed from the eqaution and replaced by those who see a bigger picture. Hopefully the juggernaut of revolution finds the allies and strategy to make the call for revolution a unifying force to prepare for the inevitable, The Reapers are awake, they are a force that will steam roller all opposition. The task of unifcation may not be enough, but it is all the galaxy can do.

I simply refuse to accept that Shepard's railroading onto an Earth prison was a plausible continuation from the events I had witnessed or participted in in the earlier chapter. I had not been allied with the Alliance for several years, I was officially dead to them. Also I lost my allegiance to Cerberus because of TIM's reckless attitude and the fact that Cerberus could never be the motivating force needed, flying under their banner would be counter productive.

All Shepard is to me is a hero, not a super hero. A man fighting a battle against impossible odds, not for glory but for survival. Seeing the process the Reapers will use first hand was a sobering and enraging one. Shepard and the crew are enraged and are fighting for survival, their own and for everything the know and they have no choice but to drag this galaxy along with them, if they can.

Beats sitting on Earth counting down the days 

And "one small crew" was as far as Shepard got. Instead of building alliances and uniting races, it was all squandered on a smaller faction of the enemy. The "unification" didn't even start until the Reapers were already here.

I don't think you can call it "railroading" since that was the plan to have Shepard end up there ever since ME2's production. The "Arrival" DLC clearly makes it a stated fact that Shepard is going to Earth to face trial for what he/she did. Earth was the plan from the start of ME3, hence you can't call it "railroading."

Enraged individuals can't make the difference here -- you need enraged factions. After all, you yourself said Shepard was "one person." Same can be said about the rest of the crew for their reliative positions.

[silverexile17s]

erezike wrote...

We are not recreating bioware me3. we are keeping up where mass effect 2 left. we arent obligated to the plot of me3 in anyway. only to mass effect1&2.
Mass efffet 2 was a good story. there is no dead line. the only obligation is to continue and tell a good story.
that is all, and mass effect 2 had a good story. it was engaging, fun. there is not need to change it. there is no point to changing it. whatever extra introduction the reapers will need. will be waiting for them in our story.

There is nothing to argue about here. this decision is not going to change. the mass effect 3 rewrite team will continue from where the story of mass effect 2&retribution left. nothing that will be said here is ever going to change that. this is time to open your mind to the possibilities of telling a better reaper story. without putting extra draconic limitations/

And like I said, you wouldn't even have to go through the trouble of creating a colpletely new game when you could just alter ME2 to make it more relivent to the story. And Again, ME3 was representitive of ME1 and ME2. It was loyal to those plots until the ending came up. Even then, the options were the same thing Drew Karpyshyn originally created, just re-formatted. Poor editing and execution killed ME3, not bad writing.

Mass Effect 2 was a filler story. Being good filler doesn't change the fact that it's filler. And ME2 was already failing at being a good story in terms of carrying on a trilogy. It didn't signifigantly advance the overall plot. It left little to no major foundation to build a defense against the Reapers from. It squandered the chance of get major political powers on your side. It wasted resources fighting a symption instead of the cause. ME2 should have been a side-quel, not a sequel. There is every need to change the narrative of ME2, since introduction of things like the Crucible would have been better off being done in ME2, since it wouldn't feel rushed or contrived like it did in ME3.
The galaxy doesn't believe in the Reapers. It never did. By the time anyone realizes differently, it's too damn late. And even if they do, it doesn't matter, because Sovergein alone proved conventional victory is impossible. Things like the Crucible are all we have left.

Then this project will fail. Because your plot already ignores things from ME2 and before, like the Reaper's strength. There are no possibilities to "open your mind" to, because you're ignoring simple base facts of ME1's narrative too -- the Reapers can't be stopped without unorthodox and unconventional means like the Crucible. It's not possible otherwise. The limitations we were given in ME3 were anything but "draconic." If anything, compared to what Sovergein displayed, they weren't hars enough.

[Erez Kristal]

[silverexile17s]

erezike wrote...

No. Because I'm using the pre-established facts from the very games you claim to want to bridge "seemlessly."

[Erez Kristal]

You are using your views on existing facts and presenting them as facts. thats an entirely dfferent thing.

Modifié par erezike, 01 octobre 2013 - 08:56 .

[silverexile17s]

erezike wrote...

You are using your views on existing facts and presenting them as facts. thats an entirely dfferent thing.

Wrong. I showed you the facts and how they contridicted your views. I'm not making any views of my own -- I'm using the in-game lore and nothing else.

[Erez Kristal]

[silverexile17s]

erezike wrote...

What the hell does that mean? It's not much of a responce. Especally since you're still missing the point -- there isn't enough time left. Only a re-write of ME2 would get you what you need.

[Fatiguesdualism]

silverexile17s wrote...

No. Because I'm using the pre-established facts from the very games you claim to want to bridge "seemlessly."

'pre-established facts'     History's full of them - have to wonder how many where actually right? (Although, to be fair, some did make sense with the limited information available!)

Seriously though, just thought I'd leave a message saying I am grateful for those who responded to my question regarding the Codex - and that I look forward to seeing how this project pans out.

[BiowareFan321]

silverexile17s wrote...

BiowareFan321 wrote...

(Excuse me if someone's already said this or something similar, I haven't read all the posts on this yet)


Why do the reapers have to arrive in ME3? Why not ME4, and the Mass Effect 3 rewrite is kind of building up to them coming. ME3 could have Shepard using the collector base (savored or destroyed) as evidence of the reapers existence.

How? If destroyed, then the majority of it is slagged beyond recognition. Anything would likely be akined to being Collector-made technology and not Reaper made. If saved, it will be under Cerberus care, and thus, the Council won't believe that the tech wasn't altered, corrupted, or even fabricated by Cerberus.

A base that size couldn't have been altered so quickly. And destroyed, the human reaper was able to be recovered, mostly intact, I don't see why certain portions of the base wouldn't stay intact, should someone attempt to recover them. And if they did say it was Collector-made, maybe with high enough paragon or renegade points you could convince them it is Reaper tech. There's plenty of ways, just a matter of thinking of them.

[silverexile17s]

BiowareFan321 wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

BiowareFan321 wrote...

(Excuse me if someone's already said this or something similar, I haven't read all the posts on this yet)


Why do the reapers have to arrive in ME3? Why not ME4, and the Mass Effect 3 rewrite is kind of building up to them coming. ME3 could have Shepard using the collector base (savored or destroyed) as evidence of the reapers existence.

How? If destroyed, then the majority of it is slagged beyond recognition. Anything would likely be akined to being Collector-made technology and not Reaper made. If saved, it will be under Cerberus care, and thus, the Council won't believe that the tech wasn't altered, corrupted, or even fabricated by Cerberus.

A base that size couldn't have been altered so quickly. And destroyed, the human reaper was able to be recovered, mostly intact, I don't see why certain portions of the base wouldn't stay intact, should someone attempt to recover them. And if they did say it was Collector-made, maybe with high enough paragon or renegade points you could convince them it is Reaper tech. There's plenty of ways, just a matter of thinking of them.

I'm pretty sure Shepard's explosion did just that, when it obliterated the base in less then 5 seconds. Same for the radiation pulse, wich would destroy all organic traces of the Collectors -- meaning no proof the base was Collector, and not Cerberus, from where the Council sees it.
And the Human-Reaper was fragmented and dead. Not to mention it's made of much denser material then what the Collector Base was made of. Whatever survived of the base would mostly be rubble. TIM says as much in ME3, saying the base was slagged.
And the Council won't believe that. Hell, for all they know, Cerberus was around that base long before -- remember, Ashely/Kaiden didn't trust you because they thought Cerberus might be working with the Collectors. The Council would likely say the same. "Plenty of ways" doesn't mean they'll hold up. They'd mostly be dead ends based on the events they stem from.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 02 octobre 2013 - 06:20 .

[silverexile17s]

alleyd wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

And "one small crew" was as far as Shepard got. Instead of building alliances and uniting races, it was all squandered on a smaller faction of the enemy. The "unification" didn't even start until the Reapers were already here.

I don't think you can call it "railroading" since that was the plan to have Shepard end up there ever since ME2's production. The "Arrival" DLC clearly makes it a stated fact that Shepard is going to Earth to face trial for what he/she did. Earth was the plan from the start of ME3, hence you can't call it "railroading."

Enraged individuals can't make the difference here -- you need enraged factions. After all, you yourself said Shepard was "one person." Same can be said about the rest of the crew for their reliative positions.

This is my own personal opinion and is not intended as any statement of design direction of Erezike's rewrite group. 

I agree, you have to start somewhere and all he has at the end of ME2 is the crew and the ship. The task is one to identify and unite factions from that starting point in a piece of work that hopefully has a coherence to it and builds towards an ending that is consitant with the themes chosen. Was ME2 a waste to time, no you took out 2 enemy attacks and bought more time. Sheaprd couldn't fight two battles, so now to try and play catch up for lost time and start recruiting alliances. 

It may be a futile effort, but it least it is doing more than sitting in a jail cell

I used the term railroading advisedly to represent the lack of choice involved in Shepard's actions in the down time between ME2 and ME3. No branches or divertions from the path imposed by the Authors choice of direction, one that jarred with many gamers interaction with the previous script and cast. 

It jarred with me because I had no direct affiliation to the Alliance, they had classified Shepard DEAD and where not my employers or sponsors. In fact they were openly opposed to the faction who had performed a miracle of surgery in resurrecting me and convinced me of a clear and present danger, my enemy (The Reapers) were using a new attack strategy and no-one was opposing them. Also the Aliance had no jurisidiction on Shepard if he was a Spectre, the Council would be the ones to render judgement in that scenario.

With all those criteria involved, the decision to hand over to Alliance custody anything more than a "Get your **** together" message was ludicrous to me.

So I'm seeing if there is another way of telling a story that hopefully appeals to people who approach it with an open mind as another piece of fan fiction. Others on this thread  may have a different approach and ambition. I see no harm in that endeavour, I do not understand why you are so negative in opinion on something that hasn't been written. It isn't criticism you display, nothing exists to form a critical judgement, what you display is
a bias to the whole idea. 

Is ME so precious to you that passionate fans are wrong even to make an attempt at reconciling their interpretation of the work into a new form? IMO, nothing in any form of literature is beyond parody or reimaging. As long as none seek to profit from explotong anothers IP, or try to say their vision is the true vision of the franchise, then no harm done. Is there?

That's what ME2 should have done from the start. And now, there's no more time -- The Reapers are practally here now. And between the Cerberus connections and the Alpha Relay being blown up, there isn't any way Shepard could have avoided a jail cell. Not without causing more grief for the Alliance by having them hunt him/her down.

But it was pretty much stated that it was going to happen after Arrival no matter what you did anyway. If you're told you are about to go through a straight tunnel, you're going to be surprised when the tunnel is indeed straight?

No direct affiliation to the Alliance? You were their most recognizable symble of human advancemnet with the Council. Your actions are a major political sh*t storm on their day -- you think they'd let anyone just waltz across the galaxy with terrorists and blow up mass relays go scott free? And you think after causing that event that the Council would want to defend Shepard and be dragged into that mess of genocide and "mythical Reapers?" Never again.

Look at all the above. It isn't that unexpected a choice when you look at all the illegal stuff Shepard did under Cerberus that would come up for review.

Because it's not possible to create under the circumstances that @erezike thinks will work. WIthout re-write of aspects of ME2, this will more then likely fail. I'm not displaying a bias at all. I'm simply showing how the lore contridicts what's been shown. He says that he won't rewrite ME2, but half of what he's said contridicts established lore from ME2.

If that's what you think, you haven't been paying attention at all. I'm just stating facts from the past games. Facts that he says he doesn't want to change, yet they discredit the direction he planed to take this.
No, it's not. Not when you claim to try and make a "seemless" re-write of ME3 to link to ME2, yet disregard extablished facts from ME2.
The harm is that it will fail at this rate. It will be a wasted effort unless they figure out how to do it without disregarding the very cannon they claim to want to build off of.

[Erez Kristal]

silverexile17s wrote...

Because it's not possible to create under the circumstances that @erezike thinks will work. WIthout re-write of aspects of ME2, this will more then likely fail. I'm not displaying a bias at all. I'm simply showing how the lore contridicts what's been shown. He says that he won't rewrite ME2, but half of what he's said contridicts established lore from ME2.

[Xplode441]

I'm not really understanding your arguments here silver.
You're said on the page back that there's no way it would work unless maybe it was split in two parts.
That's what's happening, now you backpedaled and are just saying it's not possible and are using, "Your going to have to rewrite ME2 for it to work!".
I don't think you realize how easy it is to get around stuff in a science fiction setting because there's always technology and plot devices that weren't introduced before that you can inject to get around roadblocks. Biggest examples would be thermal clips (everyone just acts like they've been around forever) and the crucible (hey, there's this prothean super weapon that was in the archives that we just never found until now).

If you'd want to be helpful, then point out the problems in ME2 that would create continuity issues. It would be good to have a list of any flaws in continuity so any writers could get to thinking of ways to fix them. As of now, it seems like your issue is a personal one in which you take issue with the way the writers' approached ME2. No one is stopping you from making your own ME2 storyline if that's what you want.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

We could argue the different points until the cows come home, and considering I have no cows that would be forever. So I'll just claim artistic vision and artistic integrity and call it a day. Some things are going to have to be revised in order to avoid the train wreck at the end, and I have no problem with making revisions to make things work.

We're debating with a codex fundamentalist, whereas since we're doing a rewrite and the original game is the original canon, this is by definition an AU, which thus makes this a revisionist view of the story. Our intent is to make it a good one.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 02 octobre 2013 - 09:53 .

[Erez Kristal]

Xplode441 wrote...

If you'd want to be helpful, then point out the problems in ME2 that would create continuity issues. It would be good to have a list of any flaws in continuity so any writers could get to thinking of ways to fix them. As of now, it seems like your issue is a personal one in which you take issue with the way the writers' approached ME2. No one is stopping you from making your own ME2 storyline if that's what you want.

thats a very good argument, xplode.  it would be very helpful in case we have missed anything important

Modifié par erezike, 02 octobre 2013 - 01:50 .

[silverexile17s]

erezike wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Because it's not possible to create under the circumstances that @erezike thinks will work. WIthout re-write of aspects of ME2, this will more then likely fail. I'm not displaying a bias at all. I'm simply showing how the lore contridicts what's been shown. He says that he won't rewrite ME2, but half of what he's said contridicts established lore from ME2.

Still means nothing pal. If anything, you're just confirming my assertation that you're running out of steam here on what to say.
Give an actual responce, because this isn't going to convince anyone, let alone the biggest nit-picking cinycal sceptic I know -- me.