207 réponses à ce sujet

[wolfhowwl]

There is a middle ground between ignoring the Reapers and immediately starting construction on a thousand dreadnoughts.

Fine. Don't reveal the Reapers to the galactic public. You can still initiate a military buildup under the pretext of the Geth threat and fund it with reasonable tax increases and deficit spending.

You can also begin to formulate strategies, evacuation plans, build alliances, harden key locations, etc.

Based on the fight with Sovereign you know that conventional military forces will be woefully outmatched. To gain an advantage, heavy investments into researching the relays, the Citadel, and Prothean ruins can be made. The remains of Sovereign and data from the battle can be used to develop weapons and tactics.

Sure doing that would prove ultimately futile against the Reapers' might but it would buy time and most importantly it wouldn't pollute the setting with "ah yes reapers" idiocy.

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 11 décembre 2013 - 03:49 .

[Erez Kristal]

Argentoid wrote...

It is. ME2 should have been about trying to find a way to deal with the Reaper threat, not piff-paff Collectors. We could have avoided things like the Crucible, for example.

EDIT: I just read what you stated about the Normandy crash site being so "tidy". It's a gameplay design choice: Would you like to have Shepard roam the site for 2 KM? Yeah! So much fun!

The collector plotline - added more to the world and also gave the galaxy some extra time to prepare for the threat and even the odds. there were other ways to avoid the crucible that wouldnt require any changes to the me2 plot. mass effect 2 is an extremely fun game which doesnt hinder its sequels and this is why it was so successful.  if you think i am wrong and believe me2 blocked the path for mass effect3 to become crucible free. then you are welcome to visit our project and see how we built a great plot on the foundations of mass effect 2. 

This gameplay Design choice makes no sense immersion wise. i can digest the avenger-bug thing. but storywise the tidy normandy site doesnt make anysense.
Why did no one else bother to pick the top alliance tech? (blues suns, shadowbroker, alliance, stg, cerberus) how come its so tidy. the place just isnt right. and as original crashsite it doesnt fit make any sense story wise without breaking immersion.

Han Shot First wrote...


The problem here isn't with Mass Effect 3, it is with Mass Effect 2 retconning the results of Mass Effect 1. At the end of Mass Effect 1 Shepard had the Council's full backing and support against the Reapers. In ME2 they're back to air quoting and treating Shepard like he's the Ancient Aliens guy.

The only reason this was done was to shoehorn Shepard into Cerberus.

The sad part is that retconning the Council wasn't necessary. Instead they could have had the war with the Reaper-allied Geth still be raging fiercely. Meanwhile isolated colonies outside of Council space are vanishing. Shepard is convinced the vanishing colonies are linked in some way to the Reapers, the Council (except for Anderson) disagrees and thinks its a distraction from the real threat...the Geth, and that a military excursion into the Terminus might spark a war with the Terminus Systems.

And there you go, Shepard has a reason to ally with Cerberus without the Council denying the existence of Reapers. They just disagree on where resources should be allocated.

While they could have indeed went to war with the geth. the changes to the council to indicate a retconn. It was only udinna or anderson who indicated a war with the reapers and the systems alliance & Cerberus seemed to be hard at work to prepare for the reapers: (Kasumi greybox, normandy SR2, EDI, dereliect reaper-found by the alliance, Project overlord, project rho and vastly increasing and upgradintg their fleets)  there was really not a lot the alliance could have done more. and since cerberus and the alliance are both founded by the giant corportations they are almost the same thing. (and used to be up to 2182-2183)

We dont know what steps the other races have taken during that time. all we know is that the council is very approval of shepard working for a terrorist organization... maybe there is more here than meets the eye?

WittingEight65 wrote...

When are they going to permaban you, erezike?

I dont know, when are you going to stop being a troll?

Morocco Mole wrote...

You are insane, eriezke.

Thanks for Enriching my world

Modifié par erezike, 11 décembre 2013 - 06:48 .

[Erez Kristal]

Rotward wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...
There is a difference between not officially confirming the existence of the Reapers to the general public, and not believing they exist. The Council does the latter in Mass Effect 2.

According to the Citadel archives, that's incorrect. When Shepard's spectre status is confirmed, the archive reclassifies Sovereign from a geth ship to a Reaper. They always believed the Reapers didn't actually exist.

The Citadel DLC introduced a retcon to try and whitewash some of the more mind-boggling actions of the Council in Mass Effect 2. Unfortunately it only created more problems, as the Council stonewalling Shepard and the lack of general military preparedness makes even less sense if they believe the Reapers exist.

As of Mass Effect 2 the Council didn't believe in the Reapers. The Citadel DLC introduced a rewrite.

Retcon-ception at its finest. 

Not a retconn.
Simply a different interpretation. this was how i viewed things even before the citadel dlc. just because someone tell you one thing doesnt mean thats how it is.that fact you believed them wholeheartly means they were successful.

Rotward wrote...
That's unlikely. Some people might protest, but I don't think I've encountered a single instance of revolution due to military spending. Many businesses would like the increased spending, especially before war actually broke out, and people started dieing. 

United States of America revolted the british empire due to military spending. The French Revolution.... military spending. Soveiet russia and so forth. 
turian hierrarch were already neck deep in civil war in 2185 due to high military spending. with all of their 15-30 serving the military.

Modifié par erezike, 11 décembre 2013 - 07:16 .

[KaiserShep]

erezike wrote...
This gameplay Design choice makes no sense immersion wise. i can digest the avenger-bug thing. but storywise the tidy normandy site doesnt make anysense.
Why did no one else bother to pick the top alliance tech? (blues suns, shadowbroker, alliance, stg, cerberus) how come its so tidy. the place just isnt right. and as original crashsite it doesnt fit make any sense story wise without breaking immersion.

Come on now. This is clearly a matter of picking nits at the gameplay mechanics and general design of a map to the detriment of the internal logic of the story. Being able to explore the wreckage of the Normandy is a necessity in this add-on if we're to revisit the past. Having scavengers beat you to the punch automatically negates its value for the player, and having it be a timed mission where scavengers can do so if you don't go quickly enough is really not necessary, especially considering that this mission is both combat free and entirely independent of the plot.

The complaint that the crash site is too tidy is simply unreasonable, in my opinion. All key points on the map must be accessible on foot. How big and messy does the wreckage have to be to meet your satisfaction, while still being able to walk around to collect the scattered items, and without having to spend 10 minutes just walking in any direction? 

Think about the logic behind this complaint for a second, and consider other parts of the game where the sense of scale or certain designs are skewed for efficiency. The walkway between the CIC and the bridge should be much longer, given the shape of the ship, and judging from the elevator's proximity to the CIC. The forward airlock actually extends out much farther than it should if you look at its position in relation to the contours from where Joker is sitting, the cargo bay is about the same length as the path between the CIC and the bridge, the Normandy has far more windows on the outside than can be seen from the inside, every vehicle is actually smaller in scale than they should be when you compare it to the size of Shepard, and do not look like they could hold even one person, let alone 3 or 4, etc.. All of these things should have the same effect on you as the crash site, and they have been apparent since the first game.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 11 décembre 2013 - 07:24 .

[Erez Kristal]

KaiserShep wrote...

erezike wrote...
This gameplay Design choice makes no sense immersion wise. i can digest the avenger-bug thing. but storywise the tidy normandy site doesnt make anysense.
Why did no one else bother to pick the top alliance tech? (blues suns, shadowbroker, alliance, stg, cerberus) how come its so tidy. the place just isnt right. and as original crashsite it doesnt fit make any sense story wise without breaking immersion.

Come on now. This is clearly a matter of picking nits at the gameplay mechanics and general design of a map to the detriment of the internal logic of the story. Being able to explore the wreckage of the Normandy is a necessity in this add-on if we're to revisit the past. Having scavengers beat you to the punch automatically negates its value for the player, and having it be a timed mission where scavengers can do so if you don't go quickly enough is really not necessary, especially considering that this mission is both combat free and entirely independent of the plot.

The complaint that the crash site is too tidy is simply unreasonable, in my opinion. All key points on the map must be accessible on foot. How big and messy does the wreckage have to be to meet your satisfaction, while still being able to walk around to collect the scattered items, and without having to spend 10 minutes just walking in any direction? 

Think about the logic behind this complaint for a second, and consider other parts of the game where the sense of scale or certain designs are skewed for efficiency. The walkway between the CIC and the bridge should be much longer, given the shape of the ship. The forward airlock actually extends out much farther than it should if you look at its position in relation to the contours from where Joker is sitting, the cargo bay is about the same length as the path between the CIC and the bridge, the Normandy has far more windows on the outside than can be seen from the inside, every vehicle is actually smaller in scale than they should be when you compare it to the size of Shepard, and do not look like they could hold even one person, let alone 3 or 4, etc.. All of these things should have the same effect on you as the crash site, and they have been apparent since the first game.

While your points have a lot of merit in them(especially when you think aobut really off scale game like neverwinter nights or baldurs gate.)
For me the crash site was breaking suspension beyond belief. due to the reaosns i stated above. mostly storywise reaosns. like how come no body arrived to pick the prototype ship parts until now. for me the crashsite felt like pure fan service, which disregarded common sense.

[KaiserShep]

The galaxy map does not really reflect this all that well, but we are talking about considerable distances between stars worlds. A derelict ship, or a crashed vessel can potentially be left untouched for quite a long time, especially if it's lingering in a system or planet of little interest.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Kaiser, that is because there is logic, and there is video game logic. You give an "impression" of size, but it isn't the true size. Just like time is squashed in a video game.

[KaiserShep]

I understand that. I was just making a point about how far one should really sit and ponder certain designs in the game. Like when you retake the Alarei in ME2, you can hear one of the admirals talking about how you've been gone for hours, even though it can be completed in just a few minutes.

[Erez Kristal]

KaiserShep wrote...

I understand that. I was just making a point about how far one should really sit and ponder certain designs in the game. Like when you retake the Alarei in ME2, you can hear one of the admirals talking about how you've been gone for hours, even though it can be completed in just a few minutes.

parts like that are very problematic and should be avoided. alarei statement really irks me. real life battles can also be very short.
The alarei takes 30 minutes at most add to that 10 minute ride back and forth with the shuttle. the alarei is a small ship (few hundred meters.) a person can walk a KM in less than 15 minutes at an easy pace. small details are important for a good immersive story.


The galaxy map is large- but there were several groups who know of the normandy crashsite location for two years and didnt attempt to salvage the precious ship.
Blue suns, alliance, shadow brooker and cerberus. they knew the exact system and planet.
its not like they had to search the billions of stars in the galaxy.
The normandy tech is of enormous importance for anyone who values starships.

Modifié par erezike, 11 décembre 2013 - 07:48 .

[wolfhowwl]

erezike wrote...
 United States of America revolted the british empire due to military spending. The French Revolution.... military spending. Soveiet russia and so forth. 
turian hierrarch were already neck deep in civil war in 2185 due to high military spending. with all of their 15-30 serving the military.

By turian civil war do you mean those Cerberus news articles about a dissident faction on a single continent of a single Turian colony getting crushed in a month?

Anyways, so what?

Why do people here keep arguing against this idea of rebellion-triggering levels of taxation to fund a massive dreadnought fleet? We know that isn't possible and people aren't suggesting that. We have more options than that or just ignoring the threat like ME2's idiotic "ah yes Reapers" Council.

As I posted above there are other steps you could take to prepare for the Reapers that are reasonable. That those steps (or others) aren't taken is due to ME2 retconning the Council to justify railroading Shepard into Cerberus and ME2's disasterous non-plot.

If we stick with the overwhelming qualitiative and quantative advantage Bioware blessed the Reapers with and ME2's complete lack of progress against the reapers, a Crucible would likely still be neccessary. At least having the galaxy actually prepare would justify stiff resistance against the Reapers in ME3 and remove the terrible writing that is everyone but Shepard going stupid. But perhaps active progress in ME2 by the galaxy on the Reaper front could have avoided the jarring introduction of the Crucible in the first level of ME3?

Also we could have avoided damage to the setting by making the leadership of the galaxy's governments and militaries total morons. Yes we get it, politicians are not popular and making them look stupid appeals to the LCD. A setting that wants to be taken seriously doesn't stoop to that.

erezike wrote...
mass effect 2 is an extremely fun game which doesnt hinder its sequels

How can you say it didn't?

ME2 squanders an entire game on a sideshow enemy that is introduced and destroyed within the same game. Even in the context of ME2 they are a minor threat, the collector cruiser can be destroyed singehandedly by the Normandy in a few seconds.

The one thing that could have moved the Reaper plot forward, the Collector Base, can be destroyed thus rendering ME2 irrelevant.

Not content to be worthless to the Reaper plot by itself, ME2 also reaches back into ME1 and retcons the ending of that game destroying any hope that the rest of the galaxy will make any progress preparing for the Reapers.

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 11 décembre 2013 - 09:19 .

[Erez Kristal]

wolfhowwl wrote...

. We have more options than that or just ignoring the threat like ME2's idiotic "ah yes Reapers" Council.

As I posted above there are other steps you could take to prepare for the Reapers that are reasonable. That those steps (or others) aren't taken is due to ME2 retconning the Council to justify railroading Shepard into Cerberus and ME2's disasterous non-plot.

erezike wrote...
mass effect 2 is an extremely fun game which doesnt hinder its sequels

How can you say it didn't?

ME2 squanders an entire game on a sideshow enemy that is introduced and destroyed within the same game. Even in the context of ME2 they are a minor threat, the collector cruiser can be destroyed singehandedly by the Normandy in a few seconds.

The one thing that could have moved the Reaper plot forward, the Collector Base, can be destroyed thus rendering ME2 irrelevant.

Not content to be worthless to the Reaper plot by itself, ME2 also reaches back into ME1 and retcons the ending of that game destroying any hope that the rest of the galaxy will make any progress preparing for the Reapers.

I didnt see what the alternatives you offered were. if you could please direct me to that post or repeat it i would be thankful :-)

As i see it, shepard being cut from the loop doesnt mean the council actually denied the reaper threat. i also find the entire systems alliance completely seperated from cerberus to be too convinent considering the facts.
It appears to me cerberus is the alliance ultimate tool for working in the terminus and in performing questionable researches(  Pragia, ezzo bombings, akuze and political assassinations all took place under alliance command pre 2183.)

Its easy to understand why everyone appear to be incompetent. if you take things for what they are. but thats opposition rethoric. once the opposition makes it to the goverment they realize things arent as simple as they first thought.


Mass effect 2 doesnt hinder the plot because they could have simply made the mass effect a 4 game series. not one was holding a gun to the writers head telling them, they have to finish the story now.
When looking at it from the 3 games limit. then yes mass effect 2 ends up hindering the plot for not pushing forward and laying enough foundations for the end. but not said it had to be a 3 games series. it could have easily have been a 4-6 game series if they wanted to as long as those games were fun and interesting.

Modifié par erezike, 11 décembre 2013 - 09:52 .

[Redbelle]

wolfhowwl wrote...

erezike wrote...
 United States of America revolted the british empire due to military spending. The French Revolution.... military spending. Soveiet russia and so forth. 
turian hierrarch were already neck deep in civil war in 2185 due to high military spending. with all of their 15-30 serving the military.

By turian civil war do you mean those Cerberus news articles about a dissident faction on a single continent of a single Turian colony getting crushed in a month?

Anyways, so what?

Why do people here keep arguing against this idea of rebellion-triggering levels of taxation to fund a massive dreadnought fleet? We know that isn't possible and people aren't suggesting that. We have more options than that or just ignoring the threat like ME2's idiotic "ah yes Reapers" Council.

As I posted above there are other steps you could take to prepare for the Reapers that are reasonable. That those steps (or others) aren't taken is due to ME2 retconning the Council to justify railroading Shepard into Cerberus and ME2's disasterous non-plot.

If we stick with the overwhelming qualitiative and quantative advantage Bioware blessed the Reapers with and ME2's complete lack of progress against the reapers, a Crucible would likely still be neccessary. At least having the galaxy actually prepare would justify stiff resistance against the Reapers in ME3 and remove the terrible writing that is everyone but Shepard going stupid. But perhaps active progress in ME2 by the galaxy on the Reaper front could have avoided the jarring introduction of the Crucible in the first level of ME3?

Also we could have avoided damage to the setting by making the leadership of the galaxy's governments and militaries total morons. Yes we get it, politicians are not popular and making them look stupid appeals to the LCD. A setting that wants to be taken seriously doesn't stoop to that.

erezike wrote...
mass effect 2 is an extremely fun game which doesnt hinder its sequels

How can you say it didn't?

ME2 squanders an entire game on a sideshow enemy that is introduced and destroyed within the same game. Even in the context of ME2 they are a minor threat, the collector cruiser can be destroyed singehandedly by the Normandy in a few seconds.

The one thing that could have moved the Reaper plot forward, the Collector Base, can be destroyed thus rendering ME2 irrelevant.

Not content to be worthless to the Reaper plot by itself, ME2 also reaches back into ME1 and retcons the ending of that game destroying any hope that the rest of the galaxy will make any progress preparing for the Reapers.

Things I think are overlooked by the above......

The collector shp is destroyed by the Normandy...... SR2 after the first Normandy is destroyed. And the first Normandy was the pinnacle of Alliance/Turian engineering at the time. The SR2 was a ship that from the start, could not go toe to toe with the collectors without suffering huuuuuge damages and casualties. If you think the collectors go down easy, that's because you put in the work to upgrade the ship. By the end of ME2, if you commit to upgrades, the SR2  is a hot bed of experimental technology that give's it it's edge in battle.

ME2 pushed the Reaper arc along by saying, the Reapers are coming...... here is what all races could become if you don't stop them. And Harbinger's presence keeps the Reaper threat in play.....

What's more, ME2 adopted a play mechanic of counter measures. Can't touch the Collectors because they will sic they're paralysis bug on you? Add a scientist who can devise ways around the problem...... If only they had maintained that apsect in deconstructing the methodolgy and technology of the enemy.

ME2 stands up as a worth addition to the ME franchise by being a good, tight knit storyline while also offering the varied, and updated interactions that were seen in ME1 but not ME3. And it puts the fate of the galaxy in the hands of the player.

I will grant that it was an own goal by the writers not to have had the galactic races doing more behind the scenes without Shepards knowledge in preparing. The Citadel DLC clearly shows that the council put enough stock into the events of ME1 to view the ship that attacked them as a Reaper, though in public they downplayed that angle. But that is simply a problem of the writer's failing to cover that angle. Choosing instead to focus on a galay caught with it's trousers down.

The problems you cite of ME2 are actually problems contained within the arc of ME3 in what plots the writers chose not to pursue. ME3 has all the hallmarks of a rushed job in areas. I think that is why it has resulted in so much backlash.

I mean..... If the SR2 is so powerful as you say, shy can it not shoot down a Reaper in the map mode rather than run away all the time.......

If only the Normandy could have been upgraded again to work as a stealth ship taking potshots at Reapers to cripple them by the mid game. Would have been a fun play mechanic.

ME3 is what happens when story and play mechanics fail to work hand in hand. ME2 is an example of how to balance these two aspects right.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

KaiserShep wrote...

I understand that. I was just making a point about how far one should really sit and ponder certain designs in the game. Like when you retake the Alarei in ME2, you can hear one of the admirals talking about how you've been gone for hours, even though it can be completed in just a few minutes.

Exactly and it's why I consider the Suicide Mission to be approximately 20 hrs. long. It's brutal, even though it only takes about an hour to complete in real life.

@ Redbelle -- What did we know about the Collectors from the beginning? They were some mysterious race that was from somewhere beyond the Omega 4 Relay.

And there was Horizon. We spent the entire game chasing this Collector ship. We knew about the derelict reaper, or at least Cerberus did, and The Illusive Man hadn't told us yet. By the time we got to Horizon, I had the Normandy upgraded with hull armor and Thanix. The Collector vessel was a sitting duck. Why did we need to investigate at all? Why not just take out the ship? Did the reapers blowing up that dreadnought destroy Vancouver? No. The Normandy could have entered the atmosphere and shot the damned ship while it was on the ground and helpless. Bye bye collector vessel. Two shots. Hit FTL and get the hell out of there.

Now I know that "we didn't know where their home world was." Okay. Cerberus had the derelict reaper and was studying it. We had to get throught the Omega 4 Relay. What I find amazing is that as soon as you find out where the home world, and EDI identifies that the Collectors use a different IFF, suddenly Cerberus has a derelict reaper and they've recovered an IFF but have lost contact with the team. Amazing! You could have blown up the ship, and gotten the device and gone there, found the base and blown it up. The colonists? They were since they died anyway, it didn't really matter did it? One could get the wrong impression that The Illusive Man was the puppetmaster the entire time.

But we know that characters make not so great decisions for dramatic purposes in stories. Take Robb Stark in Game of Thrones for example. There's a fine example of the good is dumb trope.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 11 décembre 2013 - 07:48 .

[Mcfly616]

So the end of ME1 made you realize what a mess the beginning of 'ME3' was?

Not ME2? You know, the beginning that starts off with "oh hey Shepard we know you just saved us and the Reapers are still out there (like you just got done telling us), but go fight Geth instead."


Yeah, that totally gets a pass. Way less of a mess.

[Display Name Owner]

ME2 might probably have been the place to actually start formulating a plan against the Reapers, not necessarily with the Council or whoever because tbh they have many reasons to believe the Reapers don't exist. ME1's ending is actually the silly bit in that regard, because the Geth explanation makes more logical sense, despite Shepard constant ravings. But anyway, if we'd spent ME2 actually addressing the Reaper threat in some way (no the Collectors don't count. They might have done, but evidently they meant nothing), then ME3 might have had more time for actually dealing with the Reapers instead of squeezing them in between the Cerberus, Tuchanka and Rannoch arcs. The resolution to the Reaper threat had no choice but to be an asspull given the sliver of time that was actually devoted to it.

[Iakus]

Mcfly616 wrote...

So the end of ME1 made you realize what a mess the beginning of 'ME3' was?

Not ME2? You know, the beginning that starts off with "oh hey Shepard we know you just saved us and the Reapers are still out there (like you just got done telling us), but go fight Geth instead."


Yeah, that totally gets a pass. Way less of a mess.

ME2 set my ME3 expectations really low.

And it still failed to live up to them.

[KaiserShep]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

And there was Horizon. We spent the entire game chasing this Collector ship. We knew about the derelict reaper, or at least Cerberus did, and The Illusive Man hadn't told us yet. By the time we got to Horizon, I had the Normandy upgraded with hull armor and Thanix. The Collector vessel was a sitting duck. Why did we need to investigate at all? Why not just take out the ship? Did the reapers blowing up that dreadnought destroy Vancouver? No. The Normandy could have entered the atmosphere and shot the damned ship while it was on the ground and helpless. Bye bye collector vessel. Two shots. Hit FTL and get the hell out of there.

This seems very problematic, and would not really work for the progression of the game. So let's say you have the upgrades, and you see that the ship has landed in the colony. At this point, striking the ship from orbit rather than investigating and finding the VS would be an option, rather than an obligation triggered by whether or not you even bothered to upgrade the Normandy's weapons and armor yet (not even sure how this would work within the constraints of the resources of the game). But, at the same time, it must come with the condition that choosing the fomer would most likely lead to the colony's complete destruction. Let's not kid ourselves here. We cannot go to ME3 to draw examples to determine what we can do in ME2. The thanix cannon is an exceptionally powerful weapon that may have devastating effects if it's used to strike a large target over a populated area. Striking the ship may cause an explosion powerful enough to leave most of Horizon a smoking crater, and killing many others outside of the blast radius by raining debris. I'm not even sure what this should mean for the fate of the VS, but I would guess that this means he/she also dies in the process. So now, when all's said and done, you stopped the Collector ship, but you destroyed a human colony to do so. So, how should the game go forward from here? 

As for the dreadnought's destruction over Vancouver, it should be noted that Vancouver is 44 square miles large, so a ship blowing up over that large an area is not going to devastate the entire thing unless it was nuclear. Let's say that ship simply blew up over the city even if it wasn't being torn apart by reapers. The debris and the explosion would still kill or gravely injure hundreds of people, and that's likely a conservative estimate. The population densityof that city present day is over 5k per square kilometer. Who knows what that number would be in the 2100's. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 11 décembre 2013 - 09:09 .

[Argentoid]

erezike wrote...

The collector plotline - added more to the world and also gave the galaxy some extra time to prepare for the threat and even the odds. there were other ways to avoid the crucible that wouldnt require any changes to the me2 plot. mass effect 2 is an extremely fun game which doesnt hinder its sequels and this is why it was so successful.  if you think i am wrong and believe me2 blocked the path for mass effect3 to become crucible free. then you are welcome to visit our project and see how we built a great plot on the foundations of mass effect 2. 

Huh.

"The collector plotline gave the galaxy some extra time to prepare for the threat"

That doesn't make sense. The collector plotline was so useless that Shepard could have sit down for 3 years without doing anything and prepare for the threat anyway. Plus, who got prepared for the threat? The galaxy? Really? I don't think so.

All Shepard did was kill the Collectors... and that's it.

Almost no one was prepared for the Reapers in ME3. 

"ME2 is an extremely fun game"

Yes, it is. But badly written.
It has a very similar case to the expierence I had with GTA V: I had lots of fun with it, offline as well as online... but the writing was flat-out terrible, which made me scratch my head quite a lot.

Modifié par Argentoid, 12 décembre 2013 - 12:40 .

[Ravensword]

erezike wrote...

wolfhowwl wrote...

. We have more options than that or just ignoring the threat like ME2's idiotic "ah yes Reapers" Council.

As I posted above there are other steps you could take to prepare for the Reapers that are reasonable. That those steps (or others) aren't taken is due to ME2 retconning the Council to justify railroading Shepard into Cerberus and ME2's disasterous non-plot.

erezike wrote...
mass effect 2 is an extremely fun game which doesnt hinder its sequels

How can you say it didn't?

ME2 squanders an entire game on a sideshow enemy that is introduced and destroyed within the same game. Even in the context of ME2 they are a minor threat, the collector cruiser can be destroyed singehandedly by the Normandy in a few seconds.

The one thing that could have moved the Reaper plot forward, the Collector Base, can be destroyed thus rendering ME2 irrelevant.

Not content to be worthless to the Reaper plot by itself, ME2 also reaches back into ME1 and retcons the ending of that game destroying any hope that the rest of the galaxy will make any progress preparing for the Reapers.

I didnt see what the alternatives you offered were. if you could please direct me to that post or repeat it i would be thankful :-)

As i see it, shepard being cut from the loop doesnt mean the council actually denied the reaper threat. i also find the entire systems alliance completely seperated from cerberus to be too convinent considering the facts.
It appears to me cerberus is the alliance ultimate tool for working in the terminus and in performing questionable researches(  Pragia, ezzo bombings, akuze and political assassinations all took place under alliance command pre 2183.)

Its easy to understand why everyone appear to be incompetent. if you take things for what they are. but thats opposition rethoric. once the opposition makes it to the goverment they realize things arent as simple as they first thought.


Mass effect 2 doesnt hinder the plot because they could have simply made the mass effect a 4 game series. not one was holding a gun to the writers head telling them, they have to finish the story now.
When looking at it from the 3 games limit. then yes mass effect 2 ends up hindering the plot for not pushing forward and laying enough foundations for the end. but not said it had to be a 3 games series. it could have easily have been a 4-6 game series if they wanted to as long as those games were fun and interesting.

The only reason why every leader and politician Shepard meets is so dumb is so that it makes Shepard the smartest person in the room, thus allowing the power fantasy established in ME1 to continue.

Well, now. That's probably one of the dumbest reasons I've heard of when defending ME2's plot, or lack thereof. Simply b/c, hypothetically, ME could've been a four-game series, and therefore ME2's plot doesn't hinder the series. As it turned out, EAware should've abandoned any plans of being able to adequately finish the series in three games after the non-plot of ME2, but they didn't do that. Even so, it still wouldn't change the fact that ME2 had a throwaway, monster of the week enemy and didn't advance the plot.

When looking at it from the 3 games limit. then yes mass effect 2 ends up hindering the plot for not pushing forward and laying enough foundations for the end. but not said it had to be a 3 games series.

I don't see why you are unable to look at the ME series from the three-game limit b/c that is pretty much what a trilogy is; three games, not four. More than three would be a called a tetrology, but it's not the ME tetrology; it's the ME3 trilogy.

Mass effect 2 doesnt hinder the plot because they could have simply made the mass effect a 4 game series. not one was holding a gun to the writers head telling them, they have to finish the story now.

No one was holding a gun to the writers' heads, but they do require this thing called money, which is a medium of exchange accepted as payment for goods and services. W/o a sufficient amount of this money, they wouldn't be able to create more games. Besides, the game was planned to be a trilogy from the get-go. Everything but the plot was planned out.

To conclude, ME series could've hypothetically been more than three games, but it isn't, and even if it was, ME2 would still stand out as the weakest in the series in terms of plot.

[dreamgazer]

J. Reezy wrote...

erezike wrote...

Argentoid wrote...

It is. ME2 should have been about trying to find a way to deal with the Reaper threat, not piff-paff Collectors. We could have avoided things like the Crucible, for example.

EDIT: I just read what you stated about the Normandy crash site being so "tidy". It's a gameplay design choice: Would you like to have Shepard roam the site for 2 KM? Yeah! So much fun!

The collector plotline - added more to the world and also gave the galaxy some extra time to prepare for the threat and even the odds.

Which they didn't do.

Duh! That's clearly ME3's fault, Reezy. 

[Rotward]

This thread has gone an interesting direction. I agree with both erezike and argentoid on me2. Me2 added to the word, and was valuable, but it should have been used to prepare for the reapers. Perhaps the collectors would be the boss, but they shouldn't have been the whole game.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Personally I think each of these games should have been good stand alone titles before they were good sequels. Just getting really tired of the trilogy syndrome that seems to be everywhere nowdays. First act has to be epic, second act is just there to bridge the two, lots of nothing happen, third act has to resolve everything.

So sick of that crap.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I like ME2 as a game, in fact it's probably one of my more favorite games and my favorite title in the Mass Effect series; but the Mass Effect story died with ME1. ME2 should basically be titled: The Space Adventures of Sherpard and Friends... IN Space! as it doesn't really advance the overall plot of the series.