31 réponses à ce sujet

[Rekthor]

As a sort of "Why not-just because" project, I'm seeing if I could write an alternate, completely different plot for Mass Effect 3. I write Fanfiction alongside my normal, original writing and thought it would be an interesting project. It's tricky given where Mass Effect 2 ended, but it's progressing alright so far. I'm just looking for a sense on what people disliked the most about the game's plot. Not mechanics or UI or what-have-you; just story. Hopefully I can glean a larger perspective.

Here's what I was planning to focus on fixing more than others. I looked my best for the most prevalent greivances, although some were mentioned far more than others, specifically the first three.

1. The lack of choices in between games, specifically regarding Cerberus as an enemy.
2. The Reapers simply arriving in the galaxy with no explanation.
3. Making Cerberus responsible for almost all the mission problems (some simply call this "lazy writing").
4. Harbinger's lack of appearances or any real involvement.
5. The lack of impactful choices from previous games, specifically regarding saving the Council or letting the Rachni queen live.
6. The Crucible as a deus ex machina plot device.
7 Not much, if any, emotional attachment to new characters (The child, Kai Leng, James Vega, etc.).
8. Less personal drama for Shepard (think saving Ashley or Kaiden, or killing Wrex or not, or the confrontations between Miranda/Jack and Tali/Legion) than would be ideal.
9. Various greivances involving the Catalyst's motivations or appearance.

Anyway. If you agree with any of these majorly, I'd appreciate the response. If I missed your biggest problem, let me know. I'd like to know what the players were outraged about (aside from the ending) the most. 

[KaiserShep]

The lack of Harbinger's presence kind of comes with the issue of having overpowered skyscraper sized enemies in a game primarily geared toward shooting. In ME2, we pretty much got Harbinger mini in the random assume-control Collector, but we don't have that luxury in ME3. Just look at the Saren hopper in Me1 as a prime example. Shepard can't fight Sovereign directly, so we fight its avatar.

[Argentoid]

KaiserShep wrote...

The lack of Harbinger's presence kind of comes with the issue of having overpowered skyscraper sized enemies in a game primarily geared toward shooting. In ME2, we pretty much got Harbinger mini in the random assume-control Collector, but we don't have that luxury in ME3. Just look at the Saren hopper in Me1 as a prime example. Shepard can't fight Sovereign directly, so we fight its avatar.

Pretty much I assume that the scrapped TIM boss fight was to be Saren Hopper 2.0, this time controlled by Harbinger.

As to ME3? I have to blame some part to ME2. The Crucible and autodialogue are my biggest concerns

EDIT:

1. The lack of choices in between games, specifically regarding Cerberus as an enemy.

This is not a branching storyline, we had to follow a path. This was pretty much clear in ME2 when we got shoehorned into allying with Cerberus.

2. The Reapers simply arriving in the galaxy with no explanation.

Wasn't this actually explained? And why should it be explained when it is assumed they will arrive from dark space after 2 years of flying by?

4. Harbinger's lack of appearances or any real involvement.

He is just another puppet from the Catalyst. No big difference around here. Though some Harby quotes at the final beam run wouldn't have hurt.

Modifié par Argentoid, 21 décembre 2013 - 05:35 .

[KaiserShep]

Pretty much. Any boss battle with Harbinger is going to be another reaper avatar.

[Rekthor]

KaiserShep wrote...

The lack of Harbinger's presence kind of comes with the issue of having overpowered skyscraper sized enemies in a game primarily geared toward shooting. In ME2, we pretty much got Harbinger mini in the random assume-control Collector, but we don't have that luxury in ME3. Just look at the Saren hopper in Me1 as a prime example. Shepard can't fight Sovereign directly, so we fight its avatar.

I understand, but I don't think that's what the main problem was so much as that Harbinger simply never shows up. What I think people were upset about (I had this issue with the game as well), was that while Sovereign or Harbinger in ME2 may not have been on the front lines fighting us all the time, that we always knew they were there and they were mentioned enough to keep them close to the front of our minds. In ME3, Harbinger is literally not even mentioned as a threat (aside from the Reaper on Rannoch, sort of) until the final push to the beam. He doesn't even have a single line of dialogue.

TLDR: The problem isn't that you don't fight Harbinger, but that he is simply never around until the last 20 minutes.

[Argentoid]

Rekthor wrote...
 The problem isn't that you don't fight Harbinger, but that he is simply never around until the last 20 minutes.

Well, he was focused on Earth, as per the Codex (which makes sense because of his desire for humans). Anyway, in a big ass scaled war spanning the entire galaxy, it's kind of hard to show more interest in one single Reaper (in this case, Harby). 

Modifié par Argentoid, 21 décembre 2013 - 05:33 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

@ Rekthor: I've got a project doing just this. We are starting from where ME2 left off. When you delve into your project you're going to find there are more issues than you think. It isn't just the ones you list. It goes back much further. Some go back into ME1. Some go back into the Revelations novel beginning with the "humans are special" plot. You'll need to read the books, too.

I've done a number of retcons and they're really minor in the grand scheme of things. They're just to make things make more sense and flow better for the plot. One of the things you can do is put Arrival anywhere after Horizon since that's when the mission becomes available in the game. We did that so we could start directly after the suicide mission. We're doing a complete rewrite and it's not even going to resemble the ME3 story. It's our own story. Reaper lore wasn't truly established until ME3 so we've thrown out everything post Suicide Mission. It isn't exactly seamless. I'll call it an AU timeline so we don't get into trouble with the purists. We're more interested in writing a good story just for fun. It's allowing all of us to hone our writing skills, too.

I'm looking at all the characters in the story and asking the question "what about this character makes me give a **** about them? Can I think of anything to make me give a **** about them?" Just having a funny line now and then isn't enough. If there isn't anything, they're relegated to a very minor role. Shepard is the protagonist. The protagonist has to be a compelling character. A superhero? Don't make me laugh. Flawed? Yes. Less personal drama? Are you kidding? In a novel this is bread and butter. This is the piles of s*** the writer puts in front of the protagonist for them to work through. Conflict is where it is at. If things go according to plan it's bad writing. But remember the protag has to have those kick ass moments so you know why you've been rooting for this person. And also so that the character has a taste of the good stuff so they know the what the s*** sandwich you've been feeding them tastes like. If you're doing a rewrite, take an opportunity to be creative.

[Rekthor]

Argentoid wrote...

1. The lack of choices in between games, specifically regarding Cerberus as an enemy.

This is not a branching storyline, we had to follow a path. This was pretty much clear in ME2 when we got shoehorned into allying with Cerberus.

The difference there is that Cerberus really wasn't developed that much. They were mentioned sort of in passing on a side mission. Most people didn't even know the name from Mass Effect 1, and we were given a brief background on them through dialogue. It also felt far more organic; these guys saved you and are the only ones doing anything about the Collectors, even if they have a shady past.

Whereas in ME3, it just becomes "Well, now they're the bad guys!". It really smacks around the idea of Cerberus being a questionable entity. Even Shepard's speeches about how Cerberus or TIM lost their way are geared around "Well, I was on your side, but then you did this and now I'm not", even though we aren't told what Cerberus really did aside from trying to save the Collector Base.

Argentoid wrote...

2. The Reapers simply arriving in the galaxy with no explanation.

Wasn't this actually explained? And why should it be explained when it is assumed they will arrive from dark space using mass relays?

I don't believe it was explained, although if I'm wrong please tell me. And the problem was that the premises of Mass Effect 1 and Arrival was to cut off the Reapers from coming. Vigil also tells us that the Reapers are "trapped" in dark space with no way back. 

Granted, I can see what the writers wanted. It's powerful writing to see Earth leveled in the opening scene, and one that I wanted to keep myself in the rewrite. But the only way to keep that beginning in a reasonable time frame would be to just have the Reapers show up, which is basically a lesser-of-two-evils question.

Argentoid wrote...

4. Harbinger's lack of appearances or any real involvement.

He is just another puppet from the Catalyst. No big difference around here. Though some Harby quotes at the final beam run wouldn't have hurt.

Yes, although he's significant in his own way. The Leviathan explains that Harbinger was the first Reaper, and he's the closest thing to a leader that they have. He was also the main villain of the last game, so tossing him aside was a big letdown.

[Rekthor]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

@ Rekthor: I've got a project doing just this. We are starting from where ME2 left off. When you delve into your project you're going to find there are more issues than you think. It isn't just the ones you list. It goes back much further. Some go back into ME1. Some go back into the Revelations novel beginning with the "humans are special" plot. You'll need to read the books, too.

I've done a number of retcons and they're really minor in the grand scheme of things. They're just to make things make more sense and flow better for the plot. One of the things you can do is put Arrival anywhere after Horizon since that's when the mission becomes available in the game. We did that so we could start directly after the suicide mission. We're doing a complete rewrite and it's not even going to resemble the ME3 story. It's our own story. Reaper lore wasn't truly established until ME3 so we've thrown out everything post Suicide Mission. It isn't exactly seamless. I'll call it an AU timeline so we don't get into trouble with the purists. We're more interested in writing a good story just for fun. It's allowing all of us to hone our writing skills, too.

I'm looking at all the characters in the story and asking the question "what about this character makes me give a **** about them? Can I think of anything to make me give a **** about them?" Just having a funny line now and then isn't enough. If there isn't anything, they're relegated to a very minor role. Shepard is the protagonist. The protagonist has to be a compelling character. A superhero? Don't make me laugh. Flawed? Yes. Less personal drama? Are you kidding? In a novel this is bread and butter. This is the piles of s*** the writer puts in front of the protagonist for them to work through. Conflict is where it is at. If things go according to plan it's bad writing. But remember the protag has to have those kick ass moments so you know why you've been rooting for this person. And also so that the character has a taste of the good stuff so they know the what the s*** sandwich you've been feeding them tastes like. If you're doing a rewrite, take an opportunity to be creative.

Insightful. I've got a general idea of the plot, though I might look into the books as well. It's also good to see that there are like-minded authors out there besides myself. I was starting to think I was crazy.

I've tossed out everything in ME3 myself, aside from keeping some plot elements. I've not been able to come up with an alternative ending to the three choices without either making it just a clear-cut ending with no variation, or just making it cliched and dumb. So the Crucible is probably going to stay, although I've been brainstorming ideas to change its role to make it more significant in the story and not just a "Win button".

If you have an official group as well I'd be happy to join.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

See your friend requests.

[Steelcan]

Jesus where do I start

[dreamgazer]

Biggest problem: it had ME2 to deal with as a lead-in.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I can't say I didn't have a lot of the same problems OP. I don't really feel like dragging it out, but I've been doing my own sort of reworking of ME3. Not so much a rewrite as I'm changing a few things and fleshing them out more.

1. Saying this as the arguably most hardcore Cerberus defender on the BSN, I don't think you mean removing Cerberus as an enemy in ME3 so much as you mean being able to RP a Shepard who is sympathetic to them and not a blind alliance schoolboy. I completely agree if this is your sentiment. My Shepard in my changed bits is no longer reinstated into the alliance (he rejects reinstatement) although he is still reinstated as a Spectre (having told the Council where to shove it in ME2). He is very critical and cynical towards both the alliance and the Council, and he does tend to get into a few arguments with some of the crew, up to and including Hackett. He legitimately regrets that Cerberus are his enemies, feeling that they would have been his greatest allies had they not carelessly and wrecklessly thrown themselves to using Reaper tech in ways that would have predictable results. He's all for using Reaper tech if it's used responsibly but Cerberus takes it too far that they lose control of it, and they eventually are controlled by it. It's why Shepard destroyed the CB in ME2. Not out of some naive ideal or principle of 'fear compromising who I am', but simple reasoning that the tech in the CB was simply beyond Cerberus, or anyone else's, ability to control.

2. There was an explanation. Granted, I think we all wanted to see more build up to their arrival. I wanted to see a trial on Earth (which my Shepard would not have willingly returned too, thus facilitating an arrest), but we did get one. My biggest complaint on this point was that too much of it was off-screen.

3. Well, yes, this was a problem. Too much emphasis was put on Cerberus in this game. It's like they wanted to whack you over the head with how bad Cerberus was supposed to be.

4. I honestly can't explain why they went with this, and even created an entry for Harbinger, while not actually showing him until the last 15 minutes and only briefly giving him a scene. Granted, I think part of it was to keep the Reapers more faceless and terrifying. I think one of the biggest problems with the Reapers in general was the lack of showing the diversity that was shown at the end of ME2. Also, as cool as Harbinger is, unless you see him as an avatar in place of the Catalyst, there really is no way to implement him in a meaningful manner into the story. Granted, I think having Shepard have nightmares was an ok concept, if terribly executed. I'd have had Harbinger haunting Shepard's dreams in a less than subtle hint of a Reaper presence in his mind.

5. Does it need saying from me about this?

6. The Crucible wasn't a DEM. That would be the Catalyst. I support the Crucible, and to an extent, the idea of the Catalyst, though I believe it would have been better implemented as a mental image of Harbinger in an attempt to indoctrinate Shepard, with the Crucible being able to fire a pulse that would overload and destroy the Reapers, with more emphasis on what the other effects of firing it might be.

7. That was a problem for me too. Granted, minus James and Javik, I had no care for any of the characters that weren't in ME2.

8. I think more drama would have been cool. I wanted to have the ability to be antagonistic towards characters, and have more of a longing sense of loneliness from Shepard, being separated from his LI Miranda, and having to deal with people second-guessing him and being upset with him.

9. Too much for me to say to really state here.

[liggy002]

Rekthor wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

The lack of Harbinger's presence kind of comes with the issue of having overpowered skyscraper sized enemies in a game primarily geared toward shooting. In ME2, we pretty much got Harbinger mini in the random assume-control Collector, but we don't have that luxury in ME3. Just look at the Saren hopper in Me1 as a prime example. Shepard can't fight Sovereign directly, so we fight its avatar.

I understand, but I don't think that's what the main problem was so much as that Harbinger simply never shows up. What I think people were upset about (I had this issue with the game as well), was that while Sovereign or Harbinger in ME2 may not have been on the front lines fighting us all the time, that we always knew they were there and they were mentioned enough to keep them close to the front of our minds. In ME3, Harbinger is literally not even mentioned as a threat (aside from the Reaper on Rannoch, sort of) until the final push to the beam. He doesn't even have a single line of dialogue.

TLDR: The problem isn't that you don't fight Harbinger, but that he is simply never around until the last 20 minutes.

Yeah, I agree that there was a lack of Harbinger but I also think we should have battled him.  There was a lot of build up in ME2 that lead to an anticlimactic showdown in ME 3.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 The Reapers were over-powered.


I mean, there are many problems, but I think most of them go back to that core issue.

[ImaginaryMatter]

The Crucible: Many of the problems do stem from ME2's failure to advance the plot
forward in any meaningful way, which results in needing a magical way
out to defeat the Reapers, so I'm willing to forgive this plot device to an extent. However, I think the handling of the Crucible was terrible (to wit, the Alliance can build it but has no idea about how it works or even what it's exact functions are, what is eventually revealed about it during the end doesn't make much sense either). And despite being so important to the plot it practically get's ignored until the end when suddenly the story needs to be wrapped up. Which brings up:

Kai Leng: Although his combat skills leave much to be desired this guy has two of the most powerful abilities ever possesed by a villain, his plot-armor and the Aura of Contrivance which forces everyone around him to behave incredibly stupid. He just doesn't fit either story wise or gameplay wise, he's much worse than his employer:

Cerberus: From ME1 to ME2 they went from incompetent, crazy, rogue black-ops scientists to a pro-human, well funded, advanced organization capable of bringing people back from the dead and building the most adavance ship in the galaxy. And despite TIM serving as a sort of walking-talking plot hole, he managed to still be an interesting and cool character. Then comes ME3. Now Cerberus suddenly (and for no well explained reason) has unlimited resources and personel, they can fight everyone on every front and their agents are everywhere. TIM unfortunately has been reduced to a raving lunatic. The worst part is after waiting for the final arrival of the Reapers the player has to spend half the game fighting these jokers, who despite playing second fiddle manage to upstage the Reapers as antagonists.

The Over Importance of Earth for no other reason that it's important to the player. The importance of humanity died with the original Dark Energy plot.

The Ending

[Redbelle]

In every narrative there is a central issue that arises to create drama and conflict. You can have drama and conflict without a central issue, if ou choose to go for an episodic structure whereby issues come and go to be resolved. But the central issue is there to tie all these little ones together to give the narrative purpose.

ME3's central issue was badly handled. i.e. The Reaper war. The side issues were great. Tchunka and Rannoch being the highlights. But the Reaper war?

In ME2 the side issues that caused Shep to go and recruit a crew and upgrade the ship, and find tech solutions to collector hardware problems all fed into informing what kind of end of game experience the player had in some way, shape or form.

ME3 appeared to attempt something similar, with species, but this never really manifested in the game in a way that implied deep thought about how the player would relate to the game.

Or maybe the doctor's leaving Bioware resulted in the philosophy of how to be build a game around creating experiences for the gamer came to an end. ME3 after all does a poor job of giving the gamer pushing the player character around,. stuff to do.

Digressing.

By the end of the game I expected to be belly deep in a Reaper war, fighting alongside an army. Many of the things I think have been stripped from the game for the sake of ease of development, I honestly thought were being held back till the end where the game would deliver it's party piece.

Instead we got more of the same with a bit of story to prop it up.

Now the story is honestly what stops me from utterly slating ME3 because Bioware haven't lost it's ability to tell a narrative. But it's still unfortunate that they chose to underdevelop the gameplay to support that story.

For me it's less about what exactly went wrong. It's a question of, why didn't Bioware sit down and discuss what they could do more right in the development cycle. Bioware has two good Mass Effect games under it's belt and a back catalogue of golden oldies so they know how to develop games. ME was a project that has really thrown open the possibilites in gaming and I keep saying that Bioware has a knack for successfully developing gaming systems that other games emulate. I don't think there's going to be anything about ~ME3 that other game developers emulate for their development cycles.

I'd say the problem's with ME stem from a change in management, in ME3's case, an early release deadline, and a failure to consider the gamer as they developed the end game narrative.

Not saying they should design the end game by player commitee, but they should ask themselves, Mass Effect has offered an experience centred around (Insert views here). How do we give them a resolution that meet's that?

Certainly not though stripping the player character of all power to decide outcomes and leave them feeling impotent.

[Maximillion46]

I've been thinking of doing this myself, but came across a lot of issues, particularly a lot of planning that should've happened in ME2.

I had posted a topic in the Mass Effect 3 General Discussion (No ME3 Spoilers allowed) subforum. For easy reference, the link: http://social.biowar...2366/1#17696400

I tried to think of alternate Reaper origins and motives that would give us another type of ending and someone else came with a quite plausible dark energy ending that isn't as illogically constructed as the rough idea Bioware supposedly had.

Though while going through ME1, 2 and the novels to see if some of the endings could fit (disregarding ME3 and its ending because another ending wouldn't fit obviously), I noticed part of ME2 and most of ME3 would have to be rewritten to properly foreshadow the alternate endings and I figured, even as a fanfiction writer, it was too much to do and try to rewrite all of that instead of making original works or side fanfiction stories.

I'd however be happy to look at the rewrite too see if it fits with what you don't rewrite (ME1 and most of ME2 I think). The way I see it though, a lot more foreshadowing should have gone in ME2 to make ME3 make sense, which ever way it was written. ME2 was awesome... but didn't advance the overall plot a whole lot like others have said.

[RZIBARA]

dreamgazer wrote...

Biggest problem: it had ME2 to deal with as a lead-in.

QFT

[Rekthor]

Maximillion46 wrote...

Though while going through ME1, 2 and the novels to see if some of the endings could fit (disregarding ME3 and its ending because another ending wouldn't fit obviously), I noticed part of ME2 and most of ME3 would have to be rewritten to properly foreshadow the alternate endings and I figured, even as a fanfiction writer, it was too much to do and try to rewrite all of that instead of making original works or side fanfiction stories.

I'd however be happy to look at the rewrite too see if it fits with what you don't rewrite (ME1 and most of ME2 I think). The way I see it though, a lot more foreshadowing should have gone in ME2 to make ME3 make sense, which ever way it was written. ME2 was awesome... but didn't advance the overall plot a whole lot like others have said.

I hadn't thought of this before. The attitude was that since nobody was complaining about ME2, why change a good thing? I'd still rather not have to do a rewrite of that, and it may not be necessary, but all the same, it is a pain in the ass. If what I've got so far was to be written into a campaign, it would be unrealistically long. Over the 30-odd hours that the canon story takes in ME3; maybe 40 hours.

Although for what I've rewritten so far, namely the Catalyst's motivations and conclusion for as to why the Reapers aren't needed anymore, all that would to be shifted to properly foreshadow the story in ME2 is some well-placed dialogue. Thanks for the offer though; I might take you up on that.

[Armass81]

The lack of impact on choices really started with the second game, remember the council and those countless e-mails and one time missions. Only semi real impact seemed to be Wrex and... thats it really as far as I can remember. If you seriously did not see this trend continuing to the third game, especially given the resources and time they had to do it, then sorry to say you were way too hyped and duped.

The crucible, again part of this problem comes from the handling of the second game, where even after doing the suicide mission youre basically back to square one concerning reaper threat. Especially if playing paragon.

Kai Leng, well his plot armor and all, with all fairness Saren had one too but it was handled better. I think the problem here was that the writers pretty much didnt bother to develop Leng that much in game and trusted that the fans pretty much had all they needed about him from the retribution and (unfortunately) deception novels and trusted in the power of "thats LENG from the novels, this is so cool!". This is a terrible mistake on par with FF XIII, where you dont explain things inside the story except from another separate source(In FFXIIIs case it was the ingame codex). To those who havent read them, all they will do when they see him is scratch their heads a and ask, who is this guy, why is he here, why does he use a sword? An evil raiden clone with no backstory at all except for a one lousy e-mail.

The endings, weve all been there. Theres not that much problem with catalysts motivations at least IMO, just that its execution with the story that game before is terrible.

Modifié par Armass81, 21 décembre 2013 - 05:11 .

[Fatiguesdualism]

Sorry for the length.

Rekthor wrote...

1. The lack of choices between games, specifically regarding Cerberus as an enemy

Argentoid wrote...

This is not a branching storyline, we had to follow a path  This was pretty much clear in ME2 when we got shoehorned into allying with Cerberus.

A possible (fairly cheap) way to resolve that would have been a simple conversation/message from Hackett/Anderson (ME2) or TIM (ME3) were they invite you to work as an infiltrator - and if you accept then you receive the occasional message from your 'handler' - or you turn them down and things proceed normally.  You still go through the same events - just the player's motivations are different.  Admittedly the conversation between TIM/Anderson/Shepard on the Citadel in ME3 would need some re-working.

As for making Cerberus an enemy - that should have been a player choice.  Cerberus should have stayed as the ruthless, result-at-all-costs, Humanity First group, it was almost suggested they were in ME2.  If that's the player's mind-set too, great you have friends (or at least like-minded individuals) - if not feel free to gun them down.  Making them into almost the Reaper's fifth column was (IMHO) a mistake.

Rekthor wrote...

2. The Reapers simply arriving in the galaxy with no explanation

Well they 'walked' (I think) - which raises a few eyebrows (even more with the 'Alpha Relay'  from DLC)  Personally I'm thinking of going with they 'death marched' (remove their ME3 ability to ignore drive charge build up - instead they discharged it into a sacrificial Reaper every so often) thus 'Dark Space' is now littered with Reaper corpses and fewer actually arrive in the galaxy.

Rekthor wrote...

3. Making Cerberus responsible for almost all the mission problems (some simply called this "lazy writing")

ME3 does (to me) seem obsessed with inflating Cerberus - it's a big galaxy and Cerberus is everywhere, whilst those bashful Reapers hide away.  Apparently the comics and books are worse though (Cerberus is secretly behind everything - according to some chatter) but as I haven't read them the sudden fixation in ME3 seems...well...'odd'

Rekthor wrote...

4. Harbinger's lack of appearance or any real involvement.

Wasn't really an issue for me - personally believed he was 'demoted' after his ME2 failings (would have been nice to know I suppose) until reading the codex entry/Earth.  Stuff from DLC is (IMHO) optional.

Rekthor wrote...

5. The lack of meaningful choices from previous games, specifically regarding saving the Council or letting the Rachni queen live

I think they were more limitations of the medium, resources, and developer choices.  I, somewhat, recall someone saying they didn't want any 'locked content' in ME3, hence why the rachni queen ALWAYS shows up.  Personally think the character creation needed to be more involved (and not a separate, pay-for, DLC )


Rekthor wrote...

6. The Crucible as a deus ex machina plot device

The elephant in the room no-one (in-game) wants to discuss?  Going "Found an off-switch, go to the pub for a few hours with your mates and we'll have it installed when you come back; just don't ask us any questions about it." was just

Rekthor wrote...

7. Not much, if any, emotional attachment to new characters (The child, Kai Leng, James Vega, etc)

Expecting anyone to go "OMG!  Some random person/child just died!" from A WORK OF FICTION was...well...
Kai Leng - well I suppose if you think cyborg-ninja-assassins are, like, well-cool; good for you.  If not he's just painful.  The 'concept' was well enough - the execution however?
James Vega - spear holder (at best IMHO)  I believe they tried to convey a younger, less experienced Shepard - I just think they failed.

Rekthor wrote...

8. Less personal drama for Shepard...than would be ideal

This one I would lay the blame for on ME2's Suicide Mission.  It's a great mission (bar baby Reaper) but, to be honest, it probably occurred one game too early as it gave too many character related variables going into ME3.

Rekthor wrote...

9. Various grievances involving the Catalyst's motivations or appearance,

Admittedly I had long since given up on enjoying ME3 by that stage but on those two specifics
Appearance - well it had to look like something.  Choosing to re-use the child model was...well...
Motivations - (A) Should have occurred earlier and been 'discovered' not 'preached';  ( Didn't need to be so tightly focused (concepts rather than specific problem) or; © Shouldn't have been explained at all.
       

Modifié par Fatiguesdualism, 21 décembre 2013 - 05:02 .

[nos_astra]

My issues with the trilogy are on a very basic level and fixing them would probably require rewriting ME2 and ME3 and fixing issues of ME1.

The galaxy seemed too small. At every point you run into characters doing cameos. The political landscape was too simple. Every species was represented by one single faction, except humans who had two factions. It became obvious when in ME2 the excuse for siding with Cerberus was: I had no choice, no one was willing to help. A galaxy reduced to 5 factions and their reluctance to act on Shepard's unsubstantiated claims justifies working with Cerberus.

At the end of ME1 Shepard out of the blue declares the Reapers an immediate threat instead of a distant one. And Shepard deals with this threat by collecting a squad of random people who have no chance of defeating the Reapers at any point. Political allies are made and lost on a whim while Shepard runs around gunning down mooks with his buddies.

I would probably have the galaxy tear itself apart without the Reapers ever arriving there. And I suppose would try turn ME into ASoIaF in Space with a complex net of shaky alliances and dubious motivations.

Modifié par klarabella, 21 décembre 2013 - 05:17 .

[MegaIllusiveMan]

Rekthor wrote...

As a sort of "Why not-just because" project, I'm seeing if I could write an alternate, completely different plot for Mass Effect 3. I write Fanfiction alongside my normal, original writing and thought it would be an interesting project. It's tricky given where Mass Effect 2 ended, but it's progressing alright so far. I'm just looking for a sense on what people disliked the most about the game's plot. Not mechanics or UI or what-have-you; just story. Hopefully I can glean a larger perspective.

Here's what I was planning to focus on fixing more than others. I looked my best for the most prevalent greivances, although some were mentioned far more than others, specifically the first three.

1. The lack of choices in between games, specifically regarding Cerberus as an enemy.
2. The Reapers simply arriving in the galaxy with no explanation.
3. Making Cerberus responsible for almost all the mission problems (some simply call this "lazy writing").
4. Harbinger's lack of appearances or any real involvement.
5. The lack of impactful choices from previous games, specifically regarding saving the Council or letting the Rachni queen live.
6. The Crucible as a deus ex machina plot device.
7 Not much, if any, emotional attachment to new characters (The child, Kai Leng, James Vega, etc.).
8. Less personal drama for Shepard (think saving Ashley or Kaiden, or killing Wrex or not, or the confrontations between Miranda/Jack and Tali/Legion) than would be ideal.
9. Various greivances involving the Catalyst's motivations or appearance.

Anyway. If you agree with any of these majorly, I'd appreciate the response. If I missed your biggest problem, let me know. I'd like to know what the players were outraged about (aside from the ending) the most. 

Oh... Like a ME3 Lover, I'm going to contradict this post(not all the post) in a civil way.

1- I think the main problem here was because Drew Karpyshin left Bioware almost in the end of ME2 and then Uncle Mac Walters took over. IIRC, Drew had many plans for Cerberus and Dark Energy Theory in ME3.

2- Actually, they don't... In the end of ME2 they are arriving through Dark Space... Maybe FTL, like the Codex Says... I bet that they were travelling to the Galaxy since Sovereign Failed, and then they got there.

3- Hm... Maybe... Cerberus was attacking Alliance Outposts 'cause they were Indocrinate, and then the Reapers are using them for a distraction?

4-Yes, there is this. But I think that as a Reaper Boss, he should lack involvement, to prevent the fall of the Reaper Army. Even Uncle Harb isn't invincible.

5- The Council, yes. I was playing ME2 right now and I remember the talk with Avina when the Council died.

Humans are being threatened, civil disorder. Non-human residents disagree with the Alliance led restructuring of the Council, and wish a return to the Status quo.
Then, Shepard asks what is the Alliance doing to stop these things?. Avina then says that is confidential and has no further information on that topic.

The Rachni Queen. Yes. Agree with ya.

- Dem End