164 réponses à ce sujet

[Comrade Wakizashi]

I suppose I misunderstood that then. But my point regarding the OP question remains. Why didn't they construct an EMP weapon to win against the Reapers? Simply because it's impossible to win that way. I agree that they could added an EMP weapon in game to help Shepard take down individual Reapers, perhaps. But in the larger picture, it wouldn't have made any difference.

Humanity, or any other alien species for that matter, could never have constructed a conventional EMP weapon with the power of the Crucible in the small amount of time they were given. So the assumption that ME3's story is made pointless by the fact that EMP weapons seem to be effective doesn't work.

[CronoDragoon]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Moreover, what's unique in the recent games that can't be aimed at the older games? Certainly DAO, ME1, Jade Empire, and KOTOR had their own fair share of railroading, fixed dialogue paths (and painfully limited unique dialogue routes), and canonical player character interests. No matter how skeptical a player may feel about the Urn of Ashes quest, for example, you still do it... even if you'd rather just smother Eamon with a pillow and move on with it rather than waste time on a wild goose chase.

Certainly part of ME1's ending is identical to what players give DA2 so much crap for: you can choose this and this option and then fight Saren, who is then taken over by Sovereign for a boss fight, or you can choose this and this option and get Saren to shoot himself....then he's taken over by Sovereign for a boss fight.

[dreamgazer]

Moreover, what's unique in the recent games that can't be aimed at the older games?

Not much at all, outside of a pinkish hue.

[Clayless]

MattFini wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

ME2's story still takes the cake when comes to being "pointless".

Only because ME3 made it that way. 

Lol what?

ME2 gives you the option to kill everyone and destroy the Collector Base (AKA the plot). It also shows that the galaxy aren't preparing for the Reapers.

Saying ME3 made ME2 pointless just shows that you haven't played ME2.

[Mcfly616]

MattFini wrote... Only because ME3 made it that way.

Wrong. ME2 was pointless before ME3 ever came into existence. No progress is made. In fact, by the end of ME2 we're in precisely the same exact position as we were at the end of ME1. "Derp the Reapers are still out there, and I'm gonna find a way to stop them." Hmm way to wait til their arrival. No amount of nostalgia can hide the fact that ME2's story/plot is nothing short of pointless when it comes to the overarching narrative of the entire trilogy (i.e. stopping the Reaper threat). It's a glorified side-story.

[SpamBot2000]

ME2 was about defeating the agents of the Reapers. If that didn't advance the "main plot", that's on ME3. BW just decided to start 3 from a point at which 2 wasn't very relevant at all... in fact, at a point when Walters' own "This is a Bridge to ME3" DLC fail Arrival was totally irrelevant as well.

See, BW could have written a game that advanced the plot based on ME2, because ME2 existed at that point and ME3 didn't yet. They just chose not to. 

That's how it works.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 17 janvier 2014 - 09:52 .

[AlanC9]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

ME2 was about defeating the agents of the Reapers. If that didn't advance the "main plot", that's on ME3. BW just decided to start 3 from a point at which 2 wasn't very relevant at all... in fact, at a point when Walters' own "This is a Bridge to ME3" DLC fail Arrival was totally irrelevant as well.

See, BW could have written a game that advanced the plot based on ME2, because ME2 existed at that point and ME3 didn't yet. They just chose not to. 

That's how it works.

I don't follow your argument. How could Bio have retroactively made the Collectors into a greater threat than they were? This reads like wishful thinking.

Modifié par AlanC9, 17 janvier 2014 - 09:54 .

[SpamBot2000]

AlanC9 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

ME2 was about defeating the agents of the Reapers. If that didn't advance the "main plot", that's on ME3. BW just decided to start 3 from a point at which 2 wasn't very relevant at all... in fact, at a point when Walters' own "This is a Bridge to ME3" DLC fail Arrival was totally irrelevant as well.

See, BW could have written a game that advanced the plot based on ME2, because ME2 existed at that point and ME3 didn't yet. They just chose not to. 

That's how it works.

I don't follow your argument. How could Bio have retroactively made the Collectors into a greater threat than they were? This reads like wishful thinking.

And I don't follow yours. What do you mean "a greater threat"? They were advancing the Reaper agenda of all-out galactic annihilation. Shep wasn't having that, and stopped them on a very risky mission. I mean, most games don't allow you to get your character straight up killed and still complete the game. (Unless they FORCE it on you, obviously. But ME2 didn't.)

It's only after that we learn that "OMG! They are just motorvatin' into the galaxy like Harby's plan meant nothing at all!" Now THAT'S where that particular intervention should have occurred. "Look, Walters. We cannot just IGNORE ME2 and make it mean nothing!" "Oh, OK.... Weekes, Dombrow... rite me sumthin' gude, will ya?"

Edit: What I'm getting at is simply this: The greatness of the threat the Collectors posed is something that depended on their relevance to the Reaper plan. It was entirely up to BW writers to either write something that shows what role the plan Harbinger had going with them played in the overall Reaper strategy OR completely bypass the issue by having the Reapers just pop up in the galaxy like that plan was of no consequence whatsoever. They chose to do the latter. And that is why people say ME3 made ME2 irrelevant. It also made ME1 make no sense, since apparently Sovereign gaining access to the Citadel not only made no difference either, but also involved a part of "the Reapers" acting to connect to the Essence of Reapers that was supposedly controlling it all the time... So that was a bit crappy. ME1 was the saga of King Reaper trying to touch himself? 4 realz?!

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 17 janvier 2014 - 10:45 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

AlanC9 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

ME2 was about defeating the agents of the Reapers. If that didn't advance the "main plot", that's on ME3. BW just decided to start 3 from a point at which 2 wasn't very relevant at all... in fact, at a point when Walters' own "This is a Bridge to ME3" DLC fail Arrival was totally irrelevant as well.

See, BW could have written a game that advanced the plot based on ME2, because ME2 existed at that point and ME3 didn't yet. They just chose not to. 

That's how it works.

I don't follow your argument. How could Bio have retroactively made the Collectors into a greater threat than they were? This reads like wishful thinking.

I feel like this is a mistake a lot of people make. Just because in and of itself ME2 may have seemed pointless doesn't mean that ME3 could not have given it retroactive importance.

At the end of ME2, we really don't know what the Collectors were useful for in the grand scheme of things. Now say if in ME3 we found out they had some crazy plot-twisting relevance, now ME2 itself becomes critical to the narrative.

Hell, for anyone who has read Neil Gaiman's Sandman, one of my favorite graphic novels, this kind of stuff happens all the time. Seemingly trivial/irrelevant plot details from minor side arcs come back in big ways towards the end of the series. So yes, we can say ME2 should have been more plot relevant. But no, it was not impossible for Bioware to fix that error.

[Dean_the_Young]

Except that puts the cart before the horse. If ME3 makes the Collector plot significant for ME2, ME2 still remains a poorly thought out mid-series entry own merits. There's a word for when past events are recast and retold in a significantly different way, and that word is 'retcon.' Making the Collectors a crazy plot twist of importance in retrospect begs the question of what the plot was doing at the time. (And the answer, sadly, is daddy issues.)

The problem with ME2 isn't that ME3 didn't decide to make it relevant two years after the game was released. The problem is that ME2 had no clue how it intended to fit into the greater plot, because the writers never made a greter plot. This is something they've admitted repeatedly. Claiming ME3 needs to justify ME2's existence when ME2 can't, whether on the grounds of making a credible Collector threat or a lack of any Reaper victory plan to drive the narrative, is effectively giving an unlimited pass. ME2 could have done anything, or nothing and had Shepard sit around the entire game, and that argument still would have ME3 responsible for making it critical to the plot.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 18 janvier 2014 - 12:01 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Except that puts the cart before the horse. If ME3 makes the Collector plot significant for ME2, ME2 still remains a poorly thought out mid-series entry own merits. There's a word for when past events are recast and retold in a significantly different way, and that word is 'retcon.' Making the Collectors a crazy plot twist of importance in retrospect begs the question of what the plot was doing at the time. (And the answer, sadly, is daddy issues.)

 
Sure, in and of itself, we can still look back and say "Hey, ME2 could have set this up better", but my point is that past mistakes are not totally unfixable, hence the Neil Gaiman example. You can still take seemingly irrelevant plot details, even ones you haven't thought of at the time, and turn them into excellent plot hooks, provided you're creative enough.

Basic example: Gaiman, more than a few times, takes characters introduced in a seemingly trivial side-arc or mentioned only in passing and develops the main protagonist's story around situations involving these side characters. He uses details which easily the viewer may have overlooked or which at the time could have been unimportant and spins epic stories from them.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 18 janvier 2014 - 12:20 .

[Sebby]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

ME2 was about defeating the agents of the Reapers. If that didn't advance the "main plot", that's on ME3. BW just decided to start 3 from a point at which 2 wasn't very relevant at all... in fact, at a point when Walters' own "This is a Bridge to ME3" DLC fail Arrival was totally irrelevant as well.

See, BW could have written a game that advanced the plot based on ME2, because ME2 existed at that point and ME3 didn't yet. They just chose not to. 

That's how it works.

You mean the villains of the week who had no chance in hell of completing their objective? No. that's not "advancing the main plot".

It's ME2's fault that ME3 starts with the reapers at the galactic gates with the galaxy no better prepared than in ME1's ending.

[SpamBot2000]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Except that puts the cart before the horse. If ME3 makes the Collector plot significant for ME2, ME2 still remains a poorly thought out mid-series entry own merits. There's a word for when past events are recast and retold in a significantly different way, and that word is 'retcon.' Making the Collectors a crazy plot twist of importance in retrospect begs the question of what the plot was doing at the time. (And the answer, sadly, is daddy issues.)

The problem with ME2 isn't that ME3 didn't decide to make it relevant two years after the game was released. The problem is that ME2 had no clue how it intended to fit into the greater plot, because the writers never made a greter plot. This is something they've admitted repeatedly. Claiming ME3 needs to justify ME2's existence when ME2 can't, whether on the grounds of making a credible Collector threat or a lack of any Reaper victory plan to drive the narrative, is effectively giving an unlimited pass. ME2 could have done anything, or nothing and had Shepard sit around the entire game, and that argument still would have ME3 responsible for making it critical to the plot.

Seems like you are missing the point here. ME2 was entirely "relevant" to the main plot because the Collector plot was what the Reapers were up to in the galaxy, simple as that. Making their activity relevant to their overall strategy wouldn't have been "a crazy plot twist" at all, simply better storytelling. Any retcon here is ignoring the whole storyline and refusing to attach any meaning to it, which is precisely what they did with Arrival and ME3. 

ME2 justified its existence just fine. Sure it had its issues (Shepard's death and resurrection, silly Terminator thing etc.), but that's not the point here.

[Dean_the_Young]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Except that puts the cart before the horse. If ME3 makes the Collector plot significant for ME2, ME2 still remains a poorly thought out mid-series entry own merits. There's a word for when past events are recast and retold in a significantly different way, and that word is 'retcon.' Making the Collectors a crazy plot twist of importance in retrospect begs the question of what the plot was doing at the time. (And the answer, sadly, is daddy issues.)

 
Sure, in and of itself, we can still look back and say "Hey, ME2 could have set this up better", but my point is that past mistakes are not totally unfixable, hence the Neil Gaiman example. You can still take seemingly irrelevant plot details, even ones you haven't thought of at the time, and turn them into excellent plot hooks, provided you're creative enough.

Basic example: Gaiman, more than a few times, takes characters introduced in a seemingly trivial side-arc or mentioned only in passing and develops the main protagonist's story around situations involving these side characters. He uses details which easily the viewer may have overlooked or which at the time could have been unimportant and spins epic stories from them.

That example only serves to undermine the merits of ME2, though. ME2's plotline is not analogous to a minor character: ME2 is the supporting middle act in an entire trilogy. It is not a trivial side-arc, it is the main plot of a set story structure: if the final third of the tirlogy has to rely on the side-figures, than the middle main figures were not doing their job..

Moreover, it's not clear how ME3 wouldn't already qualify for your Gaiman example. Virtually every arc and major quest in the game heavily involves someone who was a cameo, passing reference, or side character. Tuchanka runs off of Wrex and Wreave (cameos), and uses Maleon's referenced experiments in Eve. The Rannoch Arc relies heavily not only on Tali and Legion, but the entire Admiralty board. Then there's the Cerberus Arc, the role of the Council across the game, every single ME2 companion mission, and that's not even touching on the main cast.


Maybe we need a clearer example. In your Gaiman series, is that a trilogy? Or do you have some feasible hypothetical that ME3 could have done instead?

[SpamBot2000]

Seboist wrote...

You mean the villains of the week who had no chance in hell of completing their objective? No. that's not "advancing the main plot".

It's ME2's fault that ME3 starts with the reapers at the galactic gates with the galaxy no better prepared than in ME1's ending.

That you find the Reaper agents in question less than satisfactory doesn't mean that they were "irrelevant" to the plot. It just means you didn't think that plot was good. There's a case to be made there, sure. But it's not this one.

And it's certainly not ME2's fault that ME3 starts with the Reapers at the galactic gates. That is, except the tiny bit where they announce that they are driving into town next week no matter what, and Arrival. Regrettable Waltersian buffoonery, yes. But not dictated by the structure of ME2 at all. (Much like, for all its faults, ME3 didn't necessitate the entirely superfluous ghost boy nonsense.) And it's certainly not ME2's fault that the galaxy is not prepared better than in ME1, or that Shep has been twiddling his appendages (THUMBS! I mean thumbs!) in the cooler for months because "U puled sum **** Shep!"

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 18 janvier 2014 - 12:58 .

[Sebby]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

You mean the villains of the week who had no chance in hell of completing their objective? No. that's not "advancing the main plot".

It's ME2's fault that ME3 starts with the reapers at the galactic gates with the galaxy no better prepared than in ME1's ending.

That you find the Reaper agents in question less than satisfactory doesn't mean that they were "irrelevant" to the plot. It just means you didn't think that plot was good.

And it's certainly not ME2's fault that ME3 starts with the Reapers at the galactic gates. That is, except the tiny bit where they announce that they are driving into town next week no matter what, and Arrival. Regrettable Waltersian buffoonery, yes. But not dictated by the structure of ME2 at all. (Much like, for all its faults, ME3 didn't necessitate the entirely superfluous ghost boy nonsense.) And it's certainly not ME2's fault that the galaxy is not prepared better than in ME3, or that Shep has been twiddling his appendages (THUMBS! I mean thumbs!) in the cooler for months because "U puled sum **** Shep!"

By all means tell me what they do for the plot? These mindless bug drones show up and get wiped out within the same game and 2's story(such as it is) ends where it begins. I "liked" how ME2 tried to make it seem like their being former protheans was some kind of big deal(it wasn't).

Not ME2's the galaxy's not prepared? Lol wut? How is spending most of the time solving silly daddy issues(for a bunch of people Shep has no compelling reason to recruit to begin with) and fighting sesame street mercs preparing for the reaper invasion? And with ME2's retcon of "ah yes reapers" they made the galaxy WORSE off.

The only bit of relevance to the overarching plot ME2 could have had was with the Collector base but since Bioware had the brilliance to add an option for Shepard to destroy it like a moron(second only to "refuse" as the dumbest choice in the series) they made that null and void.

ME2 = text book example of Pointless with a capital P.

[Dean_the_Young]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Except that puts the cart before the horse. If ME3 makes the Collector plot significant for ME2, ME2 still remains a poorly thought out mid-series entry own merits. There's a word for when past events are recast and retold in a significantly different way, and that word is 'retcon.' Making the Collectors a crazy plot twist of importance in retrospect begs the question of what the plot was doing at the time. (And the answer, sadly, is daddy issues.)

The problem with ME2 isn't that ME3 didn't decide to make it relevant two years after the game was released. The problem is that ME2 had no clue how it intended to fit into the greater plot, because the writers never made a greter plot. This is something they've admitted repeatedly. Claiming ME3 needs to justify ME2's existence when ME2 can't, whether on the grounds of making a credible Collector threat or a lack of any Reaper victory plan to drive the narrative, is effectively giving an unlimited pass. ME2 could have done anything, or nothing and had Shepard sit around the entire game, and that argument still would have ME3 responsible for making it critical to the plot.

Seems like you are missing the point here. ME2 was entirely "relevant" to the main plot because the Collector plot was what the Reapers were up to in the galaxy, simple as that.

And yet what the Reapers were up to was insignificant. By ME2's own ending and DLC, the Collectors were irrelevant to the Reapers return. The Collectors weren't a major military threat to the galaxy, weren't being used as proxies to divide the galaxy against itself, they weren't even used in conjunction with the Heretic Geth as mutually-supporting proxies. The Collectors entire activity of building a Human Reaper couldn't even be done without conquering Earth, which they didn't have the military power to do.

The way they were used, the Collectors were always going to have to wait for the Reapers to arrive in order to complete their Reaper. But once Earth is captured, the rest of the human colonies are irrelevant for creating it, and the Reapers are already winning the war. The Collector forces are insufficient for achieving a Reaper victory before the Arrival, and redundant afterwards.

The Reapers activities in the galaxy can only support the main plot in so much that the Reapers' activities are significant. They weren't- not only were the Collectors the least common enemy faction in ME2, but they were never presented as a credible threat with a meaningful plan that would have grave consequences for the galaxy if not stopped.

As it is, not stopping the Collectors in ME2 meant... well, that Cerberus wouldn't be in a position to be such a pain. That's meta-gaming ME3, of course, but another Collector Cruiser or few wasn't going to be the decisive factor between the countless hoardes of Reapers and the rest of the unprepared, underarmed galaxy.

Making their activity relevant to their overall strategy wouldn't have been "a crazy plot twist" at all, simply better storytelling. Any retcon here is ignoring the whole storyline and refusing to attach any meaning to it, which is precisely what they did with Arrival and ME3.

The Collectors in ME2 never had an overall strategy. They were simply the Terminus equivalent of the Knockout Game, attacking defenselss colonies by surprise because they lacked the forces to take better defended ones.

ME2 itself established the military disparity, the end-game reliance on Earth, and the imminent arrival of the Reapers. The Collectors in ME2 weren't even being used to prepare the galaxy for the Harvest- they were just starting a Human Reaper early because. Not because Reasons, but just Because. The only reason the Collectors were invented mid-way through and conduct abductions was to justify learning that Reapers
are People before their arrival and actual harvest in ME3, without an
intent or reason why that mattered.

ME2 justified its existence just fine. Sure it had its issues (Shepard's death and resurrection, silly Terminator thing etc.), but that's not the point here.

It is entirely the point here. ME2 justifies its existence as game by being fun. It can't say the same for the trilogy by claiming to be filler arc.

[Dean_the_Young]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

And it's certainly not ME2's fault that ME3 starts with the Reapers at the galactic gates.

Considering the prologue, Shepard's stated motivations for being willing to join up with Cerberus, multiple character and companion dialogues (including virtually every ship crew with a name), and the entire meeting with Anderson and the Council- considering that all of these, in the first act no less, repeatedly emphasized that two years later the Reapers are not being prepared for-

And considering that, after Act 1, Shepard spends precisely 0 percent of the game looking for a means to beat the actual Reapers, or putting together a galactic coalition, or driving any political catalyst to make the galaxy realize the Reaper threat-

How is it not ME2's fault that the galaxy is established as not having prepared for the Reapers by the start of ME3? ME3 actually broke ground by having the Alliance navy mobilize before the invasion of Earth.

[SpamBot2000]

Look, in retrospect I'm not crazy about the way ME2 handled the Collector plan at all. The whole thing with the Reapers building spaceships that look like people and injecting them with the goo... it's just basically stupid, and opened the door for all kinds of hacks to make nutty claims about "preserving species". But that doesn't really change the fact that the Collectors were functionally the Plan B of the Reapers, and while I do wish they had written a better plot for them, there's nothing inherently "irrelevant" about them at all. Where the irrelevance comes from is the lack of any impact their whole scheme to the eventual Reaper invasion in ME3. And yeah, this started with the very ending of ME2 and the Arrival DLC, basically stuff that was added to tease episode 3.

A decent writer would have looked at what they had already made and fitted the continuation of the story to that, instead of just throwing it out because it's cool shizzle to have space monsters blow up things on Earth. ("Like, that's where the players keep their stuff and all!") Having the players confront and defeat the collectors in part 2 for it to mean something in part 3 is no retcon, just good writing practice. Could have had the Reaper off switch traced back to the debris of the base (that you destroyed like a smart person because of how "indoctrination" worked etc.) Sure, that's not great stuff exactly, but it's still miles better than having some mysterious blueprints turn up in Liara's purse or whatever. Obviously a real writer would have done something better with it... unless of course held back by a crayon-toting hack of a boss.

See, the weakness of the Collectors comes from the fact that their efforts, whatever they were, had no obvious bearing on the Reaper advance at all. Now this Reaper advance happened in ME3, so obviously it's ME3 that defined the efficacy of the Collectors as negligible once and for all.

Oh, and as for "daddy issues"... Dunno guys, seems that it's as valid a basis for character motivation as any. Obviously ME2 rather overdid this motif, maybe because the writers failed to co-ordinate and see how many characters were headed that way in time. The "loyalty mission" structure can be criticized as artificial and all that, but for me at least the side missions not being all tied up in the main plot added to the feeling of exploring the universe, and were in that sense successful.

[SpamBot2000]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

How is it not ME2's fault that the galaxy is established as not having prepared for the Reapers by the start of ME3? ME3 actually broke ground by having the Alliance navy mobilize before the invasion of Earth.

Uh... maybe because ME3 was written so that its obvious that the events of ME2 had no impact on the Alliance brass, other than having them lock up the guy who actually did something about the Reapers. They are doing their hearing thing right up to the actual second the Reapers are upon them. This happens in ME3. How is it ME2's fault?

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 18 janvier 2014 - 01:55 .

[Dean_the_Young]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

How is it not ME2's fault that the galaxy is established as not having prepared for the Reapers by the start of ME3? ME3 actually broke ground by having the Alliance navy mobilize before the invasion of Earth.

Uh... maybe because ME3 was written so that its obvious that the events of ME2 had no impact on the Alliance brass, other than having them lock up the guy who actually did something about the Reapers. They are doing their hearing thing right up to the actual second the Reapers are upon them. This happens in ME3. How is it ME2's fault?

Because in a 3 year time gap between ME1 and ME3, ME2 establishes that nothing was done in the first two years, and then in the next 6 months or so (until the point of Arrival) does nothing to change that.

As ME2 is the game that not only establishes what the galaxy's reaction to ME1 was, but also establishes what happens in the timeframe of ME2 (including deciding the entire Arrival incident and lock-up), the responsiblity for ME2's narrative choices would fall on... ME2.

Imagine that.

[SpamBot2000]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

How is it not ME2's fault that the galaxy is established as not having prepared for the Reapers by the start of ME3? ME3 actually broke ground by having the Alliance navy mobilize before the invasion of Earth.

Uh... maybe because ME3 was written so that its obvious that the events of ME2 had no impact on the Alliance brass, other than having them lock up the guy who actually did something about the Reapers. They are doing their hearing thing right up to the actual second the Reapers are upon them. This happens in ME3. How is it ME2's fault?

Because in a 3 year time gap between ME1 and ME3, ME2 establishes that nothing was done in the first two years, and then in the next 6 months or so (until the point of Arrival) does nothing to change that.

As ME2 is the game that not only establishes what the galaxy's reaction to ME1 was, but also establishes what happens in the timeframe of ME2 (including deciding the entire Arrival incident and lock-up), the responsiblity for ME2's narrative choices would fall on... ME2.

Imagine that.

Well now Professor, ME2 establishes some peculiar results for the events of ME1, ME3 some even more peculiar results for the events of ME2. Did locking Shepard up happen in ME2? Oh, it didn't. It happened in ME3. And I don't consider Arrival a part of ME2 at all. It's just a trashy piece of optional recontextualizing. And what do you know, it didn't even work as that. "You puled sum **** The Shepard!" indeed. Where's my trial? Oh, right. Couldn't hack it, with all his hack experience. Dismal.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 18 janvier 2014 - 02:20 .

[Dean_the_Young]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Look, in retrospect I'm not crazy about the way ME2 handled the Collector plan at all. The whole thing with the Reapers building spaceships that look like people and injecting them with the goo... it's just basically stupid, and opened the door for all kinds of hacks to make nutty claims about "preserving species". But that doesn't really change the fact that the Collectors were functionally the Plan B of the Reapers, and while I do wish they had written a better plot for them, there's nothing inherently "irrelevant" about them at all. Where the irrelevance comes from is the lack of any impact their whole scheme to the eventual Reaper invasion in ME3. And yeah, this started with the very ending of ME2 and the Arrival DLC, basically stuff that was added to tease episode 3.

The Collectors were never the Plan B. There was never a plot, insinuation, or narrative indication that the Collectors would try and redo the Citadel Relay to dark space.

The Collectors did nothing that the Reapers couldn't do themselves once they got here, and were uninvolved in getting the Reapers to the galaxy.


The fact that ME2 ends in an irrelevant state doesn't mean the irrelevance started at the end: ME2's relevance would have been built through the game.

A decent writer would have looked at what they had already made and fitted the continuation of the story to that, instead of just throwing it out because it's cool shizzle to have space monsters blow up things on Earth. ("Like, that's where the players keep their stuff and all!") Having the players confront and defeat the collectors in part 2 for it to mean something in part 3 is no retcon, just good writing practice. Could have had the Reaper off switch traced back to the debris of the base (that you destroyed like a smart person because of how "indoctrination" worked etc.) Sure, that's not great stuff exactly, but it's still miles better than having some mysterious blueprints turn up in Liara's purse or whatever. Obviously a real writer would have done something better with it... unless of course held back by a crayon-toting hack of a boss.

Introducing an entirely new faction and resolving them in the same installment, especially mid-series, is rarely a good writing practice. Especially since the Collectors effectively marginalized and pushed out the already established reclusive, technologically advanced Reaper proxy faction which hid behind a relay of no return.

A keystone gambit by virtue of an 'off' button conveniently left behind in the galaxy without Reaper supervision is hardly better than a superweapon gambit. Of course, the superweapon gambit could only be introduced in the third game because the mid-series installment made no narrative effort to address the question of how to beat the Reapers.

See, the weakness of the Collectors comes from the fact that their efforts, whatever they were, had no obvious bearing on the Reaper advance at all. Now this Reaper advance happened in ME3, so obviously it's ME3 that defined the efficacy of the Collectors as negligible once and for all.

Except, uh, ME2 ended with us blowing the Collectors up and never establishing a Collector game plan of note. We knew what the Collector efficacy was: we killed them and blew up their toy reaper, while the Reapers flew in the long way. Then the game spent the post-game content and all the bridging DLC ignorring any other Collector significance, giving them not even another plot thread to ride forward.

That's kind of ME2's responsiblity in establishing it's antagonist. Just as it would have been a weakness of ME1 if Saren's collaborationist agenda had never been indicated and was only revealed in ME2, spending ME2 without establishing a Collector agenda

Oh, and as for "daddy issues"... Dunno guys, seems that it's as valid a basis for character motivation as any. Obviously ME2 rather overdid this motif, maybe because the writers failed to co-ordinate and see how many characters were headed that way in time. The "loyalty mission" structure can be criticized as artificial and all that, but for me at least the side missions not being all tied up in the main plot added to the feeling of exploring the universe, and were in that sense successful.

The focus on the daddy issues isn't that daddy issues aren't a valid basis for character development, but rather that ME2 spent almost all its time and content on character development that was tangental to the overall plot. Not only were most the characters not even remotely connected to factions or issues that were intrensically or even foreshadowed as important to the Reaper plot, but the fact that most of the content was skippable and the characters killable meant that they could not be the foundation for the next game.

It was a giant resource sink, and somehow it caught the devs by surprise.

[Mr Deathbot]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Mr Deathbot wrote...

What? That made no sense whatsoever, no one ever called my OP a half-assed post. I don't see how calling someone else's post a half-assed post correlates with my post being half assed.

Also, "Calling your OP a half-assed post would be giving it half the credit it was due" ? Soooo, what you're saying is that I "assed" my OP? What does that even mean? Well, half assing something lazily or carelessly. So that would mean assing something is to do it carefully and very precise. I guess you just called my OP a well written, thought out, informative piece of literature, so thanks!

I'm pretty sure he meant that your post was quarter-assed.

Oh, come on Alan- don't explain the joke. Seeing her twirl her wheels like that would have been great.

OH, I GET IT! "Quarter-assed" that's hilarious! He was insulting the quality of my OP by saying if I half-assed it I would've put more effort into it than what I really did. HAHAHAHA I CAN'T BREATHE IT'S TOO FUNNY!! Oh man, that was such a burn you sure did get me there. I'm going to have to run away, and change my name so no one will recognize me, just from the sheer embarrasment. Maybe one day everyone will forget about this and I can return to society just to scrape out a pitiful and meegur existence.

Anyway, on a more serious note, why is my OP such an abomination to writing? Did I overlook a few things when writing? Yes, I did, but I wouldn't say enough to make it as bad as you're claiming. Unless, you're just trying to make yourself look sophisticated and above this cesspool of words. You know, because you know more than ME lore than me so that gives you judgement over all my writing. Whatever the case is I don't think it's really necessary. Maybe politeness and manners are just too high of expectations for denizens of an online forum.

Also, where did you get it that I was female? I haven't done anything to imply that, unless this is another "joke" and you're trying to emasculate me.

Alright my tangent is over now, I hope you have a wonderful day. Oh, and remember if anyone is messing with you use a poorly worded insult that could be misconstrued as a compliment. That should show them.

Cordially- Mr. Deathbot

Modifié par Mr Deathbot, 18 janvier 2014 - 02:31 .

[Janus382]

Addressing the "ME2 was pointless" tangent, it absolutely was, in the big picture.  

The Collectors posed no real imminent military threat, aside from "probably" going to attack Earth at some point, although it's never indicated that they have the means to do so.  They were attacking colonies, sure, but there's tons of those.  Otherwise, they were constructing a human reaper, but for what purpose, when it would be completed, or what importance it would have in the war is never indicated.  

It essentially boils down to "The Collectors are working for the Reapers, kidnapping colonists and building a human Reaper, which can't be a good thing... also these things are terrible and that Reaper is an abomination!".

Which is basically all we know when the Collectors are defeated.  The only things in ME2 that have any real relevance to the main plot are Harbinger (by way of his taunts and information) and setting up Cerberus / TIM... which are reduced to "Character does not appear" and "pawn", respectively, in ME3.  Absolutely nothing is done to address the Reaper threat, by Shepard, his crew, or the galaxy.  In-game, stopping the Collectors was a great idea, given that Shepard didn't know what they were planning.  Spending the entire game on it, and coming out of it none the wiser nor more prepared, was not a great idea.  It was a colossal waste of time, with the only known benefit being that they saved some colonists.  At least until the Reapers arrived... probably.

ME2 dropped the ball on itself and doesn't stand on its own merits whatsoever, and ME3 failed to retroactively give it even the slightest bit of importance, which it should have.  ME2 would have been great as a side-story that establishes some future characters, but as a middle installment in a trilogy, it failed.

That said, ME2 was fun, and ME3 was too (til' the end).

On-topic:  It wasn't EMP and can't be EMP, due to the Reapers' aptitude for space and interplanetary travel.  It's an environmental hazard that they would be well prepared for, by necessity.  Cue space magic! 

EDIT: Wranglin' some wild apostrophes.  
EDIT 2: Don't think ME3 can fix ME2 to any acceptable degree, removed related dumb analogy.

Modifié par Janus382, 19 janvier 2014 - 03:36 .