41 réponses à ce sujet

[Mendelevosa]

 After going back and looking at the main story plots for the three Mass Effect games, I feel that the story that was told progressed a little too quickly and ended a bit too abruptly with pacing issues. Mass Effect 1 does a satisfactory job at introducing and foreshadowing the Reaper threat that is to be present in the latter parts of the series. Mass Effect 2 has a structure that makes it solely appear as a bridge between the beginning and end of the storyline, with very few events of great significance occuring in the middle. Mass Effect 3 then proceeds to end the storyline with a tale of directly facing the threat, though the clashes and struggles seem to end too early. While the storyline present in all three games are still entertaining, it feels a bit rushed.

It is possible that Mass Effect 2 may have primarily contributed to my feelings on the matter. In terms of the story, it is mainly spend on learning about the Collectors, who are sort of a sub enemy in the grand story, and gathering a team to defeat this enemy. The issue I found is that it did not significantly contribute to the events that were to happen in the later parts of the series. If the choices that could be made in the second game had dire ramifications to how events played out in Mass Effect 3, then I could call it a true contribution to the series. However, it spends most of its time developing on insignificant sub plots and not the primary story that was introduced. The game felt like something that was made simply to hold everyone over until ME3 came out. Maybe it would have been better if the game initiated the actual Reaper War and also involved the preparation of the conflict. Regardless of what could have been included, it would have made Mass Effect 2 better had the story continued with the main story.

I also believe that there are pacing issues that affected Mass Effect 3's story. By it being affected, I am referring to the introduction of a super weapon (The Crucible) that just suddenly gets introduced out of nowhere without any build up whatsoever as a way of ending the war in a span of only one game and voiding all choices that we have made to prepare for the war in one fell swoop. How did no one find out about this weapon until after the Reapers started attacking. At least it could have been mentioned in Mass Effect 2 so that it wouldn't feel out of place. Also, It would have been nice if the Reaper War lasted longer than just one game, considering how important it was built up to be. Maybe if it were not for the Crucible, the war wouldn't have ended so soon and there would be development to actually end the war with a more conventional method.

To finally get to the topic in the title, it would have been beneficial if the entirety of Mass Effect 1-3 was expanded into four parts. The first half would serve to present the Reaper threat and prepare for it, and then the second half would inolve the actual conflict between the Reapers and organic civilization. Not only that, but then maybe the story could have included possible ways to come to a victory against the Reapers without involving Deus Ex Machina. Maybe this way, it would provide plenty of room to flesh out the entire storyline without rushing or adding elements that would cripple the pacing of the storyline.

To be honest, it seems as if Bioware did not know how many games they wanted to develop for Shepard the Reaper threat. It's as if after Mass Effect 2, the development team decided "Hey! Lets make Mass Effect a triogy!", and had to figure out how to end the series at the last minute. In the larger picture, Mass Effect 2 just feels as if it is pretty much pointless.

The TL;DR version: The games progressed to quickly and ended too early, the middle of the storyline (Mass Effect 2) had very little significance, the pacing issues caused Mass Effect 3 to introduce Deus Ex Machina which feels out of place and caused the conflict to end on a underwhelming note, and the story should have been extended into four games to flesh out the preparation and clashes of the war to create a more believable ending. Or possiblly ME2 could have been rewritten to make the overall story flow better.

Modifié par Mendelevosa, 16 janvier 2014 - 09:04 .

[CinderSkye]

Eh. Even as I was playing ME2, I felt like it was a sidestory. Just IMO. It really always felt like "we don't want to introduce the reapers yet but we need another game." Things like Arrival should have been part of the main game and not Shepard-only DLC.

[themikefest]

I would've made ME3 two games.

ME3--discover the Crucible, learn what it is, build it and build up alliances with all species to deal with the reapers

ME4-fighting the reapers

[NeonFlux117]

I think it should have been 4 parts and 4 games and not a trilogy.

ME3 should have been Shepard facing charges for the events Arrival DLC and/or working with a terrorist group (Cerberus). Then the trial, then shep goes to jail has to get acquitted or break out. Then shep has to get all the war assets and build alliances and prove his worth to the alliance or go back to cerberus- two paths would have been offered to the player- Paragon (would have been rejoin alliance) renegade would have been join Cerberus. But the majority of ME3 would have been about Shepard rejoin the alliance or going with Cerberus and getting alliances and resources for the Reaper war.

Th 4th and FINAL game of Mass Effect and Shepard would have solely been about the Reaper War.

It would have been amazing.

But meh... We got what we got.

[Iakus]

Mass Effect didn't need to be two trilogies.

It needed to be one trilogy that was actually planned out.

[GimmeDaGun]

I think it's long enough already. One trilogy should be just fine for telling a huge story. The real problem was that even if they planned ME as a trilogy, the basics of the overarching plot were never layed down during the planning process. If you have plans for a trilogy, you'd better have a plan and write your material for an actual trilogy.

Bioware wanted a game trilogy, but did not have any actual plan for a sci-fi trilogy. I'm talking about the story. ME2 shows it perfectly. Even the first game had this problem with its writing: the writers cornered themselves with the foundations of the story (invincible enemy, the story of the last cycle etc. etc.). I always had this feeling about ME that - despite their plans for a trilogy - Bioware never really had any confidence in the franchise during the writing of the first installment. It works perfectly as a singular story, but not so much as the first chapter of a bigger saga.

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 16 janvier 2014 - 05:08 .

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

Mass Effect didn't need to be two trilogies.

It needed to be one trilogy that was actually planned out.

Pretty much this. The Reapers are not interesting enough villains for six games of plot.

Although I personally feel they were handled fine in this trilogy, even with ME2's (welcome) excursion.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 16 janvier 2014 - 04:52 .

[GimmeDaGun]

iakus wrote...

Mass Effect didn't need to be two trilogies.

It needed to be one trilogy that was actually planned out.

I agree.

[Iakus]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

iakus wrote...

Mass Effect didn't need to be two trilogies.

It needed to be one trilogy that was actually planned out.

I agree.

This just in:  Hell has frozen over

[Finlandiaprkl]

themikefest wrote...

I would've made ME3 two games.

ME3--discover the Crucible, learn what it is, build it and build up alliances with all species to deal with the reapers

ME4-fighting the reapers

More like:

ME3: No Reapers yet, go to Mars, find Crucible, fight Cerberus, liberate Omega, cure genophage

ME4: Reapers arrive, defend Citadel,  gather help for the Crucible, kick reapers around the galaxy, liberate Rannoch, goto Earth for a massive showdown.

[GimmeDaGun]

iakus wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

iakus wrote...

Mass Effect didn't need to be two trilogies.

It needed to be one trilogy that was actually planned out.

I agree.

This just in:  Hell has frozen over

[Mendelevosa]

iakus wrote...

Mass Effect didn't need to be two trilogies.

It needed to be one trilogy that was actually planned out.

I agree with what you are saying. I thought that maybe it could be a four-part series so that at least the war could span two games, with the first preparing for the war and initiating it, and then the second to provide the bulk of the story and end the conflict. As I said before, I think Mass Effect 2 crippled the pacing of the story since it was rather unimportant in the grand story. If it were, then the series would have done very well as a single trilogy.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Part of the problem may just be the mechanics of the action/combat parts. There isn't a single space battle in Mass Effect outside of cutscenes - it always revolves around Shepard and two squadmates executing some maneuver on the ground or in a space station. They pretty much had to create Reaper proxies if they were determined to stick to that *and* make action and combat a major part of the games.

[AlanC9]

FlyingSquirrel wrote...

Part of the problem may just be the mechanics of the action/combat parts. There isn't a single space battle in Mass Effect outside of cutscenes - it always revolves around Shepard and two squadmates executing some maneuver on the ground or in a space station. They pretty much had to create Reaper proxies if they were determined to stick to that *and* make action and combat a major part of the games.

Or add in a completely separate space battle system, I guess.

As fir the topic, Bio had trouble accommodating choices from two previous games. I don't see how this gets any better by making it three previous games.

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 janvier 2014 - 07:18 .

[Dean_the_Young]

The only that that really needs to change to make ME work as a trilogy is to replace ME2 with something to support it.

ME2 would make a fine spin-off, but for leading into a trilogy it would be harder to deliberatly sabotage the story structure if you tried. Every single major companion is killable, which means they can't be counted upon in the sequel and so the story must be written around their potential absence. That makes a good two-thirds of the ME2 potentially irrelevant, and leads to those characters being reduced even if they survive.

Then there's the point of making so much of the ME3 lead ins, the things that could actually set up the next game... purely optional. There aren't even that many, but the fact that the Geth, Quarians, and Genophage/Krogan related loyalty missions are optional (and, in fact, you never have to recruit the characters for the Rannoch arc) requires ME3 to set up and reintroduce the entire conflict from the base up anyway.

And, of course, the availability of destroying the Collector Base alone means that the Collector Base decision cant be too critical or important to the sequel.

And then, to top it off, the game antagonists are irrelevant mercenaries and a proxy faction that is both introduced and destroyed in the same installment. The Collectors, besides never being an existential or major threat in the first place, simply made no difference in the arc compared to if they had never been introduced at all.


ME2 would have worked far better as a link between the games had it actually worked to do so. We could have started by addressing the Geth threat, rather than throwing it out, and then let it change towards a Reaper plot. Rather than pretending the ME1 climax was a mistake, Shepard could have worked to start putting together the galactic coalition. Rather than introducing the superweapon gambit at the start of ME3, ME2 could have ended with the discovery of the path to victory.

And, if we want to do a common enough cliffhanger, we could have ended ME2 (by DLC or in the campaign) with a mixed/bittersweet ending by giving the Reapers a significant victory or advantage, to counter our progress. We discover the Crucible and get to use the interim to start looking at it... but a Reaper gambit (and the Arrival fiasco) shatters the galactic coalition. Geth and Quarians peace is sabotaged (for the moment), Krogan are rebelling against Council/Salarian paranoia, and the Batarians are invading Earth in revenge.

Come ME3, when the Reapers arrive, Shepard now has a path to victory already established, but focuses on ending the infighting first. Badum, tish.

[AlanC9]

That's pretty good, Dean.

[CrutchCricket]

I once compared the Mass Effect trilogy to the oh so common experience of a brilliant slacker taking a course:

ME1 you start off strong, some things you can improve but otherwise you show great promise
ME2 around the middle, you figure you got this so you procrastinate and piddle about in a very entertaining manner until;
ME3 you realize the final exam is in a day and you haven't done **** to prepare. Cue scrambling and cramming until you're left with something that technically passes but is a disappointment when considering your potential.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 16 janvier 2014 - 07:27 .

[Iakus]

CrutchCricket wrote...

I once compared the Mass Effect trilogy to the oh so common experience of a brilliant slacker taking a course:

ME1 you start off strong, some things you can improve but otherwise you show great promise
ME2 around the middle, you figure you got this so you procrastinate and piddle about in a very entertaining manner until;
ME3 you realize the final exam is in a day and you haven't done **** to prepare. Cue scrambling and cramming until you're left with something that technically passes but is a disappointment when considering your potential.

Except for the "technically passes" part I'm with you on all that.  I'd say ME3 is more along the lines of showing up almost totally unprepared, being given a chance at a make-up project, and only taking a half-hearted stab at that as well.

[chemiclord]

If you are INSISTENT on ME2 being nigh entirely detached from the main plot... then yes, it should have been a 4-part series.

But you'd think there'd be a better way to do it and wrap it up in three.

[CrutchCricket]

I say "technically passes" because despite the large failure rate (and let's be honest, ME3 had some sizeable screwups even before the ending) it still comes across as a decent-good game. That's what so crazy about all this. I don't know if it means other games are just that bad, I wouldn't think so. But even after being convinced I'd never play the SP again, the novelty of the DLCs (which I also caved in getting) brought me back and as long as I kept my head down in the routine of sidequests and dilly-dallying on the ship, it still felt like a Mass Effect game, and it still had the same level or immersion.

So yeah I say it still passes but that it's also still a big letdown because if it fails this hard and is still fun, imagine what it could've been. It's a testament to the strength of this franchise that with all the mistakes throughout culminating in actively and willingly ****ting on it all at the end, it still comes out somewhat sparkling.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 16 janvier 2014 - 07:51 .