702 réponses à ce sujet

[Farangbaa]

Yeah, lets talk some more about all the stuff that didn't happen in Mass Effect.

 

If that makes you feel better.

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

Yeah, lets talk some more about all the stuff that didn't happen in Mass Effect.

 

If that makes you feel better.

 

What, stuff like the Catalyst and the Crucible? Who's talking about them?

[Mathias]

ME1 doesn't need to be fixed, it was the first entry in the trilogy and established the universe and it's lore. It was the next two games job to be consistent with that. ME2 was fantastic but the deviation from the Reaper storyline set them up for failure in ME3. That doesn't excuse ME3 though because it easily has the worst writing in the trilogy. ME2's only crime was shelving the whole Reaper plot temporarily. Fixing ME2's main plot, or at least establishing a better method to defeat the Reapers, would be the first step, and then go fix ME3.

 

Btw to those saying ME1 was guilty of Maguffins, deus ex, or whatever you wanna call them, here's the key difference. It was executed well in ME1, it was not in ME3. 

[dreamgazer]

Btw to those saying ME1 was guilty of Maguffins, deus ex, or whatever you wanna call them, here's the key difference. It was executed well in ME1, it was not in ME3. 

 

Not really.  It's still a bunch of schlock, contrivance, and space magic that fudges its way across the narrative's finish line.

 

And yes, plenty needs to be "fixed" about "ME2" (I could get used to that!) and some of ME1, especially to make ME3 that uber power-fantasy some wanted to play.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

No, it wasn't. ME2 needed to justify itself. 

 

IMO, it did justify itself. ME3 needed to justify itself as well. Something it didn't do.

 

Honestly, every example you've given me regarding the problems of ME2 don't strike me as being as much an issue as what problems ME3 brought forth. It's probably a difference in perspective, but whereas ME2 problems have a bit of lore inconsistencies (I absolutely have no idea where the inconsistencies you say exist come from. In either ME1 or ME2), ME3 is fractured narratively. The problems come from how the story is told and executed, with the ending being a thematic mismatch that is uncannily divorced from the MEU.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Not really.  It's still a bunch of schlock, contrivance, and space magic that fudges its way across the narrative's finish line.

 

And yes, plenty needs to be "fixed" about "ME2" (I could get used to that!) and some of ME1, especially to make ME3 that uber power-fantasy some wanted to play.

 

I disagree with you there Dream. Granted, I can't really say what you'd find to be a more consistent and plausible story. I mean, you (and others) come off as guys denouncing a lot of things in the game for some reason.

[dreamgazer]

IMO, it did justify itself. ME3 needed to justify itself as well. Something it didn't do.

 

Honestly, every example you've given me regarding the problems of ME2 don't strike me as being as much an issue as what problems ME3 brought forth. It's probably a difference in perspective, but whereas ME2 problems have a bit of lore inconsistencies (I absolutely have no idea where the inconsistencies you say exist come from. In either ME1 or ME2), ME3 is fractured narratively. The problems come from how the story is told and executed, with the ending being a thematic mismatch that is uncannily divorced from the MEU.

 

ME3 justified itself much more than ME2 did.

 

As I've said, the first thirty minutes of ME2 completely borked many things that were established in ME1 (weaponry, Cerberus, Shepard's awareness of his/her surroundings that led to her death), then went on a tangent with the Collectors instead of feeding directly into working against the Reapers, flipped the geth into peaceful isolationists with a cluster of angry cousins, avoided the fact that Shepard's resurrection breaks the laws of mortality (and physiology) without batting an eyelash, introduced the bullcrap about organic essence at the end with no rhyme or reason, and turned the Collector Base decision into a lazy and heavy-handed pro-Cerberus or anti-Cerberus decision instead of one with real merit and consideration.  And that's just on the surface, without going for the throat of the "daddy issues" that needed to be solved.  All that instead of, y'know, actually following up on ME1's ending, after fast-forwarding two years just to get Shepard back at ground zero.

 

And yes, I can say all that and still say that I enjoy ME2 quite a bit.  But it was a failed opportunity to bridge into a proper trilogy, without question. 

 

And let's not even talk about that "Everybody in!" shuttle trip that led to the Normandy getting invaded. Because, damn.

[DeinonSlayer]

Oh, I could go on at length...

For now I'll just post an old ending rewrite of mine.

The Crucible turns out to be a Reaper trap - it reopens the Citadel Relay, and starts letting them pour through in FULL strength. To stop them, the Normandy has to go through the Citadel Relay into Dark Space, where the other end of the connection - a "dark citadel" - is found. They board this structure, fighting husks of species processed in previous cycles (Inusannon FTW!) and discovering that it houses many hundreds of thousands of pods, each containing a unique alien.

The Reapers harvest entire species to build more of themselves, but they keep one individual from each race to serve as the master control unit, the "mind," of each new Reaper, and they wanted Shepard to be the next one (full credit to LT Ashler for this part of it). Their motives are tied to dark energy - it's a natural phenomenon, but it will lead to the inevitable death of the suns organic life depends on, each lighting up like Haestrom's sun, sooner than we expect. The Reapers preserved species in a form that could survive without them - achieving a form of immortality.

Kill the master control unit, the pod-bound "mind" of a Reaper, and you kill the Reaper itself. Destroy the Dark Citadel, and you'll kill them all. Bonus points if you come across a decrepit, pod-bound alien that rasps out "We... are... Harbinger..."

Back on Virmire, the Salarian team was able to fashion a bomb out of their ship's drive core. The Normandy's larger Tantalus core could be repurposed in this fashion - the ship would no longer be capable of FTL and would be far less maneuverable without the core, but it could still limp the short way back through the relay. Question then would be, who stays to guard the bomb? If you have the Normandy thanix the crap out of the Dark Citadel, the relay would go offline and the ship would be stranded so far out in Dark Space that NONE of the crew would make it home. Have to drop the bomb and have someone guard it until it goes off. Who stays behind? Shepard? Or one of the squad? Virmire all over again.

It'd be a much more compelling question if you didn't have a suicidal Prothean on board who was hell-bent on destroying the Reapers. Javik would want to guard that bomb. But just for a moment, picture Shepard and his/her LI fighting alone, side-by-side, covering the Normandy's escape through the relay and fighting off myriad husks up until the bomb blows. Fight them Arrival-style until you run out of ammo and go down. May also invoke Halo: Reach's ending.

(I know, realistically, the Normandy would never survive it - one way trip. Still less played-out than the EC beam-run extraction.)

[dreamgazer]

I disagree with you there Dream. Granted, I can't really say what you'd find to be a more consistent and plausible story. I mean, you (and others) come off as guys denouncing a lot of things in the game for some reason.

 

I think ME3 gets unfairly chided for its stumbles when ME2 does just as much and somehow gets away with it. And ME1 has its share of idiosyncrasies, too. 

 

I enjoy all three games, and I find the whole "false ME3" to be a ridiculous sentiment when you look at the content comprising the previous two games. 

[AlanC9]

It seems like a poor way to structure a story, when emphasis on the specialness of a character sacrifices the sensibility of the actual plot. The invulnerability of the reapers makes the secrecy of the cycles seem a bit pointless. More importantly than that, it makes Sovereign look like a stupid shnook that got itself killed for no reason.

I saw it a bit differently. We structure our stockyards and slaughterhouses for efficiency, but not because we're in fear of losing to a cow revolution. And organics are somewhat dangerous to the Reapers if they aren't harvested properly.

Though, yeah, Sovereign should have just run for it when the Citadel opened. Then we could have kept using him as a villain

[DeinonSlayer]

I think the idea behind the games is to sort of showcase Shepard and the power fantasy behind him. And a conventional victory does detract from that power-fantasy behind Shepard. It's about being a special snowflake, being 'god'. 
 
The Reapers were certainly too powerful to be a force that could ever be handled beyond a superweapon as well.

I think Shepard had far too much of a messiah complex (and characters spent far too much time blowing smoke up his/her ass) as it is.

[AlanC9]

, introduced the bullcrap about organic essence at the end with no rhyme or reason,

Well, there was a reason for that. ME1 established that the Reapers want to harvest organics, enough to structure their whole civilization around doing it. So the question was why they wanted to.

I didn't say it was a good reason.

[dreamgazer]

Well, there was a reason for that. ME1 established that the Reapers want to harvest organics, enough to structure their whole civilization around doing it. So the question was why they wanted to.

I didn't say it was a good reason.

 

I mean the general idea of an "organic essence" in and of itself. ME3 had to deal with that colossal bit of nonsense (which could've been worse, as you and I both know, in relation to dark energy).

[MassivelyEffective0730]

ME3 justified itself much more than ME2 did.

 

As I've said, the first thirty minutes of ME2 completely borked many things that were established in ME1 (weaponry, Cerberus, Shepard's awareness of his/her surroundings that led to her death), then went on a tangent with the Collectors instead of feeding directly into working against the Reapers, flipped the geth into peaceful isolationists with a cluster of angry cousins, avoided the fact that Shepard's resurrection breaks the laws of mortality (and physiology) without batting an eyelash, introduced the bullcrap about organic essence at the end with no rhyme or reason, and turned the Collector Base decision into a lazy and heavy-handed pro-Cerberus or anti-Cerberus decision instead of one with real merit and consideration.  And that's just on the surface, without going for the throat of the "daddy issues" that needed to be solved.  All that instead of, y'know, actually following up on ME1's ending, after fast-forwarding two years just to get Shepard back at ground zero.

 

And yes, I can say all that and still say that I enjoy ME2 quite a bit.  But it was a failed opportunity to bridge into a proper trilogy, without question. 

 

And let's not even talk about that "Everybody in!" shuttle trip that led to the Normandy getting invaded. Because, damn.

 

This is going to be a fundamental divide between us on perspective, but I completely disagree. I don't see any case where ME2 failed at justifying itself. Whereas, I see ME3 as hardly justifying itself at all.

 

And as I don't think I've ever said, I completely disagree with your assessment of the first 30 minutes: I think the explanation for the weapons was sufficient to justify why they went in a new direction with them. I believe Cerberus was too cloudy and ill-defined an organization to label what became of them from ME1 to ME2 as a simple retcon. It's a lot more complicated than just a change for the sake of change. And I guess I just plain don't understand what you mean about Shepard in this instance. I understand where they went with the Reapers and the Collectors. I don't mind it. The Collectors are agents of the Reapers and are an immediate threat that needs to be dealt with. I've never understood why people have issues with that. Essentially, it's one and the same. As for the Geth, like Cerberus, there was too little substantial definition of them narratively to out and out say that they completely changed them. They handled the explanations well I felt in ME2. If you're talking about ME3, then yes, the jump is definitely jarring, but that's ME3's problem, not ME2's. I believe Shepard's death in the Lazarus Project was definitely overkill, but I'm not entirely adverse to the concept behind it. I think it's intriguing and interesting, though it was a missed opportunity as far as defining Shepard went. Otherwise, I wouldn't say that it's a complete deconstruction of mortality and physiology. To sadly take a page from David here, you can theoretically build life from scratch. If you can do that, certain advances in technology, especially with sufficient funding and effort, might yield results that can transcend mortality. Personally, I believe that one day, possibly within the next millenia, we might be able to reverse death. As for the organic essence part, that's not nearly as pronounced or pseudo-scientifically BS'd as it would later be with Synthesis. It's easy to handwaive the ME2 'Organic Essence' part as cataloging and preserving genetic material. It could have been written better, but I don't think I have the same problem you do with it... at least not in ME2. And yes, the Collector base decision was turned into a moral consideration rather than a practical one with any discernible outcome or consequence to the decision in ME3... I blame ME3 for that, not ME2. And the daddy issues shpeel... no offense, but I don't take that argument seriously. I don't put any stock into anything anyone says about 'daddy issues'. I agree with and understand where they were going with it for the game. Did they have a problem tying that aspect of the characters into the series? Absolutely. Was it a fundamentally flawed and unwelcome addition that broke pacing for the story? IMO, Absolutely Not. 

 

I guess we're going to disagree here. I don't see how ME2 didn't follow-up on ME1. What do you think should have happened post-ME1?

 

I personally hold ME2 to be the finest game in the trilogy. I believe the circumstance concerning it's 'bridge issue' was this: to make an analogy, ME1 is an island in a lake, with the lake surrounded by land. We're going to say that the geography of ME1 was geographically uncanny for building a bridge to the mainland. You could build one in any direction you wanted. ME2 was the bridge on the Northwest side that started getting built and was left unfinished until ME3 (the mainland) came out. But when ME3 came out, instead of making the bridge on the Northwest side of the island, they decided that they want a road coming in from the West instead, and they made a new bridge from the West side of the island connecting to the mainland. This left the Northwest bridge unfinished and seemingly without purpose to an extent, so they walled off the main route and redirected the bridge to connect with the Western one.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I think ME3 gets unfairly chided for its stumbles when ME2 does just as much and somehow gets away with it. And ME1 has its share of idiosyncrasies, too. 

 

I enjoy all three games, and I find the whole "false ME3" to be a ridiculous sentiment when you look at the content comprising the previous two games. 

 

I look at the content comprising ME1 and don't hold a problem with it. It's a universe builder, that can go in any direction. ME2 is the bridge that can be built in any direction from ME1. Once ME2 is established, I think ME3 should have taken what was there and ran with it. I agree with you on the 'false ME3' sentiment, but I do believe ME3 is the one with the most egregious issues, and is completely deserving of much of the stumbles it made.

 

This might be how we judge sequels though. I view the second act much more liberally than I do the third act. The First act sets up the story, the setting, the universe, etc. The second establishes a direction. The third is to run in that direction and take that direction to the climax. Personally, I think ME3 didn't do that. I think ME2 was left on the vine when it comes to that. 

 

Basically, what I'm saying is that I'm a lot more liberal with my suspension of disbelief in the first two games as compared to the third. The first game sets the universe into whatever the creators want it to be. The second game, unless it absolutely irreconcilably is divorced from any element of the first game, takes whatever elements of the universe established in the first game and gives it a direction and can take it in any direction. The third game finishes up on what is established by the second game, and, IMO, it must adhere to what has been set in place by the others. That's why I'm more critical of ME3 (and the third parter in trilogies in general).

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I mean the general idea of an "organic essence" in and of itself. ME3 had to deal with that colossal bit of nonsense (which could've been worse, as you and I both know, in relation to dark energy).

 

Honestly, I think the organic essence problem comes from ME3 more than it does ME2. Is it introduced in ME2? Yes. But it's not introduced in some way that you couldn't just say 'well, it obviously means that it's collecting genetic material from entire beings', whereas in ME3 it's put into the realm of mysticism via synthesis.

[DeinonSlayer]

Honestly, I think the organic essence problem comes from ME3 more than it does ME2. Is it introduced in ME2? Yes. But it's not introduced in some way that you couldn't just say 'well, it obviously means that it's collecting genetic material from entire beings', whereas in ME3 it's put into the realm of mysticism via synthesis.

I really wish they'd gone with Chris' "deconstructive analysis" over Casey's "essence of a species" in ME2.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I think Shepard had far too much of a messiah complex (and characters spent far too much time blowing smoke up his/her ass) as it is.

 

I think not. I think the tone here is that we disagree on the basis of cooperation vs the power of one. 

 

I believe that Mass Effect is about the power of one man to make a difference, versus other's view that it's the cooperation of the galaxy that brings about the future.

 

The game is a lot more receptive to my view as it is. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I really wish they'd gone with Chris' "deconstructive analysis" over Casey's "essence of a species" in ME2.

 

I do too.

 

To get on this point, my biggest complaint with ME2 was the SM mechanic. As I've stated, it was one game premature. 

 

They should have had forced deaths in the mission; two or three characters would die no matter what you did, then you'd get a choice between another two characters ala Virmire, and then you'd get loyalty checks. For example, if a character wasn't loyal, they would die failing a particular aspect of the mission or not protecting some of the Normandy crew. You'd get a couple of loyalty checks from other characters as well.

[dreamgazer]

Yeah, we're going to disagree on ME2, Massively, but you and I both know that.  Lore changes are lore changes, though, and ME2 became about resolving personal issues and doing everything in its power to avoid the central Reaper conflict. I like the episodic writing in ME2 just fine as a collection of character pieces, but ME3's central plot structure is a good bit better and more focused, given the hand it was dealt by a middle entry that went nowhere and changed tons.

 

As for suspension of disbelief ... ? Eh. I don't think it's cool to give indoctrination, sentient plants, mental ciphers, rebooted brains, "organic essence" and more a pass and claim that ME3 somehow broke it. 

 

 

Honestly, I think the organic essence problem comes from ME3 more than it does ME2. Is it introduced in ME2? Yes. But it's not introduced in some way that you couldn't just say 'well, it obviously means that it's collecting genetic material from entire beings', whereas in ME3 it's put into the realm of mysticism via synthesis.

 

ME2 didn't justify "organic essence".  It crapped it out by way of the Baby Reaper and forced ME3 to do something, anything, with all that.

 

And it was already fairly mystical when EDI claimed that the Reapers were organic-synthetic hybrids made of the stuff. 

[DeinonSlayer]

I think not. I think the tone here is that we disagree on the basis of cooperation vs the power of one.

I believe that Mass Effect is about the power of one man to make a difference, versus other's view that it's the cooperation of the galaxy that brings about the future.

The game is a lot more receptive to my view as it is.

Yep, don't see either of us changing the other's mind on that. Though to me it was more about the squad than the cooperation of the galaxy - Shepard never achieved any of this on his own.

Ex: Turian crash site, I'd rather Shepard said "we just saved all your asses" instead of "I."

[themikefest]

My biggest issues with ME2 is the squadmates. Why do you need 12 when you can go through the relay with only 8 and have everyone survive? Since its a suicide mission, there should've been mandatory deaths.

[dreamgazer]

To get on this point, my biggest complaint with ME2 was the SM mechanic. As I've stated, it was one game premature. 

 

Definitely agree there. Juggling those deaths was another issue ME3 had to deal with, which it did with mixed (but often positive) results. 

[DeinonSlayer]

My biggest issues with ME2 is the squadmates. Why do you need 12 when you can go through the relay with only 8 and have everyone survive? Since its a suicide mission, there should've been mandatory deaths.

Again, Renegade Reinterpretations suicide mission. You will lose no less than four, but choose wisely and you can minimize casualties.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Yep, don't see either of us changing the other's mind on that. Though to me it was more about the team than the cooperation of the galaxy - Shepard never achieved any of this on his own.

Ex: Turian crash site, I'd rather Shepard said "we just saved all your asses" instead of "I."

 

I like the 'I' in there, because my Shepard really could have done everything on his own. In Citadel, I make it clear I made everyone who they were. In the SM, I make it clear I'm the one who brought them there. He's the catalyst in it. On Tuchanka, the rest of the team could be deployed, and they'd get pinned down and the mission would fail without Shepard. This is a bit of favoritism, but Miranda is the only character I feel that could do otherwise. And Javik. It's why I always put her in charge on the other fireteams in ME2, because she's the only one I'd trust to be Shepard's equal.

 

I wish I could change the Renegade Interrupt on Rannoch where you're about to use the targeting designator on the Reaper again to 'Tell you're friends I'm coming for them." *Explosions! (in my best Ellie Goulding impersonation) "Nevermind, I'll tell them myself."

 

I handle things the way I would as professional Officer: I always give credit where it's due to my Soldiers, but make no mistake, I was the one who made the mission happen.