First, Mass Effect 3 doesn't (and didn't) need to be fixed.
Second if you really want to do it, you have rewrite everything from mass effect 1 to mass effect 3. And what you're doing is useless because it won't become a game, which is different from a fan fiction.
Well, if substandard, dumbed-down knock-offs that pretend to be a third part of a wonderful story are your thing, then no, I guess "ME3" doesn't need to be fixed. But they aren't my thing.
Well, if substandard, dumbed-down knock-offs that pretend to be a third part of a wonderful story are your thing, then no, I guess "ME3" doesn't need to be fixed. But they aren't my thing.
You gotta stop telling people who like ME3 that they don't truely love Mass Effect. You can't decide that for them, and it makes you sound like a self-righteous, pretentious bastard who thinks only he himself truely understand ME3, or those that agree with you.
Well, if substandard, dumbed-down knock-offs that pretend to be a third part of a wonderful story are your thing, then no, I guess "ME3" doesn't need to be fixed. But they aren't my thing.
Where my Shepard doesn't have to die and become forced into space Jesus that destroys all of the universe technology.
Well, if substandard, dumbed-down knock-offs that pretend to be a third part of a wonderful story are your thing, then no, I guess "ME3" doesn't need to be fixed. But they aren't my thing.
The shifts in lore regarding ammo-based weaponry and Cerberus, Shepard's railroaded death and resurrection under Cerberus' command to get the hero back to ground zero two years later, and the way it threw the Collectors into the mix instead of directly addressing the Reaper threat could all be considered components of a "substandard and dumbed-down knock-off". So, why'd you like ME2 then?
You gotta stop telling people who like ME3 that they don't truely love Mass Effect. You can't decide that for them, and it makes you sound like a self-righteous, pretentious bastard who thinks only he himself truely understand ME3, or those that agree with you.
Oh really? How about people who say things like "Mass Effect 3 doesn't (and didn't) need to be fixed" like it was an objective, non-debatable thing, then? 'Cos, you know, they can't decide that for other people. And it makes them sound like... yeah.
When you lose the willing participation of your audience, you lose everything. And with "ME3" they lost mine and that of many other people. If someone is still willing to participate with the story of "ME3", then it's their business. To me, "ME3" is not worthy to be considered a part of Mass Effect series.
EDIT: Ah, bugger that. I was being cautious with that reply, but I'm not going to pretend I don't take issue with people who don't at all mind the trainwreck which the so-called "ME3" in many ways was. I cannot fathom how can anyone strongly invested in the series fully accept it, and therefore I maintain people who do weren't strongly invested in it, or cared less for some other reason. Shepard and others deserved better, I'm not going to mince words to relay that view in a more benign way and I don't care how it makes me sound, according to you.
So really, my answer to the quoted post is: "I'm sorry, I'm having trouble hearing you. There's a lot of bullshit on this line."
I'd remove how overpowered each individual reaper is, and that requires fixing Sovereign. Basically, Saren cannot be convinced that what he's doing is wrong at that point, and no matter what, you're forced to fight him, and he stands between you and the ability to open up the Citadel and leave Sovereign vulnerable to attack, and when the arms open, he's obliterated too. I'd also dump Shepard's death and Cerberus-as-a-superpower. Part of me wonders if Mass Effect would have worked better as a duology.
All three need to be "fixed". ME1 isn't perfect, either: space magic (the cipher), a deus-ex-machina (Vigil's datafile), and the closest thing the series has to an actual MacGuffin (pre-Ilos Conduit) all appear in the first game, along with several substantial plot contrivances/holes and hiccups in the lore.
Most of ME3 is a cop out but this is how they established the enemy , there's no real way around it without reducing them. Cop out yes but don't know how to fix that
The shifts in lore regarding ammo-based weaponry and Cerberus, Shepard's railroaded death and resurrection under Cerberus' command to get the hero back to ground zero two years later, and the way it threw the Collectors into the mix instead of directly addressing the Reaper threat could all be considered components of a "substandard and dumbed-down knock-off". So, why'd you like ME2 then?
I like it for the characters, the way you grow to care about them, become genuinely interested in them and willing to protect them at any cost.
I like it for the priceless feeling it gives you when you complete the Suicide Mission with no casualties.
I like it for somehow being able to maintain the spirit of the first game despite having a completely different pacing and focus. This is highly subjective, sure.
And for many, many other things.
I do acknowledge the hiccups with all you mentioned - Shep's death, Collectors being a cop-out of sorts - sure, they're there. But the overall experience is so great I consider them little more than just hickups. I am willing to suspend my disbelief and go with it.
All three need to be "fixed". ME1 isn't perfect, either: space magic (the cipher), a deus-ex-machina (Vigil's datafile), and the closest thing the series has to an actual MacGuffin (pre-Ilos Conduit) all appear in the first game, along with several substantial plot contrivances/holes and hiccups in the lore.
It's not a matter of making a perfect, plot-hole free game or story. Yes, ME1 has its faults as well. I'm not feeling like going into each one in detail, so I'll just boil it down to this:
Suspension of disbelief status:
ME1&2 - held
"ME3" - in shambles
All three need to be "fixed". ME1 isn't perfect, either: space magic (the cipher), a deus-ex-machina (Vigil's datafile), and the closest thing the series has to an actual MacGuffin (pre-Ilos Conduit) all appear in the first game, along with several substantial plot contrivances/holes and hiccups in the lore.
But for a variety of reasons people are willing to overlook those missteps, mainly because it didn't leave a sour note in our minds, the lore bits weren't as in your face and obvious, etc...
Also people are more forgiving when there is still something coming next that may explain or fix a previous issue
When you lose the willing participation of your audience, you lose everything. And with "ME3" they lost mine and that of many other people. If someone is still willing to participate with the story of "ME3", then it's their business. To me, "ME3" is not worthy to be considered a part of Mass Effect series.
I didn't see anyone telling you that you had to like ME3.
I'd remove how overpowered each individual reaper is, and that requires fixing Sovereign. Basically, Saren cannot be convinced that what he's doing is wrong at that point, and no matter what, you're forced to fight him, and he stands between you and the ability to open up the Citadel and leave Sovereign vulnerable to attack, and when the arms open, he's obliterated too. I'd also dump Shepard's death and Cerberus-as-a-superpower. Part of me wonders if Mass Effect would have worked better as a duology.
Its not that the reapers were overpowering, its that no one had any common sense when fighting them.
Why couldn't Hackett have the fleet fire on Sovereign's backside? The reaper wasn't going to fire back. If it was to fire back, it would have to unhook itself from the Tower to attack the fleet. I believe had Hackett did that, Shepard would not of had to fight the grasshopper.
During the Battle of Palaven, the Turians were able to destroy several reaper Capital ships by firing on their backside. Why couldn'y any of the other species do that?
On Tuchanka the Turian fighters fire on the destroyer from the front. Why couldn't they fire at it from behind?
But for a variety of reasons people are willing to overlook those missteps, mainly because it didn't leave a sour note in our minds, the lore bits weren't as in your face and obvious, etc...
You are telling me that the Geth aren't destroying tech or syengery becoming space Jesus. Then yeah your the one tell us we should like that crap.
It's not a matter of making a perfect, plot-hole free game or story. Yes, ME1 has its faults as well. I'm not feeling like going into each one in detail, so I'll just boil it down to this:
Suspension of disbelief status:
ME1&2 - held
"ME3" - in shambles
Suspension of disbelief should've probably been in shambles after ME2 thoroughly and haphazardly restructured the known MEU in the first half hour.
ME3 actually tried to patch up many of that game's missteps. Far from perfect, but admirable given the hand it was dealt.
Which is what Steelcan was getting at. So then the real question is why you were able to suspend belief in ME1 and ME2 but not ME3.It's not a matter of making a perfect, plot-hole free game or story. Yes, ME1 has its faults as well. I'm not feeling like going into each one in detail, so I'll just boil it down to this:
Suspension of disbelief status:
ME1&2 - held
"ME3" - in shambles
Its not that the reapers were overpowering, its that no one had any common sense when fighting them.
Why couldn't Hackett have the fleet fire on Sovereign's backside? The reaper wasn't going to fire back. If it was to fire back, it would have to unhook itself from the Tower to attack the fleet. I believe had Hackett did that, Shepard would not of had to fight the grasshopper.
During the Battle of Palaven, the Turians were able to destroy several reaper Capital ships by firing on their backside. Why couldn'y any of the other species do that?
On Tuchanka the Turian fighters fire on the destroyer from the front. Why couldn't they fire at it from behind?
Reapers can't shoot backwards, and being able to turn around in time to prevent themselves from being destroyed stresses their drive core to a level where their KBs are practically non-existant. The Turians were forced to stop this strategy, which was incredibly effective, when forced to protect the planet itself.
But if one was attacking, say at Earth, it would be easy to FTL jump into Reaper formations and rip them apart from behind, without having to worry about protecting the planet.
But nope, the fleets didn't even concentrate fire. From the front.
Its not that the reapers were overpowering, its that no one had any common sense when fighting them.
Why couldn't Hackett have the fleet fire on Sovereign's backside? The reaper wasn't going to fire back. If it was to fire back, it would have to unhook itself from the Tower to attack the fleet. I believe had Hackett did that, Shepard would not of had to fight the grasshopper.
During the Battle of Palaven, the Turians were able to destroy several reaper Capital ships by firing on their backside. Why couldn'y any of the other species do that?
On Tuchanka the Turian fighters fire on the destroyer from the front. Why couldn't they fire at it from behind?
It's not really a matter of common sense, because within the framework of ME1, none of these tactics would have worked anyhow. Sovereign was firing death beams out of each of its limbs and destroying ships in every direction, and because of its shields, they were simply not doing enough damage no matter what. It also doesn't help that the likes of the Thannix cannon did not exist yet. It wasn't until ME3 that new ideas on destroying Capital ships were introduced, but Sovereign was pretty much kicking everyone's asses, and there was nothing they could do about it until Shepard shocked it by killing Saren.
Also people are more forgiving when there is still something coming next that may explain or fix a previous issue
It's not exactly fair for a future story to "fix" the previous story's liberal usage of the Rule of Cool, though.
Reapers can't shoot backwards, and being able to turn around in time to prevent themselves from being destroyed stresses their drive core to a level where their KBs are practically non-existant. The Turians were forced to stop this strategy, which was incredibly effective, when forced to protect the planet itself.
But if one was attacking, say at Earth, it would be easy to FTL jump into Reaper formations and rip them apart from behind, without having to worry about protecting the planet.
But nope, the fleets didn't even concentrate fire. From the front.
That's where I would stop protecting the planet. After a few times of killing the reapers from their backside they may retreat and regroup. By protecting the planet, the Turians would loose more over time then going on the offensive by destroying the reapers from behind.
Suspension of disbelief should've probably been in shambles after ME2 thoroughly and haphazardly restructured the known MEU in the first half hour.
ME3 actually tried to patch up many of that game's missteps. Far from perfect, but admirable given the hand it was dealt.
How? Could you elaborate on both of these points?
Which is what Steelcan was getting at. So then the real question is why you were able to suspend belief in ME1 and ME2 but not ME3.
A fair question. I suppose the core reason is that both ME1 and ME2, despite all its faults, gave me tons of joy and wonder. "ME3" gave me some initial fun, a growing feeling of "what's going on" and "something's not right", and then a sea of confusion and a depression at the end.
Also, @Psychevore - I have altered my reply to on of the posts above, I just thought I should mention that.
It's not really a matter of common sense, because within the framework of ME1, none of these tactics would have worked anyhow. Sovereign was firing death beams out of each of its limbs and destroying ships in every direction, and because of its shields, they were simply not doing enough damage no matter what. It also doesn't help that the likes of the Thannix cannon did not exist yet. It wasn't until ME3 that new ideas on destroying Capital ships were introduced, but Sovereign was pretty much kicking everyone's asses, and there was nothing they could do about it until Shepard shocked it by killing Saren.
No. It wasn't destroying any ships from behind becasue there were none behind it. When the audio says were taking too much damage, Hackett insisted to continue firing at any cost without having enough sense that moving the fleet behind the reaper would be better causing less damage to the fleet. The weak spot on a reaper is its backside. The only way Sovereign would be able to fight back at the fleet, if it was behind, was to unhook itself from the Tower.
Retour en haut