702 réponses à ce sujet

[Mathias]

Personally, I would have preferred that the last dialogue in the game simply be between Shepard or Anderson, or, if there's to be some kind of info dump, it should be the "character" that has already been sort of serving as one earlier: Vendetta.

 

Vendetta was supposed to join with the Citadel/Crucible systems anyway, so it would make sense that it should explain what it knows of the device now that it's complete. The Catalyst doesn't really tell us anything of importance anyway. All that ascension gobblededook is for the birds.

 

I'm simply thinking what I would've done to make the whole Catalyst encounter better. Being able to actually argue with the pissant would've been a start. But really I would've just removed the Catalyst part all together and go a different route.

[DeinonSlayer]

You wouldn't, what gave you that idea?

Well that's one (of many) issues I had with the ending is that we weren't given a real chance to present our case. Since Dialogue has always played pivotal part in the series, it seems completely wasted that we couldn't have a battle of mind and wit with an ancient AI. If you had nearly maxed out Paragon/Renegade points, it would've been awesome to be able to attempt to prove the Catalyst wrong. You'd have to choose the proper counters to his argument that the dialogue wheels would present you. It'd be a nice challenge. Just seems to me that a smarter writer and developer would've done this, instead of "How many points do you have? Ok pick a color."

[ImaginaryMatter]

Can't say I want to be forced to adhere to one side of the wheel for the entire trilogy to open such dialogue up. ME2 had the worst persuasion mechanic in the trilogy. Reputation was an improvement, but ideally I'd like to see redbar-bluebar (and the pavlovian mindset this instills in players) go away entirely.

 

I think a good replacement would be to simply have a single option have different results depending on whatever coercion/intimidate/persuade level the character has. For example in a hostage situation you would have an option to "Let her go, and you can walk out of here." If you have a lower level the criminal doesn't believe you, if you have a higher level the persuasion works. Regardless of what skill the character has the player will have no way of knowing whether or not the persuasion will work until they click the option and the scene plays out.

 

Another component would be to have multiple dialogue prompts and some combination will never work regardless of how high the character's persuasion skill is, so there would also be some need from the player to pay attention instead of instinctively going to the left side of the wheel.

[dreamgazer]

I'd say that ME2 was under no obligation to do such thing at all. The focus is on Shepard. Not the rest of the galaxy. And I'd say that it's just as plausible to see people clam up and deny or hide as it is to see them prepare and plan. And even if they did do so, why did it need to be shown in ME2? 

 

Because that's the state the galaxy was left with at the end of ME1: awakened to the Reaper presence, ready to prepare, ready to support Shepard's effort after finally believing him/her (human or alien).  That's the purpose of stopping Sovereign's plan, and the tone of the council conversations. Then ME2 happens, which, yes, becomes about killing and resurrecting Space Jesus instead of preparing the galaxy like any other rational galaxy would do, even though the story never properly explores the nuance of Shepard's resurrection and offers no justification for the two-year time jump (aside from rebooting the characters, the context of the setting, and the artillery).  It's about resolving personal issues with a bunch of new characters and stopping a deliberate distraction from the Reapers proper.  

 

By making the story about Shepard as a messiah figure in ME2, it abandons almost all of the established plot building in ME1. That's not ME3's job to patch up, but to ultimately adapt to, and it does.  Roughly, but not nearly as negligently as ME2 handled what ME1 gave it. 

[AlanC9]

You wouldn't, what gave you that idea?

Probably this:

If you had nearly maxed out Paragon/Renegade points, it would've been awesome to be able to attempt to prove the Catalyst wrong

I read it the same way he did. Did you mean Reputation points?

[Hadeedak]

My feelings are vaguely hurt I missed the Pacific Rim part of this thread. Now I have to listen to the soundtrack again. Mako is pretty much the best thing ever anywhere. Short of femShep. X3

 

 

...Also, if you want to say Reputation/Paragon/Renegade was bad in ME3, I think that's a bit nuts. I loved having the options open to me without metagaming. I shot myself in the foot on the Jack/Miranda conflict a few times because I hadn't picked enough red or enough blue, which always annoyed me. Unless I was aiming for that, I guess.

 

I would like to see how renegade persuade worked with the Catalyst, even if I would not fancy the idea of having the choice.

 

"Look, we've been doing this for millions of years. It always ha--" "NO! You're WRONG! MY SCARS SAY YOU'RE WRONG!"

 

I never really liked pure paragon or pure renegade. One comes off as a milquetoast and the other as a spaz.

[Mathias]

 

You wouldn't, what gave you that idea?

Well that's one (of many) issues I had with the ending is that we weren't given a real chance to present our case. Since Dialogue has always played pivotal part in the series, it seems completely wasted that we couldn't have a battle of mind and wit with an ancient AI. If you had nearly maxed out Paragon/Renegade points, it would've been awesome to be able to attempt to prove the Catalyst wrong. You'd have to choose the proper counters to his argument that the dialogue wheels would present you. It'd be a nice challenge. Just seems to me that a smarter writer and developer would've done this, instead of "How many points do you have? Ok pick a color."

 

 

But ME3 had the Reputation bar, I said Paragon/Renegade but since we're talking about ME3 that's basically what I meant.

[KaiserShep]

ME2 was definitely bad on its renegade/paragon system. It required a lot of careful planning to get certain bits of dialogue.

[Jorji Costava]

By making the story about Shepard as a messiah figure in ME2, it abandons almost all of the established plot building in ME1. That's not ME3's job to patch up, but to ultimately adapt to, and it does.  Roughly, but not nearly as negligently as ME2 handled what ME1 gave it. 

 

Wait, so ME3 was not about making Shepard a messiah figure?

 

I agree with the general point that ME2 didn't do enough to move forward the overall story, but at the end of the day, most of ME3's faults are (for me) its own doing. Nothing about ME2 necessitated silliness like "This isn't about strategy or tactics," "I need to recharge!", or "The Shepard." ME3 just has the largest proportion of plot-centric missions that, while not necessarily bad, are significantly below the standard set by the series, and I think this is case just looking at those missions purely on their own terms, irrespective of how well they followed up on or failed to follow up on previous installments. The weaknesses in the writing of the prologue, Thessia, the Citadel Coup, the highly anti-climactic Sanctuary and Priority: Earth can't be passed off on ME2. Even Rannoch has serious problems, which have been discussed to death on these boards by now.

 

In first playing ME3, I was fully in the mindset that I was going to evaluate the game on its own terms. My expectations as to how it would handle choices from previous games had gotten very low even before the game was released. There was simply no way they could deal with all the permutations of the suicide mission, for instance (this became especially evident when characters like Leliana and Zevran started showing up in DA2 playthroughs even though they'd been killed in the imported DA:O history). Even so ME3, while not a bad game by any stretch, has its share of weaknesses that can't just be chalked up to it having to follow up on the previous two installments.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Because that's the state the galaxy was left with at the end of ME1: awakened to the Reaper presence, ready to prepare, ready to support Shepard's effort after finally believing him/her (human or alien).  That's the purpose of stopping Sovereign's plan, and the tone of the council conversations. Then ME2 happens, which, yes, becomes about killing and resurrecting Space Jesus instead of preparing the galaxy like any other rational galaxy would do, even though the story never properly explores the nuance of Shepard's resurrection and offers no justification for the two-year time jump (aside from rebooting the characters, the context of the setting, and the artillery).  It's about resolving personal issues with a bunch of new characters and stopping a deliberate distraction from the Reapers proper.  

 

By making the story about Shepard as a messiah figure in ME2, it abandons almost all of the established plot building in ME1. That's not ME3's job to patch up, but to ultimately adapt to, and it does.  Roughly, but not nearly as negligently as ME2 handled what ME1 gave it. 

 

Well, the galaxy's not very rational now. I honestly didn't expect anybody in the galaxy to prepare for the Reapers. I'm not surprised that without Shepard to push it (in fact, the whole getting sent to the Terminus systems to hunt Geth routine seemed like they were trying to get Shepard out of the way to me), they decided that it was a massive Geth incursion after all. To be honest, I thought the Council speech was a window dressing to make Shepard happy. There's not a whole lot of evidence to suggest that the Reapers are around to begin with; As most in the galaxy believe, even upon examining Reaper tech left over from Sovereign, there wasn't much to say that they wouldn't see it as a highly advanced Geth dreadnought. I don't believe the focus should have been on the Reapers. I honestly believe they implemented them as best they could through a secondary agent villain such as the Collectors. Otherwise, there wouldn't be much of a point to the game. It makes perfect sense to me, and I think a lot of detractors to undercut the Collectors as villains. Essentially, they are the Reapers via a separate avatar. I don't see why you have a problem with the changed setting. I don't think there's any merit behind the 'rebooting the characters' argument either. I don't even know what you're talking about with the artillery comment. 

 

To that end, I don't see the problem there. The galaxy was never going to defeat the Reapers without Shepard. I don't see where the plot building in ME1 is aborted in favor of the warped perspective of ME2 I think you have. I see the plot still going. It's taking a turn, but that's not a problem for me. It's making a different approach to the story. What exactly do you think would have been accomplished that wasn't accomplished in ME2?

 

Yes, I think ME2 was an appropriate and worthy sequel to ME1, that satisfactorily followed up on and built upon the story and plot progression from ME1. I think you're going to find that ridiculous. I frankly can't comprehend your dislike of ME2. To me, the majority of the flaws came from the narrative in ME3. To me, the only real flaw to ME2's system came from the SM Mechanic. Otherwise, any problem that wasn't fully fleshed out in ME3 is what I consider ME3's fault, not ME2.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

My feelings are vaguely hurt I missed the Pacific Rim part of this thread. Now I have to listen to the soundtrack again. Mako is pretty much the best thing ever anywhere. Short of femShep. X3

 

 

...Also, if you want to say Reputation/Paragon/Renegade was bad in ME3, I think that's a bit nuts. I loved having the options open to me without metagaming. I shot myself in the foot on the Jack/Miranda conflict a few times because I hadn't picked enough red or enough blue, which always annoyed me. Unless I was aiming for that, I guess.

 

I would like to see how renegade persuade worked with the Catalyst, even if I would not fancy the idea of having the choice.

 

"Look, we've been doing this for millions of years. It always ha--" "NO! You're WRONG! MY SCARS SAY YOU'RE WRONG!"

 

I never really liked pure paragon or pure renegade. One comes off as a milquetoast and the other as a spaz.

 

Mako was a bland, uninteresting character. I really wasn't all that interested in her. I liked Raleigh and the Hansen's a lot more. I wish they would've kept Raleigh's brother around a bit longer too. And Tendo. And I wish they expanded more on other Jaeger pilots, like the crews for Crimson Typhoon and Cherno Alpha. I wanted to see more development from the Jaegers. 

 

We can talk about it here if you want.

[themikefest]

In the trilogy, Shepard is able to have Saren and TIM shoot themselves, but yet she/he can't talk big with the catalyst. I get that it follows its programming and no amount of talking will change that, but at least have Shepard challenge the thing for I would like to hear its answers.

[Hadeedak]

Heck, I loved Mako. Granted, a big part of that is that Mako was the one who got the standard issue heroic story arch, and it was interesting to see that from the 'outside'. For actual personality, we never really got to see much from her. The Russians were my absolute favorites and I was heartbroken when they died. 

 

Mass Effect 3 should have been 2 games. A pity quadrology doesn't have the same ring to it as trilogy.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

In the trilogy, Shepard is able to have Saren and TIM shoot themselves, but yet she/he can't talk big with the catalyst. I get that it follows its programming and no amount of talking will change that, but at least have Shepard challenge the thing for I would like to hear its answers.

 

Yeah, that was a huge flaw of that part: You're really not able to do much more than shrug and accept what the Catalyst is saying without incident or definition. It's like any Karen Traviss book about the Clones/Mandalorians and the Jedi. 

 

It's basically a 'can't argue with elves' statement because the writers wanted it to be like that. And they wanted it to be like that because they likely saw that players would rightly question the logic or have some poignant remarks and feedback about it since they really didn't think the concept through as well as it could and should have been.

[Hadeedak]

A big problem with that is how long the conclusion already is. The outro for ME3 is huge. Moreso after the extended cut.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Heck, I loved Mako. Granted, a big part of that is that Mako was the one who got the standard issue heroic story arch, and it was interesting to see that from the 'outside'. For actual personality, we never really got to see much from her. The Russians were my absolute favorites and I was heartbroken when they died. 

 

Mass Effect 3 should have been 2 games. A pity quadrology doesn't have the same ring to it as trilogy.

 

It was kind of obvious they were going to give her problems. I also think they really skimmed on the drift technology and plot element. 

 

I like the newer flashier stuff. I still think one of the best parts is the intro for Gipsy Danger (what with that soundtrack from god), and Striker Eureka. I wanted to see the Mark V kick ass. I wanted to see Striker blow the Kaiju out of the water. Hell, Striker technically did more in the final battle than Gipsy. While Gipsy was getting gnawed on by Raiju and Scunner, Striker was going up against Slattern and actually had the upper hand for a bit. I wanted to see more of that. 

 

They completely worfed the Cherno and Typhoon. I can see killing them off, but they were in the fought for all of 3 seconds before smash!

[I Tsunayoshi I]

Yeah, that was a huge flaw of that part: You're really not able to do much more than shrug and accept what the Catalyst is saying without incident or definition. It's like any Karen Traviss book about the Clones/Mandalorians and the Jedi. 

 

It's basically a 'can't argue with elves' statement because the writers wanted it to be like that. And they wanted it to be like that because they likely saw that players would rightly question the logic or have some poignant remarks and feedback about it since they really didn't think the concept through as well as it could and should have been.

 

Add the Jiralhanae from the Kilo-5 trilogy of novels for Halo. She pretty much did the same thing with them as she did the Mandalorians and Gears from other novels.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

A big problem with that is how long the conclusion already is. The outro for ME3 is huge. Moreso after the extended cut.

 

I have no problem with a huge climax/conclusion/outro. IMO, it should have been much, much bigger with Earth. And a bit more personal for Shepard. The Crucible/Catalyst scene needed a complete rewrite since the execution was terribly flawed (jumping into a beam to release 'organic energy'? Come on man! Shooting a pipe activates a system? WTF?)

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Add the Jiralhanae from the Kilo-5 trilogy of novels for Halo. She pretty much did the same thing with them as she did the Mandalorians and Gears from other novels.

 

Yeah, she ruined that as well. Granted, I dislike the Halo novels because they try to be so military and fail atrociously. It's why I like the ones that aren't as military, like the Cole Protocol and Contact Harvest, and (don't hate me) I think the Flood is better than anything Eric Nylund wrote. Glasslands, Traviss' first book was a good one, but the last two were problematic in my eyes, and they focused too much on author tracts that have nothing to do with the plot. The Forerunner books were a mixed bag. Cryptum was great. Primordium sucked. Silentium was just plain beyond my comprehension; I still have no idea what the hell that book was about. It was neither good nor bad, just too 'out-there' for me.

 

Her whole 'the Mandalorians are absolutely perfect and are morally and ethically infallible' was ridiculous. And she tried to justify it. It was just plain infuriating to see how she had the Jedi's logic (her creation of their logic anyway, since what she made the Jedi out to be weren't at all what the Jedi were) constantly torn down by the infallible Mandalorians (and she made sure the Jedi couldn't defend themselves) and portrayed them as monsters just as bad if not worse than the Sith who deserved everything they got in Order 66 and that the galaxy was a better place without them. 

 

And she confessed to never having seen any of the movies or read any other material in the Star Wars universe beyond the package they sent her. She more or less called it a crappy universe since it was space fantasy/space opera, which is insulting to her since she only writes 'hard military science-fiction'.

[themikefest]

Another thing I forgot to add in my previous post.

 

When asking about the Crucible, the catalyst says 'you do not know them and there's not enough time to explain it". My first thought was that it was Bioware's way of saying we don't know.

 

Too bad there wasn't a Crucible dlc to explain it  and when confronting the catalyst, it would have something to say about it similiar to what we got with the Leviathan dlc.

[KaiserShep]

Heck, I loved Mako. Granted, a big part of that is that Mako was the one who got the standard issue heroic story arch, and it was interesting to see that from the 'outside'. For actual personality, we never really got to see much from her. The Russians were my absolute favorites and I was heartbroken when they died. 

I really enjoyed the sad resolution between her and Pentecost.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I really enjoyed the sad resolution between her and Pentecost.

 

I liked the resolution between Herc and Chuck (who really should have been named Chaz as Chuck isn't really used in Australia). I liked the dynamic of their relationship, basically revolving around their dog, who they both doted on and used as a means with communicating with each other, showing the dog all the love and emotions they couldn't show each other.

[KaiserShep]

Yeah that too. Shoot I liked all of the character arcs. I think it's at the point where I love the characters more than the robots, but I guess that's what Del Toro was going for.

[Mathias]

They should've just kept it simple. The entire Earth mission needed to be fleshed out a lot more and gave us more of an epic feel. When you load up the Crucible, it should've just fired right then and there, and Instead of three choices, your ending is predetermined by how you played all three games:

 

Bad Ending: You didn't have enough forces to push through, Reapers win.

Normal Ending: Reapers destroyed, Earth is glassed, Normandy and crew die, Shepard dies, vast majority of Allied forces were killed.

Good Ending: Reapers destroyed, Earth is fine, Normandy and crew survive, Shepard dies, majority of Allied forces were killed.

Perfect Ending: Reapers destroyed, Earth is fine, Normandy and crew survive, Shepard lives, only half of the Allied forces were killed.

 

Then from there you get a series of epilogues that vary depending on your choices throughout the games. True we never would've found out what the Reaper motivation was, but I could care less because honestly The Reapers were ten times more terrifying when they were unknown. I'm sure some people might read this and go "No! Screw Happy Endings!" But to me, I'd rather have an ending that makes me feel, than an ending that makes me think. At least for a video game that took me on an emotional and personal journey over the course of 5 years.

[dreamgazer]

Well, the galaxy's not very rational now. I honestly didn't expect anybody in the galaxy to prepare for the Reapers. I'm not surprised that without Shepard to push it (in fact, the whole getting sent to the Terminus systems to hunt Geth routine seemed like they were trying to get Shepard out of the way to me), they decided that it was a massive Geth incursion after all. To be honest, I thought the Council speech was a window dressing to make Shepard happy. There's not a whole lot of evidence to suggest that the Reapers are around to begin with; As most in the galaxy believe, even upon examining Reaper tech left over from Sovereign, there wasn't much to say that they wouldn't see it as a highly advanced Geth dreadnought. I don't believe the focus should have been on the Reapers. I honestly believe they implemented them as best they could through a secondary agent villain such as the Collectors. Otherwise, there wouldn't be much of a point to the game. It makes perfect sense to me, and I think a lot of detractors to undercut the Collectors as villains. Essentially, they are the Reapers via a separate avatar. I don't see why you have a problem with the changed setting. I don't think there's any merit behind the 'rebooting the characters' argument either. I don't even know what you're talking about with the artillery comment. 

 

To that end, I don't see the problem there. The galaxy was never going to defeat the Reapers without Shepard. I don't see where the plot building in ME1 is aborted in favor of the warped perspective of ME2 I think you have. I see the plot still going. It's taking a turn, but that's not a problem for me. It's making a different approach to the story. What exactly do you think would have been accomplished that wasn't accomplished in ME2?

 

Yes, I think ME2 was an appropriate and worthy sequel to ME1, that satisfactorily followed up on and built upon the story and plot progression from ME1. I think you're going to find that ridiculous. I frankly can't comprehend your dislike of ME2. To me, the majority of the flaws came from the narrative in ME3. To me, the only real flaw to ME2's system came from the SM Mechanic. Otherwise, any problem that wasn't fully fleshed out in ME3 is what I consider ME3's fault, not ME2.

 

Should I disagree with you point-by-point again, or just agree to disagree?  It'll sound very familiar, and I'm sure your mind won't be changed. 

 

Shepard's manufactured death and resurrection took the plot in an entirely unnecessary direction just so BioWare could flat-out avoid the Reapers and conveniently reshape the universe over a two-year period, from the alterations to the characters (Archangel? Liara the pre-Broker? A disloyal VS?) to the ammo-based weapons, forced employment with ultra-Cerberus, and "Ah yes, Reapers". It fails on every level to properly follow the path ME1 laid out at its end (I don't think their comments were considered to be window dressing whatsoever), and it's more than likely because BioWare didn't know what the hell to do with the primary antagonist. The result is a horrendous sequel, but an exciting and occasionally well-fleshed subplot and a decent loyalty mechanic (with way too many new characters).

 

Simply put, ME2 zagged when it should have zigged.   You can like the changes all you want, and I know you do (I still like ME2, as well), but it makes for an inconsistent mess that willfully changed the plot's direction towards humanoid aliens (and all them MERCS) to shoot at and a slew of personal issues that needed fixing, all in place of just following through with research, preparations and the politics that could go along with it.