702 réponses à ce sujet

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

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.

That's logical, and is ultimately the best option, but when civilian populations are being bombarded, most military commanders are going to focus on protecting them. Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't, but they will. 

Another good strategy would be doing a maneuver similar to how they dealt with the solid gold Death Stars in Futurama. 

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

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.

I like this idea. Basically, battle with Sovereign happened at knife-fight range. We have no information on how would a fight against Reapers go in deep space.

[AlanC9]

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.

 

It's not that the Reapers are actually weak on the back side, it's that they can't fire in that direction. Sovereign wasn't firing anyway, was it?

[AlanC9]

I like this idea. Basically, battle with Sovereign happened at knife-fight range. We have no information on how would a fight against Reapers go in deep space.

 

The Codex says that Reapers have more accurate weapons, and thus longer effective range

[von uber]

I quite like the OP's ideas; at least some thought has gone in to it.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

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.

 

I put in the big picture and look at what needs to be fixed on the whole. The number one thing was the non-existence of any sort of long-term plan or goal for the trilogy. As has been said, there was no planning behind it. I think we'd disagree on what exactly needed to be fixed; for the most part, the biggest flaws of ME2 (the game that I consider having the least amount of flaws, and in a direct counter-statement to those that feel it's the most screwy) are the Suicide Mission mechanic and the central plot being too weakly connected to the overarching plot. While I wouldn't scrap it at all, and would rather have built on it instead of more or less setting it aside as ME3 did, it was poorly executed. ME2 would be a perfect game IMO if it were a standalone entry in the ME: Universe following the adventures of Shepard and not being hugely connected to the Reaper plot.

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

The Codex says that Reapers have more accurate weapons, and thus longer effective range

 

Right. "ME3" Codex.

 

Which means that the information you are refering to comes from the same game which, among other things, cannot make up its own mind on how to name the fifth Citadel Ward, portrays numerous characters in a way utterly inconsistent with their previous appearances, not only in their behaviour, but sometimes down to how they look (Khalisah, Aethyta, Kelly), reuses character-defining lines word for word from the second game (Mordin's "Someone else might have got it wrong) and in the end attempts to introduce a device that is able to "make a new DNA" from a distilled essence of what remains of the protagonist and somehow spread it across the entire galaxy.

 

Forgive me while I stand back and take everything this game tells me with a smile and a nod.

[Farangbaa]

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."

 

That doesn't make them love Mass Effect any less than you do. You just feel that your love is better, and that your understanding of the series is better.

 

In short, you feel better than others. Which brings me right back to the post you're quoting.

[dreamgazer]

Are we allowed to say that people who liked ME2 don't truly appreciate the MEU, given its many alterations? 

 

Lore changes are lore changes, folks.

[RZIBARA]

First Step: Re-do ME2 entirely. 

Second Step: Re-do ME3 entirely

[dreamgazer]

First Step: Re-do ME2 entirely. 

Second Step: Re-do ME3 entirely

 

First Step: Rework some of ME1 so it's consistent in and of itself. Then we'll talk. 

[themikefest]

Don't have the third game as a place to start the trilogy

[Reorte]

To make the whole series consistent you'd need to go right back to ME1. If you're not going to do that then at least have ME2 have some overall plot relevence (if we must have the Crucible that would be the place to find it). If you're not going to do that then the best you can do with 3 is make it more palatable but give up any hope of having the whole series having any particular storytelling merit.

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

Are we allowed to say that people who liked ME2 don't truly appreciate the MEU, given its many alterations? 

 

Lore changes are lore changes, folks.

 

Interesting answer! You got me. I'll answer you this. If you truly believe what you wrote in this post, and it it wasn't just for the sake of verbal swordplay (and even if so, it was good swordplay!) and you have the conviction that if someone liked ME2, they don't truly appreciate MEU, then I respect your position. I disagree very strongly, but I really, really liked your argument.

 

I am aware of ME2's shortcomings, but I am willing to forgive them. If that makes me a philistine, well... I don't think it does, mind you, but you may feel differently.

 

 

That doesn't make them love Mass Effect any less than you do. You just feel that your love is better, and that your understanding of the series is better.

 

In short, you feel better than others. Which brings me right back to the post you're quoting.

 

Ah yes, the one in which you have resorted to name-calling. I'm a... what was it? Self-righteous, pretentious bastard. Add "entitled whiner" on the top and we're home for Thanksgiving.

[von uber]

The world building in ME2 was great. The main plot not so; in fact the main plot felt like a tacked on side quest.

[AlanC9]

Right. "ME3" Codex.
 
Which means that the information you are refering to comes from the same game which, among other things, cannot make up its own mind on how to name the fifth Citadel Ward, portrays numerous characters in a way utterly inconsistent with their previous appearances, not only in their behaviour, but sometimes down to how they look (Khalisah, Aethyta, Kelly), reuses character-defining lines word for word from the second game (Mordin's "Someone else might have got it wrong) and in the end attempts to introduce a device that is able to "make a new DNA" from a distilled essence of what remains of the protagonist and somehow spread it across the entire galaxy.
 
Forgive me while I stand back and take everything this game tells me with a smile and a nod.

Heh. So why were you talking about information when you knew you wouldn't believe information when you heard it?

[Farangbaa]

Ah yes, the one in which you have resorted to name-calling. I'm a... what was it? Self-righteous, pretentious bastard. Add "entitled whiner" on the top and we're home for Thanksgiving.

 

I said it made you look like one, not that you are.

 

 

Heh. So why were you talking about information when you knew you wouldn't believe information when you heard it?

 

*giggle*

[Farangbaa]

The world building in ME2 was great. The main plot not so; in fact the main plot felt like a tacked on side quest.

 

There's a plot in ME2?

 

Oh.. you mean those missions I do in between fixing family issues.

[dreamgazer]

Interesting answer! You got me. I'll answer you this. If you truly believe what you wrote in this post, and it it wasn't just for the sake of verbal swordplay (and even if so, it was good swordplay!) and you have the conviction that if someone liked ME2, they don't truly appreciate MEU, then I respect your position. I disagree very strongly, but I really, really liked your argument.

 

I am aware of ME2's shortcomings, but I am willing to forgive them. If that makes me a philistine, well... I don't think it does, mind you, but you may feel differently.

 

I think people who like all three games can be "true" ME fans, plain and simple, because the lore has been inconsistent-yet-adaptable from the get-go.  

 

I also think chalking up ME2 as a successful entry and ME3 as a failed entry simply isn't sound reasoning, because they're both "guilty".

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

Heh. So why were you talking about information when you knew you wouldn't believe information when you heard it?

 

What I meant was, there is no information on how would it be to fight Reapers in a war prior to "ME3", and all their alleged immense power comes either from Sovereign's boasting (he may have been full of it or at least exaggerating greatly) and the Battle of the Citadel, in which we see Alliance ships destroyed at extremely close range, point blank practically, plus they are also under attack by geth ships at the time. And the geth could be on our side in ME3.

 

 

I said it made you look like one, not that you are.

 

OK, you're right on this one. But it came awfully close.

[Iakus]

There's a plot in ME2?

 

Oh.. you mean those missions I do in between fixing family issues.

 

 

OMG we actually agree on this!

[Farangbaa]

Oh God... now you're going to argue conventional victory.

 

Im gonna check out.

 

OMG we actually agree on this!

 

Crazy things happen from time to time

[von uber]

There's a plot in ME2?

 

Oh.. you mean those missions I do in between fixing family issues.

 

Well yes, quite. Look at the effort that went in to all the missions based around Illium to create a believable location you'd wish to explore (which LotSB built on). That's what good about ME2; it's a shame the supposed main plot is a load of bollocks that you forget about until you are forced to do something.

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

I think people who like all three games can be "true" ME fans, plain and simple, because the lore has been inconsistent-yet-adaptable from the get-go.  

 

I also think chalking up ME2 as a successful entry and ME3 as a failed entry simply isn't sound reasoning, because they're both "guilty".

 

Disagree. I have three reasons:

 

1) Nothing in ME2 came close to "ME3's" ending.

2) ME2 leaves you with an overwhelming feeling of success and achievement. "ME3" leaves you with an overwhelming feeling of misery. I know this is subjective, but then again this is mostly what I mean when I express my general lack of appreciation for people who liked the endings or just thought they were okay. They were a kick in the nuts.

 

3) Even the ending and its emotional aspect aside, there are more inconsistencies in "ME3" than in ME2.

 

Points 1 and 2 have some level of overlap. I'll elaborate on point 3:

 

Actually, I'm not sure inconsistencies is the right word when it comes to ME2. ME2 surely has some very stupid crap in it if you think about it, like the Human Reaper, and it also railroads the player in a way people may have problems with (Cerberus debacle), but as for inconsistencies, as if, things in it that are very different from how they were portrayed in ME1, there's the nature of Cerberus (Alliance rogue op group -> terrorist organization), thermal clips - but that was a gameplay decision, and, what else... Joker's Vrolik syndrome mysteriously spreading to his whole body, probably.

 

But apart from that, there was also much care put into ME2 and attention to detail. This is getting lengthy, so I'll cite one example - if you look at the uniforms of scientists and soldiers who appear in holograms on Pragia, in the facility where Jack was held, they are exactly the same as the ones Cerberus used in ME1. That's attention to detail.

 

More to the point, in ME2 they actually tried to cover up their retcons. I know that saying all the Cerberus teams encountered in ME1 were splinter groups and that core Cerberus isn't that bad is very thin. But at least the devs tried. They saw these inconsistencies and acknowledged them, for better or for worse.

 

At the same time, in "ME3" you get an entire race's way of thinking retconned merciessly without even a bit of explanation (geth). You get people so out of character that they aren't themselves any more. You get hair-brained decisions like killing off a fan favourite episodic character via Twitter. And all that is handwaived, there isn't even a slightest attempt to cover up retcons, which are much, much more numerous and destructive than any of the problems ME2 had.

 

And finally, ME2 feels polished, cared for, complete, as it is. "ME3" feels like a rushed mess. Which it was.

[AlanC9]

I put in the big picture and look at what needs to be fixed on the whole. The number one thing was the non-existence of any sort of long-term plan or goal for the trilogy. As has been said, there was no planning behind it.

I'd phrase this a little differently. Working without a plan can work just fine -- certainly better than tying yourself to a bad plan. See, for instance, the way The Good Wife's showrunners handled Josh Charles' unexpected departure. I think the specific problem with ME was revealing stuff without deciding what the stuff was in the universe for. If you're going to establish that the Reapers operate cycles, and apparently shape their whole lives around doing those cycles, you'd better know why they want to do the cycles.