If you honestly can't understand that point 1 and 2 simply aren't true for some people, it bring me back again to a post you quoted earlier.
And point 3 is just not true. There are inconsistincies everywhere in the game. HECK, ME1 in itself isn't even consistent.
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.
1) "Organic essence", organic-synthetic hybridization, and the Baby Reaper ... on top of the heavy-handed base decision.
2) Yes, the tones are different. But the foes are different, too. Collectors =/= Reapers.
3) There are a mess ton of inconsistencies and avoidance of ME1 in ME2, including the geth getting restructured into isolationists.
This strikes me as being the substantive issue. We can play "which game is more incoherent" forever -- obviously the later games are handicapped a little there because they have more stuff to fail at, but it's still fun.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.
Oh God... now you're going to argue conventional victory.
Im gonna check out.
There are various ways of understanding "conventional victory". But in general yes, I'm all for conventional victory in a sense of finding a weakness of the Reapers and exploiting it in a way that doesn't involve space magic. Actually, I'd say having a mindset of "oh God, the Reapers are too powerful, we're buggered" is defeatist 
If you honestly can't understand that point 1 and 2 simply aren't true for some people, it bring me back again to a post you quoted earlier.
And point 3 is just not true. There are inconsistincies everywhere in the game. HECK, ME1 in itself isn't even consistent.
No, I honestly can't understand that. It was one of the worst endings in the history of storytelling and I cannot concieve of a mind of a man who liked them. Am I getting repetitive? I should think so.
As for point 3, if you wish to argue, make an effort and cite some examples.
1) "Organic essence", organic-synthetic hybridization, and the Baby Reaper ... on top of the heavy-handed base decision.
2) Yes, the tones are different. But the foes are different, too. Collectors =/= Reapers.
3) There are a mess ton of inconsistencies and avoidance of ME1 in ME2, including the geth getting restructured into isolationists.
1) I'm not sure what you mean by organic essence; organic-synthetic hybridization - do you mean the process of creation for new Reapers? I didn't mind the explanation that Reapers turn conquered races into more of themselves or to fuel for their fleets; Baby Reaper was silly, okay, mainly because it looked like the Terminator; what exactly was wrong with the decision regarding the Collector base? It was mostly about whether you decide to trust Cerberus at the end or give them the finger. It felt good to hang up on Illusive Man.
2) Why would changing the enemy require the change of tone? "I'm going to win this war. And I'm going to do it without sacrificing the soul of our species".
3) Not in my view, that example is not an inconsistency. We find out that geth encountered thus far were heretics and that majority of geth is peaceful. Nothing wrong with that. Plus, Legion's conversations were masterful, so much feeling, so much mystery.
There are various ways of understanding "conventional victory". But in general yes, I'm all for conventional victory in a sense of finding a weakness of the Reapers and exploiting it in a way that doesn't involve space magic. Actually, I'd say having a mindset of "oh God, the Reapers are too powerful, we're buggered" is defeatist
Yeah making all the previous races from all the previous cycles dumb; that would've made for a great story.
No, I honestly can't understand that. It was one of the worst endings in the history of storytelling and I cannot concieve of a mind of a man who liked them. Am I getting repetitive? I should think so.
It's obvious that you can't.
And you want an example?
In the 10 hours orso we fly from Eden Prime to the Citadel, Tali does the following:
-accidentally run into a Geth that heard Saren's conversation after Eden Prime and managed to steal it's memory core. This in itself is impossible (for obvious reason, I might hope), but...
-she also goes into hiding for a week orso (!)
-makes a deal with Fist.
And I got a feeling I'm forgetting something here.
I too am for conventional victory, in away, they're machines that can be broken. So we just need to find away to break them without the space magic...
The same for you:
None of the previous races from any of the previous cycles, of which there were countless, managed to figure out this flaw. This would not have improved the story one bit, it would just have made it ridiculous.
And would've made the 'humans are special' bit of Mass Effect even more annoying.
No, I honestly can't understand that. It was one of the worst endings in the history of storytelling and I cannot concieve of a mind of a man who liked them. Am I getting repetitive? I should think so.
As for point 3, if you wish to argue, make an effort and cite some examples.
1) I'm not sure what you mean by organic essence; organic-synthetic hybridization - do you mean the process of creation for new Reapers? I didn't mind the explanation that Reapers turn conquered races into more of themselves or to fuel for their fleets; Baby Reaper was silly, okay, mainly because it looked like the Terminator; what exactly was wrong with the decision regarding the Collector base? It was mostly about whether you decide to trust Cerberus at the end or give them the finger. It felt good to hang up on Illusive Man.
2) Why would changing the enemy require the change of tone? "I'm going to win this war. And I'm going to do it without sacrificing the soul of our species".
3) Not in my view, that example is not an inconsistency. We find out that geth encountered thus far were heretics and that majority of geth is peaceful. Nothing wrong with that. Plus, Legion's conversations were masterful, so much feeling, so much mystery.
I don't particularly like the ending either, but there's no reason to insult those who find positives among interpreting the mess. Which is entirely possible.
1) EDI states that the "essence of a species" is absorbed to create the Reapers, which is nothing but schlocky bull. And there should be a lot more to the Collector Base decision, about research and actual ethics and indoctrination, but it's all about "trust Cerberus" or "flip off Cerberus' morals".
2) Again, Collectors =/= Reapers. Scope.
3) It's definitely an inconsistency, since there was no mention of this in ME1 whatsoever. They decided to completely change our perception of the geth.
Yeah making all the previous races from all the previous cycles dumb; that would've made for a great story.
That's my biggest issue with conventional victory: out of millions upon millions of years of cycles, including those that resemble the Protheans (perhaps even more advanced), this cycle the special and competent one that could "F---- YEAH" all over the Reapers.
This strikes me as being the substantive issue. We can play "which game is more incoherent" forever -- obviously the later games are handicapped a little there because they have more stuff to fail at, but it's still fun.
But it's pretty obvious that this isn't what the debate is really about.
So, why did you feel kicked in the nuts?
Do you honestly want me to reiterate all the reasons why the ending was gruesome and felt like a betrayal? Were you here in 2012 and 2013? Did you miss all the hour-long videos people posted on youtube, the 70 000 bucks charity and the sending of cupcakes? And the bajilion posts people have made about this whole issue?
Yeah making all the previous races from all the previous cycles dumb; that would've made for a great story.
Except for one, small thing that makes the situation different this time around... What was it... Oh, how about the fact that Shepard STOPPED the Reapers in ME1!
What did (s)he stop them from? Well, from springing the Citadel trap. And now they have to come to Milky Way manually, via FTL.
We know (from Vigil) that Reapers take control of Mass Relays when they come through the Citadel.
We know (from that same source) that they use military and census data to help them hunt down the races of each cycle.
What does that tell us?
It tells us that the Reapers in all probability shut down the Relay network and then take each star system one by one, without any possibility of someone sending reinforcements or even coordinating defense. This time around we have early warning and the situation is completely different.
And you want an example?
In the 10 hours orso we fly from Eden Prime to the Citadel, Tali does the following:
-accidentally run into a Geth that heard Saren's conversation after Eden Prime and managed to steal it's memory core. This in itself is impossible (for obvious reason, I might hope), but...
-she also goes into hiding for a week orso (!)
-makes a deal with Fist.
And I got a feeling I'm forgetting something here.
Okay, so there is a minor timing issue with the initial investigation on Saren. Yes, when you dig into it, there's something off. But does it disrupt the flow of the game? No. And it's not even a lore inconsistency.
Another example is Joker - how did he get to the Citadel when Sovereign attacks, since last time we saw him he was over Ilos? Makes sense? Maybe not. Does it make you go "f**k this game!"? No.
The one big advantage this cycle has over all the previous cycle's is that the reapers never attacked the Citadel first whereas they did in the previous cycles.
Who's to say one of the previous cycles didn't pull something similar to what Shepard and the Protheans accomplished?
And yeah, that's another issue with ME2: not properly following through with the repercussions of halting Sovereign's plan in ME1.
Instead, two-year jump and Cerberus.
Who's to say one of the previous cycles didn't pull something similar to what Shepard and the Protheans accomplished?
Who's to say they did? Stopping the Reapers from using the Citadel this time around took the sacrifice of the best minds of the entire race - the Protheans. Seeing all those inactive cryo pods on Ilos was a powerful and touching scene. Having the Ilos scientists' sacrifice irrelevant is bad, irreverent writing.
Who's to say they did? Stopping the Reapers from using the Citadel this time around took the sacrifice of the best minds of the entire race - the Protheans. Seeing all those inactive cryo pods on Ilos was a powerful and touching scene. Having the Ilos scientists' sacrifice irrelevant is bad, irreverent writing.
Assuming that millions of years of wiped-out civilizations didn't have similar industrial and scientific prowess (given how the Protheans were more advanced that this cycle) would be bad, irrelevant writing, too.
Hence, The Crucible, designed to clear the darkened skies when ME2 did little to progress the Reaper plot.
I don't see the point to this arguing over which contrivance was worse. It's a game series based around a foot soldier fighting sentient warships, contrivances are going to happen. It's why I don't get mad about it. Sure, I'll say man that's stupid but I understand they're going to be required from time to time.
That said if you really want to fix the series you need to alter the Reapers. Simply removing their motive isn't enough. They're the reason the contrivances are largely what they are. Including the ME3 ending. They're too old, they're too big, they're too advanced. They need to be a younger synthetic race a bit more advanced than organics but not game breaking levels. They need to be a more traditional human...ish sized AI instead of dreadnoughts otherwise stuff like the Human Reaper and Rannoch destroyer fights will happen. Make their motive killing organics every few thousands years when they reach a certain technological level because they become a potential threat in their calculations at that point. Other AIs can either be assimilated if they submit or destroyed if they resist.
Assuming that millions of years of wiped-out civilizations didn't have similar industrial and scientific prowess (given how the Protheans were more advanced that this cycle) would be bad, irrelevant writing, too.
Hence, The Crucible, designed to clear the darkened skies when ME2 did little to progress the Reaper plot.
Oh no, I don't buy that for a second. Something as stupid as the Crucible has no justification.
To answer the post proper, how does similar industrial and scientific prowess equal the necessity of achieving the same thing Protheans did with making the Conduit and altering the Keepers?
Besides, whether or not the current cycle being the only one thus far who stopped the Reapers from arriving via the Citadel is logical or not is irrelevant. The first game makes it a game-changer, and therefore it needs to remain a game-changer. It makes sense from the emotional point of view and from the narrative point of view.
I don't see the point to this arguing over which contrivance was worse. It's a game series based around a foot soldier fighting sentient warships, contrivances are going to happen. It's why I don't get mad about it. Sure, I'll say man that's stupid but I understand they're going to be required from time to time.
True. Even so, contrivance should be kept at minimum and even if used, it should allow a hopeful, satisfying resolution of affairs. One might argue that having the crew come out alive of the Suicide Mission in ME2 is contrived. I don't think it is, but even if it was, it wouldn't matter, because it's so satisfying.
The Crucible is the organic child of the cycles. It's not nearly been given enough value.
It's also why I don't mind it at all as a plot device.
True. Even so, contrivance should be kept at minimum and even if used, it should allow a hopeful, satisfying resolution of affairs. One might argue that having the crew come out alive of the Suicide Mission in ME2 is contrived. I don't think it is, but even if it was, it wouldn't matter, because it's so satisfying.
You know that there will never be concensus over what's a satisfying ending. We're not the Geth.
Oh no, I don't buy that for a second. Something as stupid as the Crucible has no justification.
Neither does conventional victory, with the material that preceded ME3.
To answer the post proper, how does similar industrial and scientific prowess equal the necessity of achieving the same thing Protheans did with making the Conduit and altering the Keepers?
Somebody's gotta stumble onto similar solutions to the Reapers. Else, every cycle beforehand were inferior, and I don't buy that for a second.
Besides, whether or not the current cycle being the only one thus far who stopped the Reapers from arriving via the Citadel is logical or not is irrelevant. The first game makes it a game-changer, and therefore it needs to remain a game-changer. It makes sense from the emotional point of view and from the narrative point of view.
And it did, hence how they were able to construct the Crucible. Not terrible given how thoroughly ME2 squandered that opportunity.
I don't mind the Crucible too much. As for a conventional victory, if the crucible hadn't existed and the game had been designed completely different where you coordinate space battles or direct troops, it might have worked. But how do you want to fit a conventional victory into a RPG without making it a strategy game? The protagonists would be Hackett, Lidanya or Victus...and not Shepard.
Allow me to answer that Mordin style:
"Simple. Shepard and team investigate Reapers, find out... vulnerabilities. Also, gather allies. Solve conflicts. That's what they do best. Meanwhile, fleets hold off Reapers. Establish strongpoints. Win battles. Small scale and grand scale. More of the small scale. Works better. More personal. Grand scale in the background. Have seen it done once, in Star Wars. Good saga."
And it did, hence how they were able to construct the Crucible. Not terrible given how thoroughly ME2 squandered that opportunity.
What? What does having the Crucible have to do with winning in ME1? The Crucible was introduced in "ME3" without any hint of the possibility for such a contraption to appear anywhere else in the series.
I don't mind the Crucible too much. As for a conventional victory, if the crucible hadn't existed and the game had been designed completely different where you coordinate space battles or direct troops, it might have worked. But how do you want to fit a conventional victory into a RPG without making it a strategy game? The protagonists would be Hackett, Lidanya or Victus...and not Shepard.
I think it could work. ME is supposedly a story based game, the player has more than one way to interact with the story other than shooting at things and that method would be to let the consequences of Shepard's decisions do some of the heavy lifting. For the final mission give Shepard some important ground based mission to do while the fleets over head blast the Reapers into scrap metal.
I'll forgive the Mass Effect 3 endings a lot, because unlike its predecessors, it actually made me think about the ending choice.
I also didn't fancy it much before the extended cut. I didn't go into "BURN THE WORLD!" mode, I just thought it was kind of rubbish.
After the extended cut, I'm quite okay with the endings. They still make me think about the kind of Shepard I'm playing when I make my choice, make me wonder, and try to figure out where everything goes from there.
I really like ME3 because I like the pacing and how the sidequests are incorporated. I also feel like we spend more actual time with the characters and, what with them moving around the ship and interacting with each other(!), the world actually feels a lot more alive to me and so do my squaddies. It doesn't hurt that I freaking love the DLCs for ME3, and can usually incorporate them fairly seamlessly for my tastes. To me, Omega's the odd one out, but it's pretty fun.
Anything. Anything is better than Pinnacle Station.
I quite like ME3. It felt very organic, and I enjoyed myself playing it. Since I don't generally like video games, or play them, that's something. After the first rush of bombing Shepards through, I've chilled down a bit. I go longer between firing up the games. Nowadays, I prefer to play it as a trilogy, going from 1 to 2 to 3 and figuring out the flow and the character organically.
What? What does having the Crucible have to do with winning in ME1? The Crucible was introduced in "ME3" without any hint of the possibility for such a contraption to appear anywhere else in the series.
Coordination, and a hub of operations. Citadel has many functions.
And between the Protheans' scientific prowess and Anderson mentioning that the Conduit might be some kind of "super weapon", I wouldn't say it was entirely out of the cards (among many, as Drew K. has stated) from the very beginning.
Retour en haut