1005 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

The humans are special thing goes beyond the plot as well. Even in simple conversations, like with Samara. The way she talks about humans, you'd think that the other races in the galaxy are not particularly individualistic or opinionated by comparison.

[SporkFu]

Humans are new on the galactic scene. After hundreds of years, maybe Samara is just bored with all the other species. 

[Elite Midget]

No, ME3 really killed my interest in the ME franchise completely. Loved the series up to that point but than ME3 happened and it complete destroyed everything. 

 

Hopefully Bioware learned a lot from the massive backlash and poor reception ME3 received.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

ME2 didn't "function properly" as an actual follow-up to ME1, though, and ME3 does an admirable (albeit flawed) job of doing the heavy-lifting for two games of storytelling in its place. It's really hard for me to understand how someone can say that ME2 adheres to the plot, lore, and setting of ME1 when it intentionally restructures just about everything during that two-year jump amid Shepard's nonsensical death and resurrection, from "Ah yes, Reapers" to Cerberus' noticeable uptick in size and the shifted professions and allegiances of most of the characters (and, a personal gripe, the move to ammo-based rounds). For all intents and purposes, down to Shepard's new hybridized existence, it's a reboot.

 

We'll have to disagree on the function of ME2 and ME3.

 

As I said, the second act of a trilogy's job is to add more definition, flourish, and even change to the plot, lore, and setting. Even if its a change in pace or views. While I will say that it was by no means flawless, I will say that I find its direction a lot more acceptable and even preferable to other directions it might have gone. Everything was reasonably explained to me;

 

It honestly makes sense that the Council would renege on their promise to fight the Reapers, be it out of critical review and lack of large-scale evidence (Sovereign is only one Reaper after all, and the Council might have concluded that only one massive ship existed) to denial born of terror and prevention of mass hysteria.

 

Cerberus meanwhile was never defined enough in the first place to truly warrant discrediting them for their developments in ME2 (IMO, the massive uptick that became unrealistic came from ME3). Nobody knew much about them in the first place, and to be fair, they really weren't a primary focus beyond a medium-length sub arc whose conclusion didn't really answer a lot of questions about them.

 

As far as characters go, for the ME1 squadmates, it's a hit or miss thing on believability. I can see Garrus (especially if you persuaded him that the ends justify the means in ME1 aka the Renegade path) as becoming disillusioned with the way the Council is behaving over Shepard and the Reapers and having to endure being swept under the rug as a political inconvenience to the point of deciding to go to Omega and perform vigilante justice.

 

Tali did what she set out to do and returned to the Flotilla. There was no change in direction with her character.

 

The VS, I'll admit, was definitely a victim of being swept under the rug, in a possible effort to show that Shepard's death didn't have some interpersonal strains on existing relationships. That said, narratively, they're with the alliance still and performing a secret mission for Anderson. Ashley's reaction to Cerberus is rather predictable, though no less infuriating and seals the fate of her own relationship with Shepard in ME3 (that's me though. Ashley is a character I love to hate). Kaidan meanwhile comes off as more jaded and cynical and especially rather irked at Cerberus (As well as having a sudden surge of patriotism on the same level as Ashley). This can be nonsensical if you didn't romance him or build a stronger relationship with him in ME1. However, I will say that ME3 chose to take those reactions and run with it (if that's what you think might be a problem).

 

Liara's development was of course just plain nonsensical. However, I would view her change as a character as more of a problem with what the writers wanted her to be rather than a problem that ME2 is the root of. As ME3, ME2 DLC, and extraneous content proves, Liara is a character to be what the writers want her to be whenever they need her to be something, and she's inevitably going to be the best at it. For all intents and purposes, she is a canon-sue. Lastly, Wrex somehow managing an overnight promotion from gun-for-hire to Clan Chieftain of the most powerful Krogan Clan on Tuchanka can be either very jarring or make perfect sense when you look at it.

 

It's jarring to think of Wrex somehow going back to being concerned for his people and wanting to lead them in a more progressive direction, when in the first game, he was the very cynical mercenary who knew exactly what his fatalism meant for the Krogans as whole but didn't care regardless. Of course, Saren's cure for the genophage probably inspired him to go back to Tuchanka and change things in the hopes of finding or making their own again, and to how he got the position itself, the fridge brilliance is simply that he probably just killed his way to the top.

 

On this note though, I'd say that really only a few of the characters from ME1 to ME2 had shifted changes in their profession. Granted, Joker was an odd case, but that was explained reasonably well in my opinion. Him being deactivated from flight status (which as he admitted was the only thing that really mattered to him) isn't really unsurprising given the shift in focus on the alliance and the Council, so his acceptance of an offer from Cerberus to fly for them (especially when he probably realized nobody else was going to give a damn or employ him) makes sense, despite possible ideological quandaries.

 

Old Dr. Hacksaw is the only member of the crew to have an outright unbelievable change in heart about the alliance, though given that she's a tertiary character at best, I'm also a lot less critical since she's not really someone you're going to outright spend a lot of time with.

 

Just as you believe that ME2 is the disfunctional middle child, I think ME3 is the spoiled youngest child. And as I stated previously, in my opinion, the second act of a trilogy has a lot more leeway and areas to change, improve, get creative, etc. than the third part of the trilogy (which as I said, is where I start to view things as a lot more critically and strictly).

[Jorji Costava]

@TheDoctorsRose:

 

Could you do us a favor and split that into paragraphs?

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

@TheDoctorsRose:

 

Could you do us a favor and split that into paragraphs?

 

Better?

[Killdren88]

No, ME3 really killed my interest in the ME franchise completely. Loved the series up to that point but than ME3 happened and it complete destroyed everything. 

 

Hopefully Bioware learned a lot from the massive backlash and poor reception ME3 received.

 

 

They learned nothing. They think they did nothing wrong. We apparently "Don't get it."

[KaiserShep]

We assume a lot from what they choose not to tell us. It's probably best to see how the new product speaks for itself.

Besides, admission to anything is cheap and pointless. Cynics will just cry out that they're telling us what we want to hear.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

We assume a lot from what they choose not to tell us. It's probably best to see how the new product speaks for itself.

Besides, admission to anything is cheap and pointless. Cynics will just cry out that they're telling us what we want to hear.

 

I will say that I think Casey Hudson has a big head, and SuperMac is still... SuperMac, as evidenced by his comics.

 

I think the biggest frustration is BW's inability or unwillingness to come out and simply talk about what's gone on. I still think it would really have helped if they came out and clarified what they saw in their ending and what they were trying to go for and what they thought they had accomplished.

[KaiserShep]

Considering how fickle and erratic the fan base can be, I wouldn't blame them for being very reluctant and careful with their words.

[Jorji Costava]

Better?

 

Much better. Regarding the actual subject matter, I don't see any particular reason to apply different standards to the second and third acts of a trilogy. Having said that, I do think that it is required of every game that they be compelling on a mission-to-mission basis, and ME3 in my view just did a worse job of that than any of the other games. When you look at the main plot missions of ME3 (Thessia, Sanctuary, the introduction, Palaven, Priority Earth, etc.), it's pretty slim pickings compared to the other games.

 

Considering how fickle and erratic the fan base can be, I wouldn't blame them for being very reluctant and careful with their words.

 

Probably true; I don't think there's anything they can say that would constitute a 'win' for them, given how divided opinions were about the ending.

 

Strangely enough, I actually felt like I had a good idea of what sort of thought process would have lead to the ending. Granted, it's all unfounded speculation on my part, but if I had to guess, I'd say it went like this: The writers felt that the ending needed to make a big Statement about some Issue; since synthetics/organics had come up a fair amount in the series, and since it's a subject that has a long and storied history in sci-fi, it was arrogated to the status of the central conflict of the series. This Issue had to transcend the Reaper conflict itself; the Reapers are threatening all intelligent life, so to top that, we got the idea that synthetic/organic conflict threatens all organic life.

 

Throw in some of the original Deus Ex (there are some very close parallels between the ending choices of Deus Ex and those of ME3), and a little bit of heavy handed religious imagery, and you've got yourself the ME3 ending. That's the best I can figure, anyways.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Strangely enough, I actually felt like I had a good idea of what sort of thought process would have lead to the ending. Granted, it's all unfounded speculation on my part, but if I had to guess, I'd say it went like this: The writers felt that the ending needed to make a big Statement about some Issue; since synthetics/organics had come up a fair amount in the series, and since it's a subject that has a long and storied history in sci-fi, it was arrogated to the status of the central conflict of the series. This Issue had to transcend the Reaper conflict itself; the Reapers are threatening all intelligent life, so to top that, we got the idea that synthetic/organic conflict threatens all organic life.

 

Throw in some of the original Deus Ex (there are some very close parallels between the ending choices of Deus Ex and those of ME3), and a little bit of heavy handed religious imagery, and you've got yourself the ME3 ending. That's the best I can figure, anyways.

 

I've always been curious about the thinking that went behind the endings as well. I can sort of see why they chose to have some large conflict behind the Reapers motive, but did any one not voice an objection to the sheer shortness of the pre-EC Catalyst dialogue? Why did they use the kid (or did they just want the Catalyst to take the appearance of a kid and reused a character model? What was the thinking behind Synthesis? Was it suppose to be surreal on purpose?

 

So many questions.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Much better. Regarding the actual subject matter, I don't see any particular reason to apply different standards to the second and third acts of a trilogy. Having said that, I do think that it is required of every game that they be compelling on a mission-to-mission basis, and ME3 in my view just did a worse job of that than any of the other games. When you look at the main plot missions of ME3 (Thessia, Sanctuary, the introduction, Palaven, Priority Earth, etc.), it's pretty slim pickings compared to the other games.

 

Interestingly enough, I just read through a big list of 'What could have been' for the series, and ME3 was nearly twice as long with a lot of the planned material that would flesh out a lot more of the story arcs, including finding out what Cerberus was doing in regards to the Krogan females on Sur'Kesh. Apparently, Cerberus had been planning on turning them into a pseudo-Rachni queens used to breed indoctrinated Krogan shock troops, and did so with a few other fertile females they had recovered. It sounds almost like a copy and paste from the Virmire mission, but it was explicitly mentioned that that content was dropped due to lack of budget and time (which is disturbing because it implies that the creators were basically out of ideas and rehashing ones they'd already used).

 

Also, apparently the synthesis ending was originally supposed to be more like Instrumentality from End of Evangelion (the essential retcon to NGE.)

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

I've always been curious about the thinking that went behind the endings as well. I can sort of see why they chose to have some large conflict behind the Reapers motive, but did any one not voice an objection to the sheer shortness of the pre-EC Catalyst dialogue? Why did they use the kid (or did they just want the Catalyst to take the appearance of a kid and reused a character model? What was the thinking behind Synthesis? Was it suppose to be surreal on purpose?

 

So many questions.

 

Apparently, from what I read, Synthesis (or the ending, it's sort of ambiguous) was, among other things, originally meant to be similar to Instrumentality from End of Evangelion.

 

If it's true, then that would arguably have been worse than what we got.

 

If you're an Eva fan, you know what I'm talking about. That ending still has the internet in flames, and it was almost 20 years ago.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Apparently, from what I read, Synthesis (or the ending, it's sort of ambiguous) was, among other things, originally meant to be similar to Instrumentality from End of Evangelion.

 

If it's true, then that would arguably have been worse than what we got.

 

If you're an Eva fan, you know what I'm talking about. That ending still has the internet in flames, and it was almost 20 years ago.

 

Really? I don't think they're any thing alike.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Really? I don't think they're any thing alike.

 

They aren't. The original idea for synthesis was to evoke imagery from it, but it was ultimately scrapped as far as I can tell.

 

Another early idea (that has concept art for it) for the ending was that by the time Shepard had reached the control room for the Crucible, the Reapers, having already defeated the galactic fleet and army in London, would be floating outside, watching Shepard and awaiting his decision.

 

[ImaginaryMatter]

They aren't. The original idea for synthesis was to evoke imagery from it, but it was ultimately scrapped as far as I can tell.

 

Oh, okay.

[dreamgazer]

Much better. Regarding the actual subject matter, I don't see any particular reason to apply different standards to the second and third acts of a trilogy. Having said that, I do think that it is required of every game that they be compelling on a mission-to-mission basis, and ME3 in my view just did a worse job of that than any of the other games. When you look at the main plot missions of ME3 (Thessia, Sanctuary, the introduction, Palaven, Priority Earth, etc.), it's pretty slim pickings compared to the other games.

Agree with the bold, but I don't really agree with the summation of ME3's main plot missions, given the context of diplomacy and resource allocation during the Reaper war in comparison to the Collectors. Saren and the Conduit aren't great either, but ME1 has the benefit of discovering a new universe powering it forward (which is the big reason why Ilos is at all interesting).

[Iakus]

We assume a lot from what they choose not to tell us. It's probably best to see how the new product speaks for itself.

Besides, admission to anything is cheap and pointless. Cynics will just cry out that they're telling us what we want to hear.

 

Dragon Age 2 received a lot of backlash after its release.  Not nearly as much as ME3 did, but a substantial amount.

 

Yet developers still came around, asking players where they felt things went wrong.  How they could improve the franchise, etc.  They asked questions, they participated in discussion.  They did not just sticky a thread then leave.  Even though, yes, some trolls said some pretty horrible things about members of the team.

 

Not getting that same feeling with Mass Effect.  Even with EC.  I'm getting a "You exist because we allow it, and will end because we demand it" feeling.  I get no sense that they have a clue what went wrong, or how they intend to do better next time.  I get a real sense that they have lost the pulse of their fan base, and don't care to find it again.  

[CosmicGnosis]

Also, apparently the synthesis ending was originally supposed to be more like Instrumentality from End of Evangelion (the essential retcon to NGE.)

Could you elaborate on this? I'm intrigued. 

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Could you elaborate on this? I'm intrigued. 

 

Not much to elaborate on beyond a footnote from an admittedly questionable source that at some point in the development, either synthesis or the entire ending itself would have evoked imagery from EoE.

 

Personally, I'm not a fan of the the whole concept behind that ending in the series (Mass Effect, not Eva) that hadn't lead up to it at all. It's the same thematic issue (among several other killer problems that Synthesis sufferers from) of having the series be 'out-there' for no other reason than to be 'out there'. Mass Effect hardly had the same kind of themes and expressions that Evangelion had, and it would have been best if it had stayed away from the whole ideology behind the ending that it used. It just turns into incomprehensible drudge. Evangelion (especially EoE and not the two final tv episodes) was specifically gearing up for that kind of ending, and even then it barely makes any sense. Thankfully, I had RETAKE Evangelion (the 'official' fanfiction ending to the original show) to bring better definition and emotional closure to EoE, and Rebuild is basically a reboot without the characters (being described by Anno as much the same as their original versions but on medication) going completely batshit in the last 4 episodes.

 

However, I interpret 'imagery' to mean physical imagery, and not thematic or narrative ideas. Synthesis might have looked something similar to Third Impact, with Lilith spreading her wings and collecting the souls of humans.

[KaiserShep]

Thankfully, I had RETAKE Evangelion (the 'official' fanfiction ending to the original show) to bring better definition and emotional closure to EoE, and Rebuild is basically a reboot without the characters (being described by Anno as much the same as their original versions but on medication) going completely batshit in the last 4 episodes.

I have to say, I liked the Rebuilds up until 3.0. What the hell is going on with that one? I watched it, and I had to scratch my head at all the weird sh*t going on.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I haven't watched Rebuild yet, but I still enjoyed End of Evanglion.

[AlanC9]

Personally, I'm not a fan of the the whole concept behind that ending in the series (Mass Effect, not Eva) that hadn't lead up to it at all. It's the same thematic issue (among several other killer problems that Synthesis sufferers from) of having the series be 'out-there' for no other reason than to be 'out there'. Mass Effect hardly had the same kind of themes and expressions that Evangelion had, and it would have been best if it had stayed away from the whole ideology behind the ending that it used.

I see the point. OTOH, I can also see how having Saren be right all along would be hard to resist. I've always suspected that was how Synthesis got into the mix.