99 réponses à ce sujet

[Element Zero]

Being totally ready for a new game, but with no game in sight, I've been thinking a lot about the series of late. Like many, I've played each of these games an insane number of times. Having finally put them down for an extended period (a look at my ME3 saves say since April 2014), my true feelings are becoming a bit more clear to me.

I tried to pick up ME3 these past few days, but couldn't get into it. I groaned at the lameness of some of the first few lines of dialogue, and found myself skipping most dialogue throughout the Mars mission. I turned it off immediately after Mars. I picked up ME2 a few days ago, but didn't feel like tackling the story at that time. I also thought about the first game, of course, but hesitated to start it due to the dated gameplay. (If I do pick it up, another trilogy run is inevitable.)

Many of you have done the same, I'm sure. Each game really was a different beast. As a whole, they are my favorite game series by far. Individually, they have their issues. ME3's writing is nowhere near as good as the other games, in my opinion. I continued to enjoy its combat, though, long after the narrative had grown stale. If the entire series featured that combat, I'd likely never have managed to play anything else these last few years.

A revamped collection that I can pop into my PS4 in coming years would be most welcome, but I'm definitely ready for a new experience, one that brings together the strengths of all the past games and adds new things into the mix.

[Nitrocuban]

And can we has Collectors as last enemy on Priority Earth pls?

[Orikon]

And can we has Collectors as last enemy on Priority Earth pls?

 

Aren't the Collectors extinct after the SM?

[Ajensis]

^ I think there's a Codex entry that mentions a few remaining Collector vessels, but whether that's just to validate their presence in MP is anyone's guess. I wouldn't have a problem if they showed up on Earth, as long as the narrative didn't focus needlessly long on it.

 

Priority Earth didn't include a single new soundtrack. In fact,most of the time there was no music playing

 

Maybe it's just me, but I personally loved that. Combined with the Hades Cannon firing in the distance, shaking the screen and drowning out most other sounds, it really emphasised the feeling of being under pressure and fighting for your life. There was no heroic music to make you feel like a badass, you were just desperately struggling to get to your objective.

In this case, since it's the climax to the trilogy, I don't care that it's not as "fun" because it consolidates the feeling that this is it so effectively. All or nothing, win or lose.

 

I agree that plenty of things could be improved about Priority: Earth and the rest of the ending, but there are some things that I see people complain about that I think have their place. Another is the nightmares that I seem to be the only person who likes oh well.

 

As for the thread in general, I'm intrigued by the idea of a remastered edition, but I'm not expecting anything soon, and I don't honestly need it. The original trilogy still plays well enough for me

[SNascimento]

I can agree with this.

Priority Earth was a huge let down. There were some cool fights there, especially the last, but it should have been a Suicide Mission turned to 11, and it was just killing enemies. Not to mention London was very uninspired. It was just a bleak generic city.

It would take some resources to do that, but I'd say it would be worth it.

[Linkenski]

To me the climax was always the entire bit of Citadel The Return, although I do understand why, when comparing Priority Earth to Citadel Battle ME1 and Suicide Mission ME2 that it falls way short. I think comparing it to the Suicide mission is a mistake though since it actually has the formula of ME1 of going through the level which is pure combat against standard enemy types, and then you reach the citadel controls which also happens in both and here the actual climax takes place, whereas in ME3 it's strengthened by the fact that Shepard is bleeding out but also hampered by the Catalyst and the ending nonsense and in ME1 it's strengthened by he conversation with Saren and strengthened by a boss fight to resolve the gameplay.

 

I do think Priotity Earth should've used the formula of ME2 though, of showing your forces in the roles you assigned them to and eventually making the push for the Crucible but leaving your squad mates before the beam run.

[Mcfly616]

I always considered the final mission a little different than most. If you remember, ME2's Suicide Mission begins when you decide to go through the Omega 4 Relay. That is the point of no return. There's a few breaks here and there where you're fighting the Oculus on the lower deck, then you finally land on the Collector Base, then after a few sections there Shep has his little speech, then there's the boss fight.

 

I consider the beginning of ME3's final mission to be at Cronos Station (not Priority Earth). That is the point of no return. Then there's the break between that location and Priority Earth, then the F.O.B., the final push, the Return etc etc...

 

 

It isn't tied together as well as the Suicide Mission was, and it certainly didn't build on the concept of the Suicide Mission (assigning war assets to specific tasks with varying consequences) like we all expected it to do.....but when you look at it from that perspective (the final mission beginning at the point of no return), it is certainly a lengthy affair.

[Seishoujyo]

Shepard going mano y mano with a capital ship... that sounds...ridiculous.

 

Just do the same thing as on Rannoch.

[dreamgazer]

To Aaryn Flynn&Co.: Please rewrite Mass Effect 3's intro and ending completely. Nah **** it.

 

To Aaryn Flynn&Co.: Please rewrite Mass Effect 3!

 

Why stop there? They should rewrite Mass Effect 2 if they're going that route. 

[Mcfly616]

Why stop there? They should rewrite Mass Effect 2 if they're going that route. 

Indeed. Most of ME3's narrative issues start with ME2.

[SNascimento]

Mass Effect 2 created Mass Effect. 

[dreamgazer]

Mass Effect 2 created Mass Effect.

It certainly ... changed things.

[Nitrocuban]

Aren't the Collectors extinct after the SM?

No? I mean, our troops fight Collectors in every corner of the galaxy, dude.

They get nadespammed, buttlasered and zombienuked so hard that Gethstun feels like a day off. How dare you say Collectors are extinct?

 

(Having Collectors as elite troops, as last stand between Shepard and the beam would be really cool imho. I never understood why BW did not bring them into SP after they invested lots of time making them for MP)

[RoboticWater]

Indeed. Most of ME3's narrative issues start with ME2.

ME2's story might not have been up to snuff, but I wouldn't say that it caused most of ME3's narrative issues. Although the main plot was lackluster, if not utterly nonexistent at some points and many of ME1's decisions left unmentioned, ME2 still progressed the series. By staying a bit more personal, it solidified these disparate races as distinct peoples with cultures you could identify with. It also established the political dichotomy between the Council and Cerberus. The problem with ME2 is that it's the sequel of a trilogy; it can't be too heavy on the reapers because that might detract from their big entrance and it can't integrate too many of ME1's choices because that would cause even more trouble in ME3's plot. I know ME2 has a few more problems than that, but none that I consider very major and certainly none that spelled ME3's ultimate failure.

 

Obviously, we could have completely different ideas about where ME3's narrative went wrong, so my argument might not mean anything to you. I think ME3's story failed by itself. While ME2 didn't give the main plot much to work with and gave ME3 a handful of possibly dead characters, there are plenty good of ways ME3 could have handled the situation it was given. Rather than develop the character of the reapers throughout the narrative (which ME2 at least tried to do), ME3 ignored it entirely.Rather than explore the moral ambiguities of Cerberus as an effective political power, ME3 made them evil. ME3 did a bunch of dumb stuff, and most of them were its own fault.

 

To stay a bit more on topic: I think there's a lot wrong with the series and the last 20 minuets of ME3 isn't the root of the issue. If I wanted to fix ME's narrative, I'd remake ME3 entirely, but I can't expect that to happen. No one should expect Bioware to change anything in a remastered edition. We all clearly have different ideas about where the franchise went wrong, so lets not confuse the matter. 

[Vazgen]

Mass Effect 2 is an amazing game that I love to play to this day. That said, I think that it is the reason for the most of the issues with Mass Effect 3 writing. It seemed that two lead writers couldn't figure out what to do with it and as a result it ended implementing a few elements that could've been great if fully developed but were never given that chance. An example, Shepard's implants. The game could've (and should've) shown how having those implants changes his perception on the world, what the society thinks of such extensive implantation etc. "I never asked for this". Instead we got "I got better". It would've been a great base for Synthesis ending in Mass Effect 3. Mass Effect 2 could've been used to focus more on Control and Synthesis aspects, to elaborate more on the organic vs synthetic theme... Instead we got The Magnificent Seven (Twelve) with a possibility to have everyone live in the end. And while it was cool, it had nothing to do with the themes introduced in Mass Effect 1. 

Then comes Mass Effect 3 with the task to conclude the trilogy. But what should they do when Mass Effect 2 trashed all the themes present in the game before and didn't introduce anything new to work with. They chose organic vs synthetic conflict as it was at least briefly mentioned in ME2 (Rogue AI hacking mechs, Overlord DLC - which introduces some Synthesis ideas as well, Legion's loyalty mission, Tali's loyalty mission). Obviously it was not a major theme in ME2 (which lacked a major theme as a whole) and thus it felt as something new in Mass Effect 3.

I'm not saying that everything wrong with Mass Effect 3 comes from Mass Effect 2. Some things were badly written (for my tastes) and were introduced in the final game. I do think, however, that Bioware did a great job with tying all three games into one coherent story, given what they had to work with. 

[SNascimento]

It certainly ... changed things.

Indeed, it changed potential into uttermost glory. 

[Booth]

I dont really see the point. Of course the ending of ME3 was such a strange thing that lots of players cannot understand what Bioware did there. But... well... dont know if anybody remembers: They are only human like all of us. Which includes they are making mistakes like all of us.

 

There are thousands of fictional books, movies, games, etc which have a real bad part of the story in it. I like to look at the Matrix-Trilogy - first movie was a real great thing and I loved it. When they announced that there will be two sequels I was really excited. Then I watched the second part and although lots of people didnt like it, for me it was even greater than the first movie. 6 months I thought how the last movie would be. And... when I saw it, I was SO disappointed. Thats life. But I do watch sometime the matrix-trilogy and still like the first movies VERY much. And I can accept that the final part for me does not work. Pity... like lots of things in life - but I would never think of a "repaired" version of that movie.

 

Same in ME. It is what it is... and for me the last 2 hours are really poor. I can accept it. And when I read threads like this I notice that lots of "enhancements" other players think about is in my opinion absolute nonsens. Which makes me think why so much consumers of media products want a kind of personalized version which is "perfect" for them... and why lots of them even think that their wishes for "perfection" automatically suits to almost anybody. Well... it does NOT. We all are different and have different preferences.

 

Also I do not understand why lots players think that the new ME has to match all the decisions we could make in the first trilogy. Why? If they define what happened for the new trilogy... than it is OK. It is a fantasy universe. I dont have to assume that there is some realistic history. Its just fiction. And although I "know" that the sequels go on in a different way, I still can play the old trilogy and do different decisions. Why not? Especially because I already DO THIS without having a new ME-game. I played the ME-games several times - every time with other decisions. And it did not lead to any kind of schizophrenia - because its just fun fiction, allthough partly well elaborated.

 

My emotions can work BOTH if I play one time as a nice guy who brings together Geth an Quarians and heal the Genophage... and play a few month later another time as a bad guy who betrays Krogans, kille Mordin and terminate the Geth. There IS NO "one" desicions which is better than others. And in future there could be one new trilogy which is based on ONE decision-lore and I can live with this.

 

Its the same with the new Star Wars movies. There have been several novels which told the story after Episode 6. Probably lots of them will not be included in the new movies. I dont see any problem in this. Its both fiction... and both can be nice stuff to entertain me and catch my emotions. And of course every fictional product has the possibility to disappoint me. No author should then try to rewrite again and again if he fails to satisfy customers once. He should try again with another fictional product. And if he finds out several time that all stuff is mostly disliked by customers... well... then... he could try to find another job

[Mcfly616]

ME2's story might not have been up to snuff, but I wouldn't say that it caused most of ME3's narrative issues. 

 It most certainly did. No progress is made in ME2 whatsoever. It's a stalling pattern. You spend the entire game building a team to take out a single base. At the end of ME2 you are in the same exact position as you were at the end of ME1: still looking for a way to stop the Reapers. 

 

 

If it were not for the glorified side story that ME2 was, it wouldn't have been up to ME3 to contain the entire Reaper invasion/Reaper war/search for a solution/uncovering the mystery of the Reapers/Resolution to the war.

 

 

Leaving all of that to a single installment was the biggest mistake Bioware ever made regarding the trilogy. As a standalone game, ME2 was fantastic. As the bridge of a trilogy it was the biggest detriment to the overarching narrative.

[Mcfly616]

Mass Effect 2 created Mass Effect. 

Mass Effect created Mass Effect. 

 

 

The sequels were its bastard cousins.

[KaiserShep]

 It most certainly did. No progress is made in ME2 whatsoever. It's a stalling pattern. You spend the entire game building a team to take out a single base. At the end of ME2 you are in the same exact position as you were at the end of ME1: still looking for a way to stop the Reapers. 

 

 

If it were not for the glorified side story that ME2 was, it wouldn't have been up to ME3 to contain the entire Reaper invasion/Reaper war/search for a solution/uncovering the mystery of the Reapers/Resolution to the war.

 

 

Leaving all of that to a single installment was the biggest mistake Bioware ever made regarding the trilogy. As a standalone game, ME2 was fantastic. As the bridge of a trilogy it was the biggest detriment to the overarching narrative.

 

Sadly, I have to agree with this. The bulk of the game is companion recruitment and loyalty missions, and among them, only 3 missions had any real ties to a larger narrative that spanned over the course of the trilogy (Mordin, Tali and to some extent Legion).

 

What really makes ME2 the most troublesome chapter in terms of the overarching plot was that a DLC actually had a mission with a far greater sense of urgency than the main story, being Arrival.

[Booth]

No progress is made in ME2 whatsoever.

 

Only if you think that getting know special personalities in a fictional product is "no progress". All companion characters in ME1 felt for me MUCH thinner than in ME2. Tali, Garrus and even Wrex are... well... interesting, but I did not connect emotionally to them in depth. This is what happened to me in ME2 and also in ME3. True - the background story in ME1 was much better (and in ME2 almost not existing) but obviously it was enough for me that the big story was shown in ME1. ME2 is built up on that background story and all the subplots refer to this background and give further information.

 

I definitely feel lot of progress in ME2 and think that the plot is also very good like the plot in ME1 but (as I mentioned before) on another level. In addition the shooter mechanics felt much better for me in ME2/3 and I had no exploration on empty planets with a creeping tank who had to climb mountains. In combination ME2/3 are for me the much better games.

 

And... if you dont see that kind of story progress, I think it is not worth the time to try to explain to you. I can accept that you cannot connect to that level of the story. Maybe you can accept that I do.

[ZipZap2000]

You might be lucky and get some extra scenes they left out as a directors cut but even that would be lucky. I'd love to get a revamped PE and the scenes you described but it's never gonna happen.

[ZipZap2000]

Mass Effect 2 created Mass Effect. 

 

Pretty much.