99 réponses à ce sujet

[RoboticWater]

 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.

It's not that big of a mistake. "The entire Reaper invasion/Reaper war/search for a solution/uncovering the mystery of the Reapers/Resolution to the war," is entirely containable in one narrative arc. That's almost exactly what you did in ME1, except with Saren.

 

Yes, ME2 should have done a better job introducing the Reapers as a character, but ME3 should have been able to stand on its own regardless. ME3 should have developed the Reapers more throughout the plot, it shouldn't have shoe horned Cerberus in as the antagonist, and it shouldn't have ignored all of our decisions. ME3 had ample opportunity for a decent plot, but it just chose to go a different direction.

 

It's easy to blame ME2 for not progressing the central conflict very much, but it doesn't really deserve it. Each game had its part to play: ME1 introduced the universe and the main conflict, ME2 developed character and culture, and ME3 should have weaved the emotional progression of ME2 with the conflict started in ME1. ME3 just failed its end of the bargain.

[Mcfly616]

It's not that big of a mistake. "The entire Reaper invasion/Reaper war/search for a solution/uncovering the mystery of the Reapers/Resolution to the war," is entirely containable in one narrative arc. That's almost exactly what you did in ME1, except with Saren.

 

Yes, ME2 should have done a better job introducing the Reapers as a character, but ME3 should have been able to stand on its own regardless. ME3 should have developed the Reapers more throughout the plot, it shouldn't have shoe horned Cerberus in as the antagonist, and it shouldn't have ignored all of our decisions. ME3 had ample opportunity for a decent plot, but it just chose to go a different direction.

 

It's easy to blame ME2 for not progressing the central conflict very much, but it doesn't really deserve it. Each game had its part to play: ME1 introduced the universe and the main conflict, ME2 developed character and culture, and ME3 should have weaved the emotional progression of ME2 with the conflict started in ME1. ME3 just failed its end of the bargain.

 Pretty sure I stated that no progress is made regarding the "overarching narrative" of the entire trilogy. I.e. The Reapers and finding a way to stop them from doing what they've been doing for millions of years. And in regards to that specifically, it's a fact that none was made in ME2.

 

 

Containing the entire beginning/middle/end of a galactic war whilst beginning the search and finding of a solution to it and learning the main villains motivations is waaay more to ask from a single game than what ME1 did. ME1 introduced us to a fictional universe and started us on a quest that had us stumble upon something way bigger and said "to be continued".

 

Sure, in ME2 they flesh out the universe and we get to meet fairly interesting characters by galavanting all across the galaxy in order to help them with their mommy/daddy issues, only to conclude with the destruction of a single base. That means nothing in the grand scheme of things. They could've fleshed out the MEU whilst keeping the onus on what the first game started. 

 

 

Introducing the Collectors out of the nowhere and basing an entire main plot of a game around them was far more wasteful than having Cerberus turn out to be the extremist splinter cell they always seemed be from the beginning by the time ME3 rolls around. Maybe if you were never forced to join Cerberus and spend a whole game being spoonfed how edgy and cool they are, Bioware wouldn't have had to shoehorn their real identity and motivations into the third game, just as they did with the entire Reaper plot.

 

 

 

Saving the entire Reaper plot (invasion,war,explaination of motivation/search for solution/resolution) was as big as a mistake as saving the conclusion to the Clone Wars/ Anakin Skywalker's seduction and fall to the Dark side and transformation/fall of the Jedi Order and the Republic/Rise of the Empire and Darth Vader/Birth of Luke and Leia into a single movie. It's a ridiculously overblown task due to it's predecessor spinning its tires.

 

 

 

As I said, ME2 is a fantastic game standing on its own. As the middle installment of a trilogy it is extremely problematic. Remember ME1? At the end when Shepard walks away from the Council after stating that The Reapers are out there, they're coming and "I'm going to find a way to stop them." He should've added: "as soon as ME2 is finished".

 

And that's what no progress looks like. That thread isn't even picked up until the Reapers get here. It's ridiculous. Can't excuse the complete absence of focus on the overarching narrative in order to simply introduce us to some new characters and flesh out the game world. Both of those could've easily been done. Killing off Shepard only to bring him back to work with Cerberus to fight a newly introduced enemy out of left field, and preparing for that fight by being said new characters space therapist, was a gross convolution of the central narrative. In fact, none of it had anything to do with it. The whole second game goes on a complete tangent. It's a glorified side story. Literally a spin off. That's not what the middle installment of trilogy is meant for.

[Mcfly616]

^ still doesn't excuse the horrible writing in the last 15 minutes ( with the starchild and synthesis etc.) and also that our war assets and choices didn't matter

(collector base for an example the biggest choice in ME2 and in the end it was useless, same with the rachni), having the geth and quarians on our sides or just one of them didn't matter, same with the krogan

 

interested to see how you will blame these problems on ME2 too

 "horrible writing" is completely subjective. The Catalyst's logic is sound. And synthesis fits as the solution to the eternal conflict that was presented. It is inherent in our nature to destroy eachother (ourselves). So, we must change nature. Synthesis does exactly that.

 

 

As far as the choices up until that point, the war assets not doing anything and the Collector base being trivial, I completely agree. They could've done a much better job. I never said all of the games flaws were due to its predecessor. I said most of its narrative flaws were. Though, the implementation and integration of all your choices didn't benefit from ME2's lack of progression, that's for sure. Having to cram everything they had to cram into the final game didn't do it any favors either. Like I said, too much was left to the final game. A lot less dilly dallying on the part of ME2 would've helped quite a bit.

[RoboticWater]

 Pretty sure I stated that no progress is made regarding the "overarching narrative" of the entire trilogy. I.e. The Reapers and finding a way to stop them from doing what they've been doing for millions of years. And in regards to that specifically, it's a fact that none was made in ME2.

 

 

Containing the entire beginning/middle/end of a galactic war whilst beginning the search and finding of a solution to it and learning the main villains motivations is waaay more to ask from a single game than what ME1 did. ME1 introduced us to a fictional universe and started us on a quest that had us stumble upon something way bigger and said "to be continued".

 

Sure, in ME2 they flesh out the universe and we get to meet fairly interesting characters by galavanting all across the galaxy in order to help them with their mommy/daddy issues, only to conclude with the destruction of a single base. That means nothing in the grand scheme of things. They could've fleshed out the MEU whilst keeping the onus on what the first game started. 

 

 

Introducing the Collectors out of the nowhere and basing an entire main plot of a game around them was far more wasteful than having Cerberus turn out to be the extremist splinter cell they always seemed be from the beginning by the time ME3 rolls around. Maybe if you were never forced to join Cerberus and spend a whole game being spoonfed how edgy and cool they are, Bioware wouldn't have had to shoehorn their real identity and motivations into the third game, just as they did with the entire Reaper plot.

 

 

 

Saving the entire Reaper plot (invasion,war,explaination of motivation/search for solution/resolution) was as big as a mistake as saving the conclusion to the Clone Wars/ Anakin Skywalker's seduction and fall to the Dark side and transformation/fall of the Jedi Order and the Republic/Rise of the Empire and Darth Vader/Birth of Luke and Leia into a single movie. It's a ridiculously overblown task due to it's predecessor spinning its tires.

 

 

 

As I said, ME2 is a fantastic game standing on its own. As the middle installment of a trilogy it is extremely problematic. Remember ME1? At the end when Shepard walks away from the Council after stating that The Reapers are out there, they're coming and "I'm going to find a way to stop them." He should've added: "as soon as ME2 is finished".

 

And that's what no progress looks like. That thread isn't even picked up until the Reapers get here. It's ridiculous. Can't excuse the complete absence of focus on the overarching narrative in order to simply introduce us to some new characters and flesh out the game world. Both of those could've easily been done. Killing off Shepard only to bring him back to work with Cerberus to fight a newly introduced enemy out of left field, and preparing for that fight by being said new characters space therapist, was a gross convolution of the central narrative. In fact, none of it had anything to do with it. The whole second game goes on a complete tangent. It's a glorified side story. Literally a spin off. That's not what the middle installment of trilogy is meant for.

While ME1's stakes were most certainly smaller, it had the exact narrative structure ME3 should have had: a recurring antagonist that gets progressively developed, exploring smaller narrative arcs on planets while searching for something to stop the antagonist, and finally a race to defeat the antagonist.

 

I think you're making the problem vastly bigger than it need to be:

-Invasion is merely the beginning of the story. I don't know why you think this needs to be a complicated plot point. Reapers come in and start killing. Done.

-War is progressed simply by doing missions. It doesn't need to be some protracted campaign like the previous cycles; you're Shepard, the protagonist, and it's your job to end the war quickly.

-Explanation of motivation could be achieved by actually talking to the Reapers. Had BioWare not thrown Harbinger's character out the window or actually given us useful snippets of information from our talks with Reapers, maybe ME3 would have been better. There were plenty of times, beginning, middle, and end, where BioWare could have developed an explanation for the Reapers. They just didn't.

-Search for solution could happen while talking with the Reapers as well. As you defeat more Reapers and solve each race's problem, you gain more information about how to kill them. Maybe they have a kill switch somewhere. Maybe killing Harbinger kills them all, because they're a hive mind or something. My point is that the solution can naturally emerge from the antagonist itself.

-Resolution would work exactly like ME1: a big friggin' battle.

 

So yes, ME3 could work almost exactly like ME1. Sure, it would have bigger gasps, bigger guns, and bigger drama, but it would still be the same story arc in essence.

 

ME2 might not have given the perfect foundation for ME3, but don't tell me it caused all of its problems. ME3 could have easily been a solid game. It just wasn't.

[Mcfly616]

 

 

ME2 might not have given the perfect foundation for ME3, but don't tell me it caused all of its problems. ME3 could have easily been a solid game. It just wasn't.

Idk how many times I've said this or how many times you've clearly overlooked it....but I'll say it again. I never said all of the games problems were due to its predecessor. I said most of its narrative issues stem from it. 

 

 

All you're suggesting is boiling down a Galactic War to the same scale as hunting down a rogue agent. I don't think you appreciate the gravity of what a Galactic War entails. Clearly...

 

Ofcourse, boiling it down would not have been necessary at all had ME2 just dedicated any amount of its campaign to the primary task at hand: finding a way to stop the Reapers. "No, it's all good, we'll just wait til they're here."

 

It seems you just find it hard to acknowledge that ME2 didn't contribute much to the central narrative and conflict of the trilogy in the grand scheme of things. All it did was do a little world building and introduce new characters. 

[Vazgen]

The problem with the Reaper is their writing throughout the trilogy. If they have harvested the galactic civilizations for billions of years, there is no kill switch that can be deduced from simply killing them, otherwise it renders those previous cycles stupid. They have no weakness that can be exploited except their arrogance, which was their undoing. 

[Mcfly616]

The problem with the Reaper is their writing throughout the trilogy. If they have harvested the galactic civilizations for billions of years, there is no kill switch that can be deduced from simply killing them, otherwise it renders those previous cycles stupid. They have no weakness that can be exploited except their arrogance, which was their undoing. 

Possibly. Though, I actually like that their arrogance is what makes them fallable.

 

 

The complete lack of focus on them during the second installment didn't help much in the development of their story arc

[SNascimento]

ME2 created the galaxy you would fight for in ME3. Or better yet, it made it worth saving.

Imagine Tuchanka without Mordin and the genophage development in ME2. Or Rannoch without Legion and the knowledge from the geth we got the second game of the series. 

I always found criticizing ME2 saying it didn't advance the story so shallow... like there is nothing more to a story than simply what happens. And there is. There are characters, the worlds, the cultures... and ME2 built heavily on that. 

[RoboticWater]

Idk how many times I've said this or how many times you've clearly overlooked it....but I'll say it again. I never said all of the games problems were due to its predecessor. I said most of its narrative issues stem from it. 

 

 

All you're suggesting is boiling down a Galactic War to the same scale as hunting down a rogue agent. I don't think you appreciate the gravity of what a Galactic War entails. Clearly...

 

Ofcourse, boiling it down would not have been necessary at all had ME2 just dedicated any amount of its campaign to the primary task at hand: finding a way to stop the Reapers. "No, it's all good, we'll just wait til they're here."

 

It seems you just find it hard to acknowledge that ME2 didn't contribute much to the central narrative and conflict of the trilogy in the grand scheme of things. All it did was do a little world building and introduce new characters. 

My point is that ME3 could have easily worked regardless of how much ME2 progressed the plot.

 

Yes, in fact, I am. I'm sure there's a lot more going on in a war, but the narrative structure remains the same. I don't need to be on the front lines of every battle or dealing with every little detail of the war. I'm the Separd; all I need to do is figure out how to stop the Reapers, much like how I figured out how to defeat Saren. I'm not equating the gravity of the two situations, but mechanically, they could work the same. As I said, ME1 with bigger drama, bigger politics, and bigger explosions. This doesn't mean more narrative, it means a more intense narrative.

 

I acknowledge it completely. ME2 did very little (if nothing at all) to push the central conflict forward. It did, however, establish and progress many thematic and cultural threads which would be resolved in the final installment (as you would no doubt agree). Could ME2 have done a better job? Sure, but the position it left ME3 wasn't nearly as desolate as you suggest. Do I think some of ME3's problems could have been solved if they were moved to ME2? Absolutely. However, ME2 did not cause "most" of ME3's problems.

 

ME3 could have easily worked things out itself, but it didn't.

[Vazgen]

Could have ME3 worked things out? Absolutely. Did they have enough time for that? Most likely not. That, combined with lack of central plot development in ME2 caused a lot of problems. ME2 did a lot to establish the world, characters and lore for the series. However, it did almost nothing against for the main story and that was a problem. You might notice how things with basis in ME2 are acknowledged as the highest points for ME3 (Rannoch and Tuchanka arcs). Main story should've had that basis as well. Alas, it was not the case

[Iakus]

 "horrible writing" is completely subjective. The Catalyst's logic is sound. And synthesis fits as the solution to the eternal conflict that was presented. It is inherent in our nature to destroy eachother (ourselves). So, we must change nature. Synthesis does exactly that.

 

 

*Mordin Solus voice*  "Implications... unpleasant"

[Iakus]

As to revamping Priority: Earth, with or without a new ending.  Not gonna happen.

 

You simply don't understand the Art to properly appreciate it.

[Mcfly616]

sure its subjective but the general consensus is that it was bad writing and that the ending sucked

so thats what Bioware will take from the whole controversy and they won't do something like that again even though some think that it was logical

 You have no way of knowing the general consensus. Nor does anyone. No one ever will. All there is to know is that there was an outcry from a fair amount of fans.

[Vazgen]

 You have no way of knowing the general consensus. Nor does anyone. No one ever will. All there is to know is that there was an outcry from a fair amount of fans.

There is no general consensus. I think the majority didn't like the original endings and were pretty vocal about it. Thus, Extended Cut. After EC people are spread in two groups - those who still dislike the ending and those who are OK/moved on/never cared much with the new, improved version. If polls are any indication, it was around 80/20 for the original ending and about equal for EC (I heard about it on these forums )

[Kurt M.]

Remastered Edition?

 

You fix ABSOLUTELY all the bugs of the 3 games + DLC's, including crashes, camera errors, weapons changing to the default Predator/Avenger in cutscenes, sound files not playing, etc..., and I'll buy it.

 

Heck, I may even play yet another ME1 playthought.

[Mcfly616]

There is no general consensus. I think the majority didn't like the original endings and were pretty vocal about it. Thus, Extended Cut. After EC people are spread in two groups - those who still dislike the ending and those who are OK/moved on/never cared much with the new, improved version. If polls are any indication, it was around 80/20 for the original ending and about equal for EC (I heard about it on these forums )

 keep in mind only a mere fraction of the people that have played the game come to the internet to voice their opinions. Also keep in mind that those who were satisfied are less inclined to do so. 

[Vazgen]

 keep in mind only a mere fraction of the people that have played the game come to the internet to voice their opinions. Also keep in mind that those who were satisfied are less inclined to do so. 

Perhaps But it's not for us to say, unless someone manages to count the comments of all different Internet users on the ending and compare it to the sales (which again won't give the full picture since it won't count those who pirated the game) no one can say what portion of the players is that. In the end, what we have is the opinion of Bioware market analysts who thought that releasing EC for free was a good move. If it was only a small vocal minority, it might've been paid or not released at all.

[Mcfly616]

Perhaps But it's not for us to say, unless someone manages to count the comments of all different Internet users on the ending and compare it to the sales (which again won't give the full picture since it won't count those who pirated the game) no one can say what portion of the players is that. In the end, what we have is the opinion of Bioware market analysts who thought that releasing EC for free was a good move. If it was only a small vocal minority, it might've been paid or not released at all.

 just so we're clear, in regards to the endings, I've been referring to the Extended Cut the entire time.

 

 

I have no doubt that a great deal of people were not satisfied by the original endings. I was one of them. They were entirely too vague and disconnected. I never expected the EC to change my mind without a complete rewrite. I was pleasantly surprised in June 25, 2012 as the Catalyst began to explain itself in full detail. 

 

 

 

There was a poll started by a Bioware dev on the Retake ME3 site before the EC was ever released. The question posed was "Do you believe in IT, yes or no?" That poll was roughly 80% "yes". I was one of them. However, it's easy to deduce that the full 80% really didn't believe in IT, many just voted that way because they thought it'd result in a completely new ending. I was also one of those people.

 

 

 

Sadly, it is my belief that Bioware had an extension of the breathe scene (with Shep standing up out of the Citadel rubble) ready to go for the EC, and chose not to include it due to the results of this poll. They just took the poll results at face value (and didn't consider why people may have voted the way they did) and chose to leave the extended breathe scene on the cutting room floor in order to not destroy IT for those that wanted to believe in it, and avoid pissing off a portion of its fanbase once again. Again, this is just a theory of mine. I have no way whatsoever of proving it. I just don't see any other logical reason for the question posed by the poll.

[Mcfly616]

yeah right..

there is a reason they released the EC and for free even it cost them money and time

if the majority didn't hate the ending why do that? thats just the classic argument "people who hated it wouldn't come to the internet and voice their opinions" lol

 

apparently you liked it great for you but you can't just deny the facts its like saying most people don't think that the Dexter ending sucked 

the majority hated it face it mate

 Pay attention bud. Nobody's talking about the original endings. We are discussing the EC. I didn't like the originals either.

 

 

 

 

 You'll never know how the majority felt about the EC. Accept it.

[FaWa]

The ending is the ending, I personally don't care anymore. That being said, Priority Earth pre-beam could and should have been a lot more epic. So I agree with the general message of this thread. 

[Mcfly616]

Word^ 

[Kurt M.]

The endings were fixed in the EC. Seriously, that joke is already very, very old.