50 réponses à ce sujet

[egervari]

Maybe I just missed the line of dialog... but why did Shepard and everyone leave on a shuttle for after the IFF mission? I don't actually remember them saying they had to go on a mission or knowing the reason they HAD to take a shuttle and leave the Normandy - they just said that they had to. Was this just a convenient plot device to have you control joker and have the collectors attack the Normandy while Shepard was not on the ship?

 

It just seemed so weird to me.

 

Also, was it ever shown WHY the reapers created a human reaper? I mean, I know of the explaination in Drew's notes, but was an official explaination ever given?

 

I just ask this because the start of Mass Effect 3 - and the Arrival DLC - make absolutely no sense in context of what happened in Mass Effect 2. In one sense, the reapers just abduct colonists to make a reaper, and at the same time, they were retroactively hell-bent on destroying humanity. It seems incongruent. And of course, at the start of ME3, they invade... but I am not sure why. What is the point?

 

Maybe ME3 does match up with the plotlines in ME1 a little bit, but ME2 really throws a wrench into the story. I really like ME2 as a game, but I am not even sure what it contributes to the story as a whole, other than knowing that the protheans were the collectors. It actually seems like ME3 is a better continuation from ME1 than ME2... because at least you sort of thought the reapers were going to invade... which is why you stopped Saren and Sovreign to prevent that from happening.

 

I'm going to replay ME3 next - it's been many years since I played it - but I suspect I am not going to get answers to my questions.

[cap and gown]

You have come to the same conclusion about the middle game of the trilogy that many other have: great game, doesn't contribute to the Reaper plot (and even detracts from the Reaper plot).

[egervari]

That's unfortunate. The rational part of me - not the gamer who wants to be giddy and happy as I play games - just says why bother making a planned trilogy if you're not even going to plan a 3-part story arc and have it all come together elegantly like these things are supposed to.

 

I knew the story was going to have problems, just because I know what the ending of ME3 is (but I haven't played the DLC and the new version of the ending, hence why I am replaying it).

 

But I never expected that I would think about ME2's plot so much and how much it doesn't fit until I replayed it.

 

;(

[egervari]

Actually, I'm reading this:

 

http://www.shamusyou...dedtale/?p=7004

 

And I can't help but agree with it. Still reading it, but this author is definitely on the right track. I found myself thinking many of these thoughts as I was re-playing - something I didn't scrutinize many years back when I played it the first time.

[CptFalconPunch]

Actually, I'm reading this:

 

http://www.shamusyou...dedtale/?p=7004

 

And I can't help but agree with it. Still reading it, but this author is definitely on the right track. I found myself thinking many of these thoughts as I was re-playing - something I didn't scrutinize many years back when I played it the first time.

Lucky you not realizing ME2's story problems the first time you played it :'(

 

That article is just the beggining. It is way worse than you actually see. I suggest just leaving it at that.

 

Great game, no plot, wtf story. Always something bugging every mass effect game to stop them from reaching perfection ...

[egervari]

Well, I did think about how awkward the start to ME2 was - it really felt like the beginning was either to get new players up to speed, or to reset the game. But like the author says - it's a trilogy and there is really no good reason to do that, especially since you basically spend most of the game reseting things to how they used to be at the end of the first game.

 

I disagree with his points about the collectors a little bit, although I do wish they were alluded to in the first game. Indoctrination was a thing, so it makes sense why the reapers would introctrinate an entire race. They did it with Saren and Benezia - two very powerful people from the 2 of the 4 most influencial/developed races in the game (the council races).

 

But, when I played ME2, I did not yet play ME3 - so I was not aware of just how bad the ending was. I probably forgot about the ending and the core story when playing ME3, since there was a large gap of years before playing ME3.

 

But that author is totally right - sacrifcing the collector base at the end makes no sense considering the level of the threat they face. And at the start of ME3, you have no squad and have done absolutely nothing as the reapers are on your doorstep... which makes the decision for destroying the base seem incredibly stupid. I'm sure the alliance would have taken the reaper threat more seriously if they had been studying it for the last few years between ME2 and ME3.

 

So yeah, the core story in ME2 definitely ruins the game more for me, even though the character missions and game itself are fantastic. It really does seem like ME3 works better after ME1. At least then, the motivation for the reapers was simple, and you can go along with the invasion without a real cause. But the human reaper throws a huge wrench in that - it begs the question, "WHY?". I know it might have been used to solve the dark energy problem hinted at in the first 2 games, but with that point abandonned, the game just makes no sense in hindsight... which makes me wonder how any of this got approved at Bioware. And we're not even talking about ME3's ending - these problems happened years before those story decisions were made.

[cap and gown]

. which makes me wonder how any of this got approved at Bioware. And we're not even talking about ME3's ending - these problems happened years before those story decisions were made.

 

I read the article you referred to and one assertion the writer made was that the plot of ME2 was not written by people scribbling with crayons. But then he didn't ever bother to justify that statement.

 

I will say, for sheer drama, production and cinematic value, both the opening and ending are much greater than the author let's on. It's a great opening seeing the Normandy destroyed, but goes too far in killing him/her. The choice about blowing up the base or keeping it is moronic, but the scene with the Normandy flying away from the explosion, regardless of whether it is red or aqua, is fantastic. And the Suicide Mission may be one of the greatest missions in the entire trilogy, except it was a huge mistake to have a mission where you could lose any and all of your crew in the MIDDLE of a trilogy. (The developers themselves have admitted they messed up there.)

[egervari]

I think with a lot of these youtube videos and articles, the authors/commentators can be really nit-picky. I could be that nitpicky too, but I don't put the energy into it, even if a lot of their points are rationally correct.

 

But big things - like the human reaper, or why the crew left the ship in a shuttle for an unknown mission.... these things just take me out of the game. I can even get behind the retconning of cerberus, shepard dying, or whatever. This stuff, while is definitely not perfect, is not a big deal. The story would have sort of held together. But the human reaper is just a massive problem, as is why the normandy crew got captured.

 

Another thing I remember too - not mentioned in the article - is Ashley. She got stung by a seeker swarm, but she wasn't collected. And she didn't unfreeze either. I remember catching it during my last playthrough, but even that didn't annoy me too much. But it also made me question why we needed Jack or Samara to use a biotic bubble to protect from the seeker swarms. I thought we spent the first 1/3 of the game developing a fix for that. Isn't that why we got Mordin? But again, this stuff is nitpicky. The human reaper is a big climatic moment for the game - it drove the entire point of the main storyline, deviated the main plot from the first game, only to be abandonned in the 3rd game. It just annoys me now

[cap and gown]

I think some of his points are nit-picky. I even think your point about Ashley is wrong. She got frozen, then when the Collectors flew away she got unfrozen. I don't see the problem. As far as the crew all being on the shuttle, well, its a little forced, but if you were playing this blind, very likely you would be setting off to do some mission when that scene triggers. You might go wtf when the entire crew gets on the shuttle, but its hardly inconceivable that they would all be there and Shepard would decide who to take once they get to where they are going. The human reaper, OTOH, is pretty poorly done considering they never follow through with it. There was a thread not too long ago talking about that.

[egervari]

I think it's a bit speculative to say that people become unfrozen when the collector ship leaves. I don't recall hearing anything within the game that ties the freezing effect to the ship's presence. It doesn't matter either way though - it's not really that important of a detail. It's so minor.

 

I also watched smudboy's criticisms of ME2's story, and he made decent points, although definitely goes into the territory of nitpicking. Like, I don't mind that the weapons, armor, squad ammo, etc. all work differently in ME2 compared to ME1. I think gameplay in some cases should be corrected if the developers think the changes are necessary, and it's easy to suspend disbelief about these things. They don't really affect the core plots.

 

He mentioned a lot of nitpicky things, like the seeker swarms had to be smaller, like nanites, to not truly leave a trace after they left, and stuff like that. But all of these complaints are more or less forgivable. I didn't find these details to take away from the game.

 

I'll read that thread though. I'm interested in hearing what others said about the human reaper. It's kind of glaring plot problem that will constantly make me compare everything that's happening and will happen in ME3, over and over again as each scene unfolds - trying to make sense of it. I know I won't be able to, but it's the kind of plot hole that I can't ignore.

 

I sometimes don't understand how an otherwise briliant company can make some rediculous ****-ups in small but extremely important areas. Like sometimes they show as a mastery of the medium, and then they produce some massive problems in other areas. I know it's probably because different teams of people worked on them, but it's also a real mystery how it can pass quality assurance. Maybe the peon writers should have been the lead writer, because the lead writer who vetted everyone's scripts for each aspect of the game couldn't recognize the quality differences. I dunno. It has me so baffled.

[cap and gown]

As the author of the article you originally referred to points out, its not really the nit-picky stuff that is the problem, it is the lack of planning for overall story arc. The authors should have planned out where the story was going and what each segment of the trilogy would accomplish in advancing the story. Instead, they just made it up as it went, with each separate vignette seeming to stand on its own little island, pretty in its own way, but not really tied into what came before of after.

 

Have you played ME3 yet? If so, consider EDI's dialogue on Cronos Station discussing how Cerberus troops are regular joes who have been indoctrinated and that is how Cerberus can waste so many troops. This dialogue, and the reactions to it are rather jarring since we already know all this long before we get to Cronos. Its as if whoever wrote that scene thought this would be a big reveal, when it is simply a repeat of things we found out earlier.

[Vazgen]

As the author of the article you originally referred to points out, its not really the nit-picky stuff that is the problem, it is the lack of planning for overall story arc. The authors should have planned out where the story was going and what each segment of the trilogy would accomplish in advancing the story. Instead, they just made it up as it went, with each separate vignette seeming to stand on its own little island, pretty in its own way, but not really tied into what came before of after.

 

Have you played ME3 yet? If so, consider EDI's dialogue on Cronos Station discussing how Cerberus troops are regular joes who have been indoctrinated and that is how Cerberus can waste so many troops. This dialogue, and the reactions to it are rather jarring since we already know all this long before we get to Cronos. Its as if whoever wrote that scene thought this would be a big reveal, when it is simply a repeat of things we found out earlier.

Regarding EDI's dialogue, we knew that Cerberus implants its soldiers with Reaper tech but we didn't know that they do it to simple civilians. Unless I'm missing something. Sure, one might come to that conclusion from Benning mission and Horizon, but it's never explicitly stated before Cronos.

[egervari]

As the author of the article you originally referred to points out, its not really the nit-picky stuff that is the problem, it is the lack of planning for overall story arc. The authors should have planned out where the story was going and what each segment of the trilogy would accomplish in advancing the story. Instead, they just made it up as it went, with each separate vignette seeming to stand on its own little island, pretty in its own way, but not really tied into what came before of after.

 

Have you played ME3 yet? If so, consider EDI's dialogue on Cronos Station discussing how Cerberus troops are regular joes who have been indoctrinated and that is how Cerberus can waste so many troops. This dialogue, and the reactions to it are rather jarring since we already know all this long before we get to Cronos. Its as if whoever wrote that scene thought this would be a big reveal, when it is simply a repeat of things we found out earlier.

 

Yeah, I completely agree. It is so rare in gaming to have a high-budget trilogy that we may never see it again for a very long time. They squandered the entire oppurtunity.

 

I have yet to replay most of ME3. I played it on release, but I forget a lot of the details now - which is why I'd like to replay it. I also didn't get the DLC before, so I'll get to experience those for the first time now.

 

It is not surprising though that writers of the little vignettes are not aware of the whole story. Sometimes Bioware's work is incredible. Like, I remember the Tchanka mission in ME3. It really seemed to bring everything together from ME1. They took into account all of the past decisions, and it was a really cool part of the game. It's amazing that the same company can write the ending of ME3, or the main story of ME2 while also being responsible for something like that mission. It's pretty obvious that the writer staff has a wide range of talent on the team. I only wished the best writers were the ones putting it all together. It seems like the lead writer(s) didn't know what they were doing.

[CptFalconPunch]

 

It is not surprising though that writers of the little vignettes are not aware of the whole story. Sometimes Bioware's work is incredible. Like, I remember the Tchanka mission in ME3. It really seemed to bring everything together from ME1. They took into account all of the past decisions, and it was a really cool part of the game. It's amazing that the same company can write the ending of ME3, or the main story of ME2 while also being responsible for something like that mission. It's pretty obvious that the writer staff has a wide range of talent on the team. I only wished the best writers were the ones putting it all together. It seems like the lead writer(s) didn't know what they were doing.

Drew Kasphsyn wrote the first game, then it got weird after that and he left before the second game was finished. He didn't even touch the third.

 

The other mini-stories such as the Tuchanca arc, or Rannoch was done from separate writers. They weren't responsible for the ending. 

[CptFalconPunch]

As the author of the article you originally referred to points out, its not really the nit-picky stuff that is the problem, it is the lack of planning for overall story arc. The authors should have planned out where the story was going and what each segment of the trilogy would accomplish in advancing the story. Instead, they just made it up as it went, with each separate vignette seeming to stand on its own little island, pretty in its own way, but not really tied into what came before of after.

 

 

Well even if ME3's ending is meh, it does connect vaguely to mass effect 1 and has a place in the trilogy. It does make some sense if you don't look in depth into it.

 

How did Mass effect 2 end up like this I have no idea. You'd think the least the writers could do is connect the second game's story to the first. They couldn't even do that and I have no idea why.

[egervari]

Drew Kasphsyn wrote the first game, then it got weird after that and he left before the second game was finished. He didn't even touch the third.

 

The other mini-stories such as the Tuchanca arc, or Rannoch was done from separate writers. They weren't responsible for the ending. 

 

That pretty much explains it. Drew obviously was going somewhere with the human reaper. It would have a fine story progression if it was properly followed up on in ME3. But since it was dropped, and obviously the arrival dlc threw a big monkey wrench into the ending of ME2 as well, I think it's fair to say the series just took another direction when he left. Although, even that is still speculative. Still, the incompetence of how the story is told is obviously apparant, and it's a shame because I don't think it's *that* hard to do. Competent writers have been writing competent stories for years. The fact that it's in a video game should not change anything. It really irritates me.

 

For what it's worth, I don't think Drew is at fault. I read all of his novels as well, and I liked all of them.

[cap and gown]

I think Drew is totally at fault. He developed ME2's plot that you have found wanting, and he had no idea where the plot was going in the future. If anything, the end to ME3 is his responsibility since he totally punted on any idea of what the Reapers wanted or how they could be stopped. Here is a thread discussing his comments on where the series was heading.

[Autoola]

Maybe I just missed the line of dialog... but why did Shepard and everyone leave on a shuttle for after the IFF mission? I don't actually remember them saying they had to go on a mission or knowing the reason they HAD to take a shuttle and leave the Normandy - they just said that they had to.

This starts when you go to the galaxy map. Usually you do this when you want to do a mission. EDI says that you should use the shuttle for the next mission when IFF is installed, because she wants to do some tests. And they all enter the shuttle, because Miranda wants you to choose your Squad right on location. I´m not saying that this makes sense. Just that it is explained.

 

Also, was it ever shown WHY the reapers created a human reaper?

EDI tells that in every "main reaper" is a "little reaper" in shape of the species who is harvested. And your squadmember says on the first collector ship that just using the colonists wouldn´t be enough. They have to harvest the earth. Put this together and you have: the human Reaper needs all humans to be finished.

 

I just ask this because the start of Mass Effect 3 - and the Arrival DLC - make absolutely no sense in context of what happened in Mass Effect 2. In one sense, the reapers just abduct colonists to make a reaper, and at the same time, they were retroactively hell-bent on destroying humanity. It seems incongruent. And of course, at the start of ME3, they invade... but I am not sure why. What is the point?

The Reapers want to abduct all humans to make the human Reaper, not just the colonists. They don´t just want to destroy humanity. And they invade because it is time to harvest all advanced life. I guess you can say that ME1 and 2 just buy you time to prepare (well, not very succesful).

 

And yes, I´m thinking too, that it all could be handled better. There are so many things I found really weird in ME2. The prologue of ME3 makes me yelling at my screen "Whaaaaaat? Don´t tell me you spent 6 months denying that Reapers even exist?" (of course, just for the first time; aside from that the prologue is really sad)

"Something big´s headed our way." "The Reapers" "We don´t know." https://www.youtube....h?v=VcE5wjCrQ1c

 

If I misunderstand your questions, please excuse my interruption.

[egervari]

When I went to the galaxy map to trigger the "joker saves the ship plot development", I had no other missions to do. The only mission left after the IFF mission was the suicide mission - that's it. So, this looks more like the game designers didn't consider the case where the player did all of their missions. When you aggressively finish the missions, this scene makes zero sense.
 

I'm still not sure why (like in the context of ME2 only) the reapers both wanted to destroy and harvest humans. In arrival, there is no talk of harvesting at all - it is all about invasion and the destruction of everything. And in ME3, it just follows the attitude of the reapers from the Arrival dlc.

 

The human reaper was only supposed to require a few million humans. This may seem like a lot, but I would have to imagine that the earth - at this time - they would have a population of 50 or 100 billion humans. To harvest the species, I don't think they would have to go to earth. Surely there's humans elsewhere in the galaxy. And as was stated, the collectors couldn't take on earth anyway.

 

Still, there is this major contradiction in ME2 that both wants to make a human reaper - because humans/Sherpard are special - and also destroy humanity. I believe the contradiction can't really exist. I don't buy the reasoning that they want to destroy everything but make reapers to preserve the civilizations without cause. If you needed a human reaper to solve the dark energy problem as Drew said, then you wouldn't really want to annihilate the species. And in fact, you may go about doing this whole harvesting thing differently altogether - like I dunno... ask for help or something.

 

I think the plot in ME2 could have worked if the lead writer in ME3 had incorporated it to make a logical, cohesive story. But he didn't - he just outright abandonned the entire major plotline of the game. And I really don't see how this could be Drew's fault. He might be at fault for not having a concrete ending, but I'm sure drew would have made it work if he wasn't taken off ME2/ME3.

[cap and gown]

I can't abide Drew worship (not saying you do) because I find the plot of ME1 to be non-sensical. Consider: throughout the game we are told the Conduit is the key to bringing the Reapers back. But its not. The Citadel is the key to bringing the Reapers back. The Conduit was merely a way to get to the Citadel. Saren could have gone to the Citadel without ever attacking Eden Prime and finding the Prothean beacon. Why would Sovereign tell him to go find a Prothean beacon in the first place? Sovereign wants to open the Citadel relay. How did the Citadel end of the Conduit show up on the Citadel? Was it there before the invasion? Then why didn't the Reapers/Keepers notice it before they left? Was it taken there after the invasion by a space ship? Why? If they had a space ship to take it there, why bother, since the real point of going to the Citadel was to alter the Keeper control signal? Why did the Protheans send out a signal letting other Protheans know about Ilos? What's important is not Ilos, or the Conduit, but the Citadel. The signal they sent out didn't need to talk about the Conduit, it needed to talk about the Keeper control signal and the fact that the Citadel was a mass relay. Why did every organic civilization set up the seat of their government on a space station they had no idea how to operate? Does the CIA now contract out to North Korea to build its maximum security facilities?

 

I think it is fairly clear that the ME1 story started out with the idea of the ancient alien artifact, the Conduit, and only later was it nailed down what the Conduit was. Or else no one ever bothered to point out the massive plot holes and inconsistencies in the story. Just consider: if Shepard had never gone to Ilos, but remained on the Citadel, she could have stopped him cold before he ever got near the Council chamber. Ilos turns out to be just an exposition dump, a totally illogical exposition dump.

[egervari]

I think the whole bit about the conduit was intentionally vague, to throw the audience off track. And, to be honest, there's 50,000 years of lost history... and the game makes several mentions that not a lot of proof of what happened 50,000 years ago exists. So, things are bound to be misunderstood. Yes, it was confusing, and it's technically wrong - but there's no reason to believe that characters - like Saren - are telling the truth about such things. They may think they understand and are telling the truth, but it doesn't mean it *is* the truth.

 

As for why Saren couldn't bring the reapers back from the citadel before eden prime - the game actually explained this. The keepers evolved and stopped obeying the reapers, so they wouldn't let it happen. That is why they had to find another way. Maybe it's not the best reason, but at least the game was aware of it and addressed it. That's more than can be said about some of the stuff in ME2 and ME3

[cap and gown]

Regarding EDI's dialogue, we knew that Cerberus implants its soldiers with Reaper tech but we didn't know that they do it to simple civilians. Unless I'm missing something. Sure, one might come to that conclusion from Benning mission and Horizon, but it's never explicitly stated before Cronos.

 

Liara tells Aethyta (her father) before the coup that every Cerberus soldier is a reaper slave.

[CptFalconPunch]

I can't abide Drew worship (not saying you do) because I find the plot of ME1 to be non-sensical. Consider: throughout the game we are told the Conduit is the key to bringing the Reapers back. But its not. The Citadel is the key to bringing the Reapers back. The Conduit was merely a way to get to the Citadel. Saren could have gone to the Citadel without ever attacking Eden Prime and finding the Prothean beacon. Why would Sovereign tell him to go find a Prothean beacon in the first place? Sovereign wants to open the Citadel relay. How did the Citadel end of the Conduit show up on the Citadel? Was it there before the invasion? Then why didn't the Reapers/Keepers notice it before they left? Was it taken there after the invasion by a space ship? Why? If they had a space ship to take it there, why bother, since the real point of going to the Citadel was to alter the Keeper control signal? Why did the Protheans send out a signal letting other Protheans know about Ilos? What's important is not Ilos, or the Conduit, but the Citadel. The signal they sent out didn't need to talk about the Conduit, it needed to talk about the Keeper control signal and the fact that the Citadel was a mass relay. Why did every organic civilization set up the seat of their government on a space station they had no idea how to operate? Does the CIA now contract out to North Korea to build its maximum security facilities?

 

I think it is fairly clear that the ME1 story started out with the idea of the ancient alien artifact, the Conduit, and only later was it nailed down what the Conduit was. Or else no one ever bothered to point out the massive plot holes and inconsistencies in the story. Just consider: if Shepard had never gone to Ilos, but remained on the Citadel, she could have stopped him cold before he ever got near the Council chamber. Ilos turns out to be just an exposition dump, a totally illogical exposition dump.

 

Jeez not this again... Hyper head cannon to the max.

[CptFalconPunch]

When I went to the galaxy map to trigger the "joker saves the ship plot development", I had no other missions to do. The only mission left after the IFF mission was the suicide mission - that's it. So, this looks more like the game designers didn't consider the case where the player did all of their missions. When you aggressively finish the missions, this scene makes zero sense.
 

I'm still not sure why (like in the context of ME2 only) the reapers both wanted to destroy and harvest humans. In arrival, there is no talk of harvesting at all - it is all about invasion and the destruction of everything. And in ME3, it just follows the attitude of the reapers from the Arrival dlc.

 

The human reaper was only supposed to require a few million humans. This may seem like a lot, but I would have to imagine that the earth - at this time - they would have a population of 50 or 100 billion humans. To harvest the species, I don't think they would have to go to earth. Surely there's humans elsewhere in the galaxy. And as was stated, the collectors couldn't take on earth anyway.

 

Still, there is this major contradiction in ME2 that both wants to make a human reaper - because humans/Sherpard are special - and also destroy humanity. I believe the contradiction can't really exist. I don't buy the reasoning that they want to destroy everything but make reapers to preserve the civilizations without cause. If you needed a human reaper to solve the dark energy problem as Drew said, then you wouldn't really want to annihilate the species. And in fact, you may go about doing this whole harvesting thing differently altogether - like I dunno... ask for help or something.

 

I think the plot in ME2 could have worked if the lead writer in ME3 had incorporated it to make a logical, cohesive story. But he didn't - he just outright abandonned the entire major plotline of the game. And I really don't see how this could be Drew's fault. He might be at fault for not having a concrete ending, but I'm sure drew would have made it work if he wasn't taken off ME2/ME3.

 

Garrus and some other teammates tell shepard that the outer colonies won't be enough and they are gonna target Earth (collector ship ""trap"" mission) .

 

The collectors are going to target Earth. Alone. Against the entire galactic fleet or Alliance fleet. When they couldn't even handle a single small ship or AA guns...

[cap and gown]

Jeez not this again... Hyper head cannon to the max.

 

I have no idea what this means.